No FLARM log equals Unsafe Operation? (USA)

[Andy[_1_]]

Pilots who have participated in a recent SSA Sanctioned contest are
being polled in an attempt to persuade the rules committee to adopt a
MIRA (Mandatory if Rentals Available) rule for 2011 SSA sanctioned
contests.

The proposed rule will require all contestants to submit, after each
contest flight, a FLARM log that shows the unit was operational and
calls for application of rule 12.2.5.1 if a log is not produced.

Rule 12.2.5.1 deals with unsafe operation and has a maximum penalty of
disqualification from the contest. It is my understanding that this
rule is intended to address unsafe actions by a pilot. Unless the
FLARM log is not available because the pilot deliberately chose not to
fly with an enabled FLARM, then linking this rule to FLARM is
inappropriate.

Any proposed rule that seeks to make use of FLARM mandatory must also
consider carefully what happens if a contestant's FLARM fails after
the contest has started.

What happens if a FLARM fails in flight and a complete post flight
FLARM log cannot be produced. Will the contestant's flight be invalid?

Will a person suffering a failure of an owned or rented FLARM be able
to continue participation in the contest after a FLARM failure?

Will there be spare FLARM units available at the contest site? If so
will this spares pool be available to owners with failed units or be
restricted to current renters.

In addition the following needs to be addressed:

What happens if the number of contest entrants exceeds the number of
available rental units? Perhaps 2 possible answers - 1. MIRA no longer
applies, or 2. Late rental applicants are denied contest entry.

Please note that I am not anti FLARM. I am also not against a
transition to mandatory use in SSA sanctioned contests. What I am
opposed to is rushing into implementing rules that have not been
subject to the normal rules making process.

Andy (GY)

[Mike Schumann]

On 10/10/2010 9:03 AM, Andy wrote:
> Pilots who have participated in a recent SSA Sanctioned contest are
> being polled in an attempt to persuade the rules committee to adopt a
> MIRA (Mandatory if Rentals Available) rule for 2011 SSA sanctioned
> contests.
>
> The proposed rule will require all contestants to submit, after each
> contest flight, a FLARM log that shows the unit was operational and
> calls for application of rule 12.2.5.1 if a log is not produced.
>
> Rule 12.2.5.1 deals with unsafe operation and has a maximum penalty of
> disqualification from the contest. It is my understanding that this
> rule is intended to address unsafe actions by a pilot. Unless the
> FLARM log is not available because the pilot deliberately chose not to
> fly with an enabled FLARM, then linking this rule to FLARM is
> inappropriate.
>
> Any proposed rule that seeks to make use of FLARM mandatory must also
> consider carefully what happens if a contestant's FLARM fails after
> the contest has started.
>
> What happens if a FLARM fails in flight and a complete post flight
> FLARM log cannot be produced. Will the contestant's flight be invalid?
>
> Will a person suffering a failure of an owned or rented FLARM be able
> to continue participation in the contest after a FLARM failure?
>
> Will there be spare FLARM units available at the contest site? If so
> will this spares pool be available to owners with failed units or be
> restricted to current renters.
>
> In addition the following needs to be addressed:
>
> What happens if the number of contest entrants exceeds the number of
> available rental units? Perhaps 2 possible answers - 1. MIRA no longer
> applies, or 2. Late rental applicants are denied contest entry.
>
> Please note that I am not anti FLARM. I am also not against a
> transition to mandatory use in SSA sanctioned contests. What I am
> opposed to is rushing into implementing rules that have not been
> subject to the normal rules making process.
>
> Andy (GY)
Isn't it putting the cart before the horse to mandate the use of
equipment that has not yet been FCC approved and which is not yet
commercially available?

--
Mike Schumann

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 10, 8:51*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:

> Isn't it putting the cart before the horse to mandate the use of
> equipment that has not yet been FCC approved and which is not yet
> commercially available?

The proposed rule has flaws but that is not one of them. How could
rentals be available if FLARM is not FCC approved and in production?

Andy

[Phil]

On Oct 11, 3:03*am, Andy > wrote:
> Pilots who have participated in a recent SSA Sanctioned contest are
> being polled in an attempt to persuade the rules committee to adopt a
> MIRA (Mandatory if Rentals Available) rule for 2011 SSA sanctioned
> contests.
>
> The proposed rule will require all contestants to submit, after each
> contest flight, a FLARM log that shows the unit was operational and
> calls for application of rule 12.2.5.1 if a log is not produced.
>
> Rule 12.2.5.1 deals with unsafe operation and has a maximum penalty of
> disqualification from the contest. *It is my understanding that this
> rule is intended to address unsafe actions by a pilot. *Unless the
> FLARM log is not available because the pilot deliberately chose not to
> fly with an enabled FLARM, then linking this rule to FLARM is
> inappropriate.
>
> Any proposed rule that seeks to make use of FLARM mandatory must also
> consider carefully what happens if a contestant's FLARM fails after
> the contest has started.
>
> What happens if a FLARM fails in flight and a complete post flight
> FLARM log cannot be produced. Will the contestant's flight be invalid?

A FLARM is a radio and needs the aerial positioned in a good place to
work correctly. This is tricky in a carbon glider. The performance of
FLARM varies widely depending on the aerial. What level of performance
is going to be acceptable? How will it be tested? If the only test is
the nice radio range analysis on the FLARM website, how will a US
pilot find a gaggle of FLARM equiped gliders to fly with to generate a
suitable log before the contest? This is even harder for the renter.

Making FLARM mandatory will be a can of worms.

Phil Plane

[David Smith[_3_]]

Not quite sure where this thread is leading, a Flarm unit can give a flight
log valid for competitions, badges or world records, if the logging
function fails then the flight does not count. As far as I am aware it
does not record any alerts or data received from other gliders, in the UK
a flarm should be set to "stealth" mode and not get other data in
competitions.
In my own experience Flarm is useful for general cross country flying and
will pick up many gliders that you have not seen wether they are a threat
or not. As for competitions, if you are in a gaggle with 20 others you
are going to get so many returns and full alerts that it can be a real
distraction and any avoiding reaction could put you in conflict with
others. A well tuned MK1 eyeball is probably more useful in a gaggle, but
flarm is very good at picking up gliders coming toward you at speed, you
will get 2 or 3 km warning maybe 20 seconds.
Verdict, a useful bit of kit but in close company with several others
your eyes and instinctive reactions are going to be much better






At 14:03 10 October 2010, Andy wrote:
>Pilots who have participated in a recent SSA Sanctioned contest are
>being polled in an attempt to persuade the rules committee to adopt a
>MIRA (Mandatory if Rentals Available) rule for 2011 SSA sanctioned
>contests.
>
>The proposed rule will require all contestants to submit, after each
>contest flight, a FLARM log that shows the unit was operational and
>calls for application of rule 12.2.5.1 if a log is not produced.
>
>Rule 12.2.5.1 deals with unsafe operation and has a maximum penalty of
>disqualification from the contest. It is my understanding that this
>rule is intended to address unsafe actions by a pilot. Unless the
>FLARM log is not available because the pilot deliberately chose not to
>fly with an enabled FLARM, then linking this rule to FLARM is
>inappropriate.
>
>Any proposed rule that seeks to make use of FLARM mandatory must also
>consider carefully what happens if a contestant's FLARM fails after
>the contest has started.
>
>What happens if a FLARM fails in flight and a complete post flight
>FLARM log cannot be produced. Will the contestant's flight be invalid?
>
>Will a person suffering a failure of an owned or rented FLARM be able
>to continue participation in the contest after a FLARM failure?
>
>Will there be spare FLARM units available at the contest site? If so
>will this spares pool be available to owners with failed units or be
>restricted to current renters.
>
>In addition the following needs to be addressed:
>
>What happens if the number of contest entrants exceeds the number of
>available rental units? Perhaps 2 possible answers - 1. MIRA no longer
>applies, or 2. Late rental applicants are denied contest entry.
>
>Please note that I am not anti FLARM. I am also not against a
>transition to mandatory use in SSA sanctioned contests. What I am
>opposed to is rushing into implementing rules that have not been
>subject to the normal rules making process.
>
>Andy (GY)
>

[Brian[_1_]]

I agree that making rules in the US is premature for PowerFlarm. The
box isn't even available yet and it is possible there may still be
some techincal or production issues that need to be resolved.

I would be for some voluntary trials at contests. I agree discussion
of the issues future rules may need to address are good. But 2011 is
to early to even consider a rule requiring something that isn't yet
available and is untested in the field.

Yes I understand it is used in Europe with great success and I hope
the US version is as successful, but until we have units in the field
and in use we won't know for sure.

Brian

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 10, 2:22*pm, David Smith > wrote:

>if the logging function fails then the flight does not count.

That should only be true if FLARM was the only recorder. The proposed
rule appears to require a complete FLARM log as proof that the FLARM
was operational for the entire flight duration. The fact that
another logger independently validated the contest flight is not
sufficient.

Andy

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Phil wrote: "A FLARM is a radio and needs the aerial positioned in a
good place to work correctly. This is tricky in a carbon glider. The
performance of FLARM varies widely depending on the
aerial. . . ." [snip]

For the benefit of those who may not know, a Flarm unit uses two
aerials. One is a GPS receiving aerial. If this is positioned so that
it receives GPS signals, the Flarm will record GPS positions and
produce a log, AIUI. This will be regardless of whether the other
aerial is present, and/or operative. The Flarm GPS aerial may,
however, need careful positioning to avoid interference with other GPS
units. The one that came with my (basic Swiss Flarm) unit is on a long
lead, and I was able to position it on the head rest, immediately
under the canopy where it gets good view of the sky. There is no
problem with this location in my carbon fibre (Lak 17A) glider.

The other aerial is for Flarm to Flarm communication. It is attached
to the top of my Flarm unit, though I believe a remote aerial and fly
lead is available if required. This is the one that seems more of a
problem in a carbon fibre glider, because if positioned on top of the
instrument panel as mine is, it can fail to pick up signals from
gliders below, and I suspect it has limited range of gliders on the
same level in some directions where they are partly masked by the
fuselage. This, however, should have no effect whatsoever on the GPS
logging capability.

Hope this helps to inform those discussing the issues on this thread.

Chris N

[Paul Cordell]

On Oct 10, 2:40*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2:22*pm, David Smith > wrote:
>
> >if the logging function fails then the flight does not count.
>
> That should only be true if FLARM was the only recorder. *The proposed
> rule appears to require a complete FLARM log as proof that the FLARM
> was operational for the entire flight duration. * The fact that
> another logger independently validated the contest flight is not
> sufficient.
>
> Andy

Andy,

The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
operating in during the flight. It must be in Competition mode so as
to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.

John Good made a presentation at the New Castle regionals (US reg 4 S)
that was quite comprehensive. I hope that he can make the entire
pitch public so everybody will understand the capabilities of the
Powerflarm.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell > wrote:

> The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
> operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
> to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.

Yes Paul that's clear. What is not clear is the consequence of not
being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.

Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed to produce a log?

Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed?

No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
event outside his control.

Andy

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Oct 10, 9:09*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell > wrote:
>
> > The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
> > operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
> > to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.
>
> Yes Paul that's clear. *What is not clear is the consequence of not
> being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.
>
> Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
> because his FLARM failed to produce a log?
>
> Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
> because his FLARM failed?
>
> No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
> event outside his control.
>
> Andy

I am strongly in favor of mandatory use of flarms in contests -
ultimately (and soon). And I am a strong believer that a pool of
rental units will speed the adoption.
That said, the devil (as usual) is in the details of how to get there
safely.

I don't think we can say "the only valid log for a contest flight is a
Flarm log" which is what the suggested rule effectively does. Even
though Flarm is a proven technology, the PowerFlarm is a new box and
needs a track record. I also don't want to see the workload of the
scorer increased by having to process two logs per flight. While
organizers can require impact activated ELTs, there is no requirement
for contestants to prove they are working correctly and I don't see
the clear necessity for this WRT Flarm.

There are also a couple of (to me) worrisome safety details to work
out related to the introduction of rental/loaner/borrowed units:

1. The position of the transmitting antenna is important, especially
so in carbon ships. If you don't get this right, you effectively
don't have the device on board making it useless to both you and
others. There will need to be a knowledge base of what works and what
doesn't developed (and adopted from European experience).

2. I am not comfortable with the idea of pilot having a new piece of
equipment on the first contest day that they have never seen before
and are trying to learn and that is making noises/visual cues at
them. This problem goes away over time, but it is a serious concern
to me in seeing the technology introduced without unintended negative
safety consequences. Any you can't just say "turn down the volume and
put it in the back out of sight because that creates the problem of
(1).

Keep the discussion going.
John Godfrey (QT)
US Rules Committee

[Frank[_12_]]

On Oct 10, 9:41*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> On Oct 10, 9:09*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell > wrote:
>
> > > The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
> > > operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
> > > to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.
>
> > Yes Paul that's clear. *What is not clear is the consequence of not
> > being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.
>
> > Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
> > because his FLARM failed to produce a log?
>
> > Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
> > because his FLARM failed?
>
> > No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
> > event outside his control.
>
> > Andy
>
> I am strongly in favor of mandatory use of flarms in contests -
> ultimately (and soon). *And I am a strong believer that a pool of
> rental units will speed the adoption.
> That said, the devil (as usual) is in the details of how to get there
> safely.
>
> I don't think we can say "the only valid log for a contest flight is a
> Flarm log" which is what the suggested rule effectively does. Even
> though Flarm is a proven technology, the PowerFlarm is a new box and
> needs a track record. I also don't want to see the workload of the
> scorer increased by having to process two logs per flight. While
> organizers can require impact activated ELTs, there is no requirement
> for contestants to prove they are working correctly and I don't see
> the clear necessity for this WRT Flarm.
>
> There are also a couple of (to me) worrisome safety details to work
> out related to the introduction of rental/loaner/borrowed units:
>
> 1. *The position of the transmitting antenna is important, especially
> so in carbon ships. *If you don't get this right, you effectively
> don't have the device on board making it useless to both you and
> others. There will need to be a knowledge base of what works and what
> doesn't developed (and adopted from European experience).
>
> 2. *I am not comfortable with the idea of pilot having a new piece of
> equipment on the first contest day that they have never seen before
> and are trying to learn and that is making noises/visual cues at
> them. *This problem goes away over time, but it is a serious concern
> to me in seeing the technology introduced without unintended negative
> safety consequences. Any you can't just say "turn down the volume and
> put it in the back out of sight because that creates the problem of
> (1).
>
> Keep the discussion going.
> John Godfrey (QT)
> US Rules Committee

I suspect the proposed requirement for mandatory inspection of all
FLARM logs after each contest day will be modified somewhat, maybe to
make it a bit like the current U.S. practice of random (or maybe not
so random if there are other independent indications of a potential
infraction) weighing on the grid to discourage over-ballasting.

I ask everyone to keep in mind that we have a very difficult chicken-
and-egg problem to overcome with FLARM that is completely different
than other types of equipment. FLARM won't work adequately well
unless all pilots have a FLARM and use it in flight, despite any fears
about loss of competitive edges, etc. If only 10% or so of the
community buys and uses FLARM, then it won't work at all.

I think what we are seeing is a groundswell of sentiment for making
the hard decisions and implementing what we all know is a proven
safety multiplier when there are lots of gliders in the same general
area (i.e. contests). We have had way too many preventable mid-air
collisions, and at least one too many deaths here in the U.S. in the
last few years, and it is just plain time to do something about it.
Rather than quibbling forever about the details, lets get something
going, and iron out the rough spots as they appear. Better that than
to lose another pilot (especially when it might be me!)

Regards,

TA

[mattm[_2_]]

On Oct 10, 10:03*pm, Frank > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 9:41*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 9:09*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell > wrote:
>
> > > > The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
> > > > operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
> > > > to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.
>
> > > Yes Paul that's clear. *What is not clear is the consequence of not
> > > being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.
>
> > > Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
> > > because his FLARM failed to produce a log?
>
> > > Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
> > > because his FLARM failed?
>
> > > No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
> > > event outside his control.
>
> > > Andy
>
> > I am strongly in favor of mandatory use of flarms in contests -
> > ultimately (and soon). *And I am a strong believer that a pool of
> > rental units will speed the adoption.
> > That said, the devil (as usual) is in the details of how to get there
> > safely.
>
> > I don't think we can say "the only valid log for a contest flight is a
> > Flarm log" which is what the suggested rule effectively does. Even
> > though Flarm is a proven technology, the PowerFlarm is a new box and
> > needs a track record. I also don't want to see the workload of the
> > scorer increased by having to process two logs per flight. While
> > organizers can require impact activated ELTs, there is no requirement
> > for contestants to prove they are working correctly and I don't see
> > the clear necessity for this WRT Flarm.
>
> > There are also a couple of (to me) worrisome safety details to work
> > out related to the introduction of rental/loaner/borrowed units:
>
> > 1. *The position of the transmitting antenna is important, especially
> > so in carbon ships. *If you don't get this right, you effectively
> > don't have the device on board making it useless to both you and
> > others. There will need to be a knowledge base of what works and what
> > doesn't developed (and adopted from European experience).
>
> > 2. *I am not comfortable with the idea of pilot having a new piece of
> > equipment on the first contest day that they have never seen before
> > and are trying to learn and that is making noises/visual cues at
> > them. *This problem goes away over time, but it is a serious concern
> > to me in seeing the technology introduced without unintended negative
> > safety consequences. Any you can't just say "turn down the volume and
> > put it in the back out of sight because that creates the problem of
> > (1).
>
> > Keep the discussion going.
> > John Godfrey (QT)
> > US Rules Committee
>
> I suspect the proposed requirement for mandatory inspection of all
> FLARM logs after each contest day will be modified somewhat, maybe to
> make it a bit like the current U.S. practice of random (or maybe not
> so random if there are other independent indications of a potential
> infraction) weighing on the grid to discourage over-ballasting.
>
> I ask everyone to keep in mind that we have a very difficult chicken-
> and-egg problem to overcome with FLARM that is completely different
> than other types of equipment. *FLARM won't work adequately well
> unless all pilots have a FLARM and use it in flight, despite any fears
> about loss of competitive edges, etc. *If only 10% or so of the
> community buys and uses FLARM, then it won't work at all.
>
> I think what we are seeing is a groundswell of sentiment for making
> the hard decisions and implementing what we all know is a proven
> safety multiplier when there are lots of gliders in the same general
> area (i.e. contests). *We have had way too many preventable mid-air
> collisions, and at least one too many deaths here in the U.S. in the
> last few years, and it is just plain time to do something about it.
> Rather than quibbling forever about the details, lets get something
> going, and iron out the rough spots as they appear. *Better that than
> to lose another pilot (especially when it might be me!)
>
> Regards,
>
> TA

OK, I'd like to see this proposed rule. I've flown contests recently
(although not this year). I'm all enthusiastic about installing a
PowerFLARM soon, but I'm not at a point to do it for next season.

-- Matt

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 10, 7:16*pm, mattm > wrote:

> OK, I'd like to see this proposed rule. *I've flown contests recently
> (although not this year). *I'm all enthusiastic about installing a
> PowerFLARM soon, but I'm not at a point to do it for next season.


Proposed Rule 6.5.3 - When announced by contest organizers prior to
the Preferential Entry Deadline, a FLARM collision avoidance
instrument is mandatory in every sailplane if there are a sufficient
number of rental FLARM units available for a contest rental fee of
fifty dollars or less per unit. At all times when this rule is in
effect, FLARM flight logs must be handed in daily that confirm that
the FLARM was operating correctly. Failure to comply should generally
result in unsafe operations penalties (Rule 12.2.5.1).

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Oct 10, 8:36*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 7:16*pm, mattm > wrote:
>
> > OK, I'd like to see this proposed rule. *I've flown contests recently
> > (although not this year). *I'm all enthusiastic about installing a
> > PowerFLARM soon, but I'm not at a point to do it for next season.
>
> Proposed Rule 6.5.3 - When announced by contest organizers prior to
> the Preferential Entry Deadline, a FLARM collision avoidance
> instrument is mandatory in every sailplane if there are a sufficient
> number of rental FLARM units available for a contest rental fee of
> fifty dollars or less per unit. *At all times when this rule is in
> effect, FLARM flight logs must be handed in daily that confirm that
> the FLARM was operating correctly. *Failure to comply should generally
> result in unsafe operations penalties (Rule 12.2.5.1).

What exactly does a rental FLARM unit look like? How will it be
safely installed in my cockpit? How will the antenna be routed/
mounted? If it has a visual indicator, where will it be mounted so I
can see it? Does it need to interface with any of my other equipment,
like power, gps, etc? It's a transmitter. Is there any chance it
will interfere with PCAS, radios, bluetooth, or other equipment in my
cockpit? Is the installation of the FLARM to avoid collision, or
figure out who is at fault in the event of a close call or collision?
Will these logs be made available to the FAA in the event of a
reportable incident or accident? Will any information in the log be
used to determine an unsafe operations penalty, or is the requirement
just to have a valid log file, regardless of the content?

FLARM sounds like a good idea for dense glider activities like
contests, but lets think the details through before jumping to a rule
like this.

What if the rule read; "For contests of more than 10 gliders, gliders
must be equipped with a functional FLARM unit that is in operation
during contest flight."

[Paul Cordell]

On Oct 10, 6:09*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell > wrote:
>
> > The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
> > operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
> > to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.
>
> Yes Paul that's clear. *What is not clear is the consequence of not
> being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.
>
> Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
> because his FLARM failed to produce a log?
>
> Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
> because his FLARM failed?
>
> No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
> event outside his control.
>
> Andy

Andy,

I believe in not jumping to conclusions before all the facts and
details are in. The rules as currently written do not address the
needs of a new technology. They didn't when GPS was introduced and
I'm sure that with a sensible discussion the rules with adapt. Maybe
allowing the capabilities of the Flarm to be used by all is an easier
solution.

[Andy[_10_]]

On Oct 10, 10:29*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 8:36*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> What exactly does a rental FLARM unit look like?
*http://www.butterfly.aero/powerflarm/fly/

> How will it be safely installed in my cockpit?
Velcro on the glareshield most likely, though there will be other
options I think.

> How will the antenna be routed/mounted? *
I think you can attach it directly to the back of the unit.

> If it has a visual indicator, *where will it be mounted so I
> can see it? *
They claim it's sunlight readable and on the glareshield it should be
easy to find.

> Does it need to interface with any of my other equipment,
> like power, gps, etc? *
Not if you don't want it to - it can run on internal batteries all
day. It's possible to do a more permanent installation and use
PowerFlarm as a GPS source for other instruments, but it would
impractical for a rental.

> It's a transmitter. *Is there any chance it
> will interfere with PCAS, radios, bluetooth, or other equipment in my
> cockpit? *
IDK - I have not heard of issues in Europe.

> Is the installation of the FLARM to avoid collision, or
> figure out who is at fault in the event of a close call or collision?
The former - any IGC log can be used for the latter.

> Will these logs be made available to the FAA in the event of a
> reportable incident or accident? *
I think the same as for IGC logs today.

>Will any information in the log be
> used to determine an unsafe operations penalty, or is the requirement
> just to have a valid log file, regardless of the content?
This is still being debated - one option is to penalize pilots for
deliberately operating in a mode that would permit spying on other
gliders' locations. I have heard that Flarms record the presence of
other gliders as part of the flight log but I have not confirmed this.


>
> FLARM sounds like a good idea for dense glider activities like
> contests, but lets think the details through before jumping to a rule
> like this.
>
> What if the rule read; *"For contests of more than 10 gliders, gliders
> must be equipped with a functional FLARM unit that is in operation
> during contest flight."
I some ways it's easier to administer in smaller groups. Contests are
mostly spread out enough that you can accommodate most or all with a
limited number of rental units - assuming that the SSA continues to
make it so as few contests as possible overlap.

9B

[Andy[_10_]]

On Oct 10, 8:36*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 7:16*pm, mattm > wrote:
>
> > OK, I'd like to see this proposed rule. *I've flown contests recently
> > (although not this year). *I'm all enthusiastic about installing a
> > PowerFLARM soon, but I'm not at a point to do it for next season.
>
> Proposed Rule 6.5.3 - When announced by contest organizers prior to
> the Preferential Entry Deadline, a FLARM collision avoidance
> instrument is mandatory in every sailplane if there are a sufficient
> number of rental FLARM units available for a contest rental fee of
> fifty dollars or less per unit. *At all times when this rule is in
> effect, FLARM flight logs must be handed in daily that confirm that
> the FLARM was operating correctly. *Failure to comply should generally
> result in unsafe operations penalties (Rule 12.2.5.1).

Good discussion.

I think the first thing the RC should do is make PowerFlarm legal in
contests. It's debatable whether requiring PowerFlarm, or a Flarm
log, is necessary - you could potentially allow Flarms to be used in
any mode tha pilot wanys, which would simplify things by a lot.

9B

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Andy wrote in reply to; [snip] "> It's a transmitter. Is there any
chance it
> will interfere with PCAS, radios, bluetooth, or other equipment in my cockpit?

"IDK - I have not heard of issues in Europe." [end snip]

Then I suggest you read my post, above. The GPS aerial did seem to
suffer interference, when next to my Volkslogger. When Flarm is
switched on, it goes through a boot-up routine, after which if all is
well it has 3 green led’s, one of which shows it has a GPS signal good
enough to do its stuff. Mine would not show that consistently until
the GPS aerial was well away from the other one on the Volkslogger.

I know somebody else who was investigating a similar issue,
inconclusively AFAIK.

I have not heard of any problem of interference arising from the other
aerial, the Flarm-Flarm radio transmit/receive – only the partial
masking by carbon fibre that I mentioned. But these are very weak
signals – I expect it would not take much to disturb them.

Chris N.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Oct 10, 8:41*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> On Oct 10, 9:09*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell > wrote:
>
> > > The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
> > > operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
> > > to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.
>
> > Yes Paul that's clear. *What is not clear is the consequence of not
> > being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.
>
> > Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
> > because his FLARM failed to produce a log?
>
> > Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
> > because his FLARM failed?
>
> > No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
> > event outside his control.
>
> > Andy
>
> I am strongly in favor of mandatory use of flarms in contests -
> ultimately (and soon). *And I am a strong believer that a pool of
> rental units will speed the adoption.
> That said, the devil (as usual) is in the details of how to get there
> safely.
>
> I don't think we can say "the only valid log for a contest flight is a
> Flarm log" which is what the suggested rule effectively does. Even
> though Flarm is a proven technology, the PowerFlarm is a new box and
> needs a track record. I also don't want to see the workload of the
> scorer increased by having to process two logs per flight. While
> organizers can require impact activated ELTs, there is no requirement
> for contestants to prove they are working correctly and I don't see
> the clear necessity for this WRT Flarm.
>
> There are also a couple of (to me) worrisome safety details to work
> out related to the introduction of rental/loaner/borrowed units:
>
> 1. *The position of the transmitting antenna is important, especially
> so in carbon ships. *If you don't get this right, you effectively
> don't have the device on board making it useless to both you and
> others. There will need to be a knowledge base of what works and what
> doesn't developed (and adopted from European experience).
>
> 2. *I am not comfortable with the idea of pilot having a new piece of
> equipment on the first contest day that they have never seen before
> and are trying to learn and that is making noises/visual cues at
> them. *This problem goes away over time, but it is a serious concern
> to me in seeing the technology introduced without unintended negative
> safety consequences. Any you can't just say "turn down the volume and
> put it in the back out of sight because that creates the problem of
> (1).
>
> Keep the discussion going.
> John Godfrey (QT)
> US Rules Committee

My view of the right steps

1. Fall 2010. Allow flarms in contests (this year) -- or at least
make it clear that they are allowed.

2. Summer 2011. (I hope). Flarms arrive. US pilots can see the
technology and learn the answers to all the many FAQs that come up.

Once (hopefully) they see how great it is, social pressure starts to
build. There are already > 100 on order and only about 350 contest
pilots, so we're doing pretty well! One use for mandates is to "get
the ball rolling" so enough other gliders have one that each
individual buying one is worthwhile. We are clearly past that point in
the US based on voluntary adoption.

In considering rental/mandate, we get to see the power flarm, try it,
and evaluate if it will work simply strapped on the glareshield of
typical gliders, without extensive training, external antennas, etc.
as some fear. Based on my experience at Szeged, I think it will work
fine, but we need to evaluate this question as a community. (Even if
pilot X can't understand the display, at least the rest of us can see
him!)

3. The Flarm Fund starts operating rental/demo units. New pilots or
slow adopters get to see how it works, and the fund can fill out the
last 5-10 gliders and the towplanes at typical contests.

Flarm fund learns how to make the rental process work, a not
inconsequential fact. Mail to pilots a week ahead of time so they can
read instructions? How to store, track, maintain units? Who is in
charge at contests? All this has to work seamlessly once or twice
before we think about passing a rule that forces a contest to shut
down if there are glitches!

4. A mandate needs the consent of the contest community, which needs
1-3 to happen, another winter of discussion and a poll. I want flarm
to happen faster too, but especially with the production bottlenecks,
it can't.

And you only need a mandate if steps 1-3 are not giving us 100%
coverage already. Will it really happen that powerflarm if it is
provided at the contest for modest rental fee ($50), the CD, CM, and
all the other pilots rather strongly suggest you put it in, ("Nice
glider you got there...."), some dope refuses, cites "there is no rule
saying you can make me do it" and ends up flying anyway? Before
passing a MIRA rule, let us see it happen ONCE!

5. If we do have a mandate, turning in logs, complex procedures and
heavy penalties do not seem appropriate to me. We don't require an
inspection of your ELT, a test of your radio, an inspection of your
cockpit to be sure you have a parachute on, and so forth. We don't
do cockpit inspections for banned equipment either -- FM radios,
satellite weather, gyros, etc.

Will it really happen that flarm is mandated, pilot X takes his rental
away from the meeting, but a) refuses to put it in his glider or turn
the switch on, and b) is not caught by other means? In my view this
takes implausibility to the nth power. Let it happen once before
passing a lot of complex procedures!

Like QT, I say this completely in "ears on" mode. We'll have a fun
flarm discussion at the rules committee in november, and try to map
out a sensible path for US evaluation and adoption.

John Cochrane

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:11:09 -0700, Chris Nicholas wrote:

> I have not heard of any problem of interference arising from the other
> aerial, the Flarm-Flarm radio transmit/receive – only the partial
> masking by carbon fibre that I mentioned. But these are very weak
> signals – I expect it would not take much to disturb them.
>
Chris,

Can you put numbers on the required separation?

I assume that if I put a FLARM in my panel it would not be upset by the
Garmin GPS II+ mounted on my battery box to feed my EW Model D, but what
about the following scenario:

Install a Redbox IGC on the equipment tray of my Libelle panel with the
antennae in a bridge over the well toward the forward end of the tray. I
have a Binatone satnav running LK8000 on a fleximount about 100 mm away
from the panel, so it would be around 500mm from the Redbox antennae. Is
that likely to be enough separation to avoid interference?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Oct 11, 7:58*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Oct 10, 8:41*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 9:09*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell > wrote:
>
> > > > The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
> > > > operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
> > > > to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.
>
> > > Yes Paul that's clear. *What is not clear is the consequence of not
> > > being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.
>
> > > Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
> > > because his FLARM failed to produce a log?
>
> > > Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
> > > because his FLARM failed?
>
> > > No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
> > > event outside his control.
>
> > > Andy
>
> > I am strongly in favor of mandatory use of flarms in contests -
> > ultimately (and soon). *And I am a strong believer that a pool of
> > rental units will speed the adoption.
> > That said, the devil (as usual) is in the details of how to get there
> > safely.
>
> > I don't think we can say "the only valid log for a contest flight is a
> > Flarm log" which is what the suggested rule effectively does. Even
> > though Flarm is a proven technology, the PowerFlarm is a new box and
> > needs a track record. I also don't want to see the workload of the
> > scorer increased by having to process two logs per flight. While
> > organizers can require impact activated ELTs, there is no requirement
> > for contestants to prove they are working correctly and I don't see
> > the clear necessity for this WRT Flarm.
>
> > There are also a couple of (to me) worrisome safety details to work
> > out related to the introduction of rental/loaner/borrowed units:
>
> > 1. *The position of the transmitting antenna is important, especially
> > so in carbon ships. *If you don't get this right, you effectively
> > don't have the device on board making it useless to both you and
> > others. There will need to be a knowledge base of what works and what
> > doesn't developed (and adopted from European experience).
>
> > 2. *I am not comfortable with the idea of pilot having a new piece of
> > equipment on the first contest day that they have never seen before
> > and are trying to learn and that is making noises/visual cues at
> > them. *This problem goes away over time, but it is a serious concern
> > to me in seeing the technology introduced without unintended negative
> > safety consequences. Any you can't just say "turn down the volume and
> > put it in the back out of sight because that creates the problem of
> > (1).
>
> > Keep the discussion going.
> > John Godfrey (QT)
> > US Rules Committee
>
> My view of the right steps
>
> 1. Fall 2010. Allow flarms in contests (this year) *-- or at least
> make it clear that they are allowed.
>
> 2. Summer 2011. (I hope). Flarms arrive. US pilots can see the
> technology and learn the answers to all the many FAQs that come up.
>
> Once (hopefully) they see how great it is, social pressure starts to
> build. There are already > 100 on order and only about 350 contest
> pilots, so we're doing pretty well! One use for mandates is to "get
> the ball rolling" so enough other gliders have one that each
> individual buying one is worthwhile. We are clearly past that point in
> the US based on voluntary adoption.
>
> In considering rental/mandate, we get to see the power flarm, try it,
> and evaluate if it will work simply strapped on the glareshield of
> typical gliders, without extensive training, external antennas, etc.
> as some fear. Based on my experience at Szeged, I think it will work
> fine, but we need to evaluate this question as a community. (Even if
> pilot X can't understand the display, at least the rest of us can see
> him!)
>
> 3. The Flarm Fund *starts operating rental/demo units. New pilots or
> slow adopters get to see how it works, and *the fund can fill out the
> last 5-10 gliders and the towplanes at typical contests.
>
> Flarm fund learns how to make the rental process work, a not
> inconsequential fact. Mail to pilots a week ahead of time so they can
> read instructions? How to store, track, maintain units? Who is in
> charge at contests? All this has to work seamlessly once or twice
> before we think about passing a rule that forces a contest to shut
> down if there are glitches!
>
> 4. A mandate needs the consent of the contest community, which needs
> 1-3 to happen, another winter of discussion and a poll. I want flarm
> to happen faster too, but especially with the production bottlenecks,
> it can't.
>
> And you only need a mandate if steps 1-3 are not giving us 100%
> coverage already. Will it really happen that powerflarm if it is
> provided at the contest for modest rental fee ($50), *the CD, CM, and
> all the other pilots rather strongly suggest you put it in, *("Nice
> glider you got there...."), some dope refuses, cites "there is no rule
> saying you can make me do it" and ends up flying anyway? *Before
> passing a MIRA rule, let us see it happen ONCE!
>
> 5. If we do have a mandate, turning in logs, complex procedures and
> heavy penalties do not seem appropriate to me. *We don't require an
> inspection of your *ELT, a test of your radio, an inspection of your
> cockpit to be sure you have a parachute on, and so forth. * We don't
> do cockpit inspections for banned equipment either -- FM radios,
> satellite weather, gyros, etc.
>
> Will it really happen that flarm is mandated, pilot X takes his rental
> away from the meeting, but a) refuses to *put it in his glider or turn
> the switch on, and b) is not caught by other means? In my view this
> takes implausibility to the nth power. Let it happen once before
> passing a lot of complex procedures!
>
> Like QT, I say this completely in "ears on" mode. We'll have a fun
> flarm discussion at the rules committee in november, and try to map
> out a sensible path for *US evaluation and adoption.
>
> John Cochrane

So far I know of one (regional) contest that is requesting approval
for "MIRA" in 2011. Are there any others who have made or are
considering it (especially nationals)?

John Godfrey (QT)
US Rules Committee

[mattm[_2_]]

On Oct 11, 8:06*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:11:09 -0700, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> > I have not heard of any problem of interference arising from the other
> > aerial, the Flarm-Flarm radio transmit/receive – only the partial
> > masking by carbon fibre that I mentioned. But these are very weak
> > signals – I expect it would not take much to disturb them.
>
> Chris,
>
> Can you put numbers on the required separation?
>
> I assume that if I put a FLARM in my panel it would not be upset by the
> Garmin GPS II+ mounted on my battery box to feed my EW Model D, but what
> about the following scenario:
>
> Install a Redbox IGC on the equipment tray of my Libelle panel with the
> antennae in a bridge over the well toward the forward end of the tray. I
> have a Binatone satnav running LK8000 on a fleximount about 100 mm away
> from the panel, so it would be around 500mm from the Redbox antennae. Is
> that likely to be enough separation to avoid interference?
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

OK, I looked at the competition survey question again. It looks like
this:

"Though many pilots have suggested mandating Flarm, the RC believes
that this step is at best premature. We also recognize that the right
answer is different for different contests, i.e. 18 meter nationals
vs. small sports regionals.

We have no specific survey questions for this year. However, we
welcome your input on how aggressively to promote voluntary and
coordinated Flarm use, and what practical steps you would welcome.
Please comment below."

This is a long way from mandating use and penalizing FLARM failures.
The practice
in other countries where FLARM has been widely adopted, as noted
above, is
to check that "stealth mode" is used on the FLARM units in a contest
so that
the climb rate of distant competitors is not available in the
cockpit. For that matter,
I don't think that is universally enforced.

The state of FLARM in the US next year will be that it will be allowed
(the RC
needs to specifically allow it in the rules), and a number of people
will have it
in their planes. It would be great if some rental units were
available, but of course
the logistics of such are pretty high.

-- Matt

[DaleKramer]

I would be more than happy to personally discuss with everyone
concerned, the proposed rule in individual email threads.

I would however ask that you first visit the site http://www.FlarmFund.com
.. Most of the items this thread has pointed out have been addressed
there.

My email address can be found on the site.

I do not believe that a thread like this can be productive with
everyone talking all at once with different agendas.

As to the thread topic my view is:

It is unlikely that a simple and isolated FLARM failure would result
in a penalty.

The unsafe operations category of penalties allow for the value of the
penalty to be anything from a 0 point warning all the way to a contest
disqualification.

In my experience CDs do not hand out discretionary penalties lightly
and certainly significant penalties in this category would be taken
very seriously by all.

Many areas in our rules simply can not be specifically written to
handle all events and we place an enormous amount of faith in the
integrity of the CD's we chose.

I would anticipate that with time, a guideline to FLARM penalty
application could be developed.

Flarm logs can show even inadvertent problems like bad antenna
position and bad battery charging/cells. The log requirement could
show these errors before a novice user could determine them.

Dale Kramer

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Oct 11, 11:58*am, mattm > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 8:06*am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:11:09 -0700, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> > > I have not heard of any problem of interference arising from the other
> > > aerial, the Flarm-Flarm radio transmit/receive – only the partial
> > > masking by carbon fibre that I mentioned. But these are very weak
> > > signals – I expect it would not take much to disturb them.
>
> > Chris,
>
> > Can you put numbers on the required separation?
>
> > I assume that if I put a FLARM in my panel it would not be upset by the
> > Garmin GPS II+ mounted on my battery box to feed my EW Model D, but what
> > about the following scenario:
>
> > Install a Redbox IGC on the equipment tray of my Libelle panel with the
> > antennae in a bridge over the well toward the forward end of the tray. I
> > have a Binatone satnav running LK8000 on a fleximount about 100 mm away
> > from the panel, so it would be around 500mm from the Redbox antennae. Is
> > that likely to be enough separation to avoid interference?
>
> > --
> > martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > org * * * |
>
> OK, I looked at the competition survey question again. *It looks like
> this:
>
> "Though many pilots have suggested mandating Flarm, the RC believes
> that this step is at best premature. We also recognize that the right
> answer is different for different contests, i.e. 18 meter nationals
> vs. small sports regionals.
>
> We have no specific survey questions for this year. However, we
> welcome your input on how aggressively to promote voluntary and
> coordinated Flarm use, and what practical steps you would welcome.
> Please comment below."
>
> This is a long way from mandating use and penalizing FLARM failures.
> The practice
> in other countries where FLARM has been widely adopted, as noted
> above, is
> to check that "stealth mode" is used on the FLARM units in a contest
> so that
> the climb rate of distant competitors is not available in the
> cockpit. *For that matter,
> I don't think that is universally enforced.
>
> The state of FLARM in the US next year will be that it will be allowed
> (the RC
> needs to specifically allow it in the rules), and a number of people
> will have it
> in their planes. *It would be great if some rental units were
> available, but of course
> the logistics of such are pretty high.
>
> -- Matt

My take is that Flarms are currently permitted under the following
(6.6.3):
6.6 >> Restricted Equipment
6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any
instrument which:
• Permits flight without reference to the ground.
• Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at
a distance greater than one wingspan.
6.6.2 An external cleaning device is any device with moving
parts designed to clean the exterior of the sailplane during flight.
In certain classes (Rule 6.12), the use of such devices is prohibited.
6.6.3 ‡ Carrying any two-way communication device is
prohibited, with the following exceptions:
• ‡ A standard aircraft-band VHF radio
• ‡ A wireless telephone (which is not to be used
during flight)
• ‡ A position reporting device

John Godfrey (QT)
US Rules Committee

[[email protected]]

On Oct 11, 3:08*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 8:36*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 7:16*pm, mattm > wrote:
>
> > > OK, I'd like to see this proposed rule. *I've flown contests recently
> > > (although not this year). *I'm all enthusiastic about installing a
> > > PowerFLARM soon, but I'm not at a point to do it for next season.
>
> > Proposed Rule 6.5.3 - When announced by contest organizers prior to
> > the Preferential Entry Deadline, a FLARM collision avoidance
> > instrument is mandatory in every sailplane if there are a sufficient
> > number of rental FLARM units available for a contest rental fee of
> > fifty dollars or less per unit. *At all times when this rule is in
> > effect, FLARM flight logs must be handed in daily that confirm that
> > the FLARM was operating correctly. *Failure to comply should generally
> > result in unsafe operations penalties (Rule 12.2.5.1).
>
> Good discussion.
>
> I think the first thing the RC should do is make PowerFlarm legal in
> contests. *It's debatable whether requiring PowerFlarm, or a Flarm
> log, is necessary - you could potentially allow Flarms to be used in
> any mode tha pilot wanys, which would simplify things by a lot.
>
> 9B

All this becomes somewhat complicated if we want to retain long held
philosophy of limiting outside information available to the pilot.
If Flarm is not in "competition mode" , climb rate information of
other gliders can be available to that pilot. Current thinking is to
require this.
To verify this mode, a Flarm log would need to be submitted.
Flarm failure- no log- assumption device could be not in competition
mode- "unfair/unsafe" whatever condition - no flight points.
Option - allow "anything goes" mode. All info available to pilot. I
predict that within a VERY short period of time, air data computers
will be processing all Flarm inputs and giving "where the lift is
better" information to the pilot. Having this will be critical to
being competetive, so here we go on an expensive tech war which raises
costs for everybody.
Some might think this is cool- techies- I think it would be very bad
for the sport.
Option- Convince Flarm folks to create a way to put competition mode
in such that it can't be tampered with for some period of time.
Result of this possibility- Flarm benefits are realized, no tech war,
no lost flights if failure occurs(and they will).
I have asked that feasibilty of accomplishing this option be discussed
with Flarm folks.
FWIW
UH- RC Chair

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 11, 9:05*am, DaleKramer > wrote:
> I would be more than happy to personally discuss with everyone
> concerned, the proposed rule in individual email threads.
>
> I would however ask that you first visit the sitehttp://www.FlarmFund.com
> . *Most of the items this thread has pointed out have been addressed
> there.
>
> My email address can be found on the site.
>
> I do not believe that a thread like this can be productive with
> everyone talking all at once with different agendas.
>
> As to the thread topic my view is:
>
> It is unlikely that a simple and isolated FLARM failure would result
> in a penalty.
>
> The unsafe operations category of penalties allow for the value of the
> penalty to be anything from a 0 point warning all the way to a contest
> disqualification.
>
> In my experience CDs do not hand out discretionary penalties lightly
> and certainly significant penalties in this category would be taken
> very seriously by all.
>
> Many areas in our rules simply can not be specifically written to
> handle all events and we place an enormous amount of faith in the
> integrity of the CD's we chose.
>
> I would anticipate that with time, a guideline to FLARM penalty
> application could be developed.
>
> Flarm logs can show even inadvertent problems like bad antenna
> position and bad battery charging/cells. *The log requirement could
> show these errors before a novice user could determine them.
>
> Dale Kramer

Dale,

Thanks for your input. The problem with one-on-one email is that no
other pilot is aware of the exchange and may not even realize there
is a question to be answered. There is a lot of noise on RAS and
threads often diverge well away from the OP, however some interesting
information has already come out of this discussion.

One such interesting piece of information is that FLARM logs should be
reviewed to ensure the FLARM was in contest mode. Yet the proposed
MIRA rule does not require the FLARM to be in contest mode. Why
would logs need to be reviewed to verify something that is not
required by the rule?

I notice that your reply did not address the very important issue of
whether a competitor will be allowed to continue to participate after
a FLARM failure. What is the position of the MIRA proponents on that
issue?

I'm also curious to know who will be doing the detailed review of the
FLARM log that will reveal the errors you mention. I doubt anyone
will be more motivated than the user, and I also doubt that any
contest scorer will want this additional chore. Maybe Winscore will
be updated to read FLARM logs and produce a full FLARM status report?

I support the adoption of FLARM in US but I believe we should be very
careful about rushing into new rule making.


Andy (GY)

[DaleKramer]

Andy,

If we could start a new thread on each issue coming to light, that
would be great but I find that RAS threads with multiple themes are
extremely hard to follow and difficult to make conclusions from.

As Hank mentioned, contest mode is an issue. I believe that it will
quickly sort it self out with initiatives like Hanks.

Also, I believe that the actual experience in Europe with contest mode
does not necessarily show any great competitive advantage (but perhaps
yes with team flying) and contest mode has not been enforced at the
Worlds as far as I know.

I would prefer to not have to address contest mode unless/until a
problem becomes apparent with time.

I believe issues like FLARM failure will be treated lightly by CDs and
I plan to have spare rental units available. This and other issues
that I have not strictly addressed will be evaluated as they come up
and I will be creating a log of these issues along with the CD
reaction as time goes on.

I plan to write the program to analyze all FLARM logs in a directory
that would quickly point out any issues that might concern the CD.

The FLARM logs can be quickly read from the FLARMs memory card into
the directory.

It would only take very little extra time for the scorer and this
extra work on the scorers part will be mentioned up front in the
solicitation of contest managers to have their contest be MIRA.

I should point out that an alternate solution to handling the FLARM
logs that I would support would be to only require them at the
discretion of the CD. This takes away the regular ability to check
for range and battery errors but still lets someone report another
pilot whose glider does not show up on his FLARM, thereby initiating
log checking by the CD.

Dale Kramer

[Mike Schumann]

On 10/11/2010 11:10 AM, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Oct 11, 11:58 am, > wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 8:06 am, Martin >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:11:09 -0700, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>>>> I have not heard of any problem of interference arising from the other
>>>> aerial, the Flarm-Flarm radio transmit/receive – only the partial
>>>> masking by carbon fibre that I mentioned. But these are very weak
>>>> signals – I expect it would not take much to disturb them.
>>
>>> Chris,
>>
>>> Can you put numbers on the required separation?
>>
>>> I assume that if I put a FLARM in my panel it would not be upset by the
>>> Garmin GPS II+ mounted on my battery box to feed my EW Model D, but what
>>> about the following scenario:
>>
>>> Install a Redbox IGC on the equipment tray of my Libelle panel with the
>>> antennae in a bridge over the well toward the forward end of the tray. I
>>> have a Binatone satnav running LK8000 on a fleximount about 100 mm away
>>> from the panel, so it would be around 500mm from the Redbox antennae. Is
>>> that likely to be enough separation to avoid interference?
>>
>>> --
>>> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>>> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>>> org |
>>
>> OK, I looked at the competition survey question again. It looks like
>> this:
>>
>> "Though many pilots have suggested mandating Flarm, the RC believes
>> that this step is at best premature. We also recognize that the right
>> answer is different for different contests, i.e. 18 meter nationals
>> vs. small sports regionals.
>>
>> We have no specific survey questions for this year. However, we
>> welcome your input on how aggressively to promote voluntary and
>> coordinated Flarm use, and what practical steps you would welcome.
>> Please comment below."
>>
>> This is a long way from mandating use and penalizing FLARM failures.
>> The practice
>> in other countries where FLARM has been widely adopted, as noted
>> above, is
>> to check that "stealth mode" is used on the FLARM units in a contest
>> so that
>> the climb rate of distant competitors is not available in the
>> cockpit. For that matter,
>> I don't think that is universally enforced.
>>
>> The state of FLARM in the US next year will be that it will be allowed
>> (the RC
>> needs to specifically allow it in the rules), and a number of people
>> will have it
>> in their planes. It would be great if some rental units were
>> available, but of course
>> the logistics of such are pretty high.
>>
>> -- Matt
>
> My take is that Flarms are currently permitted under the following
> (6.6.3):
> 6.6>> Restricted Equipment
> 6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any
> instrument which:
> • Permits flight without reference to the ground.
> • Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at
> a distance greater than one wingspan.
> 6.6.2 An external cleaning device is any device with moving
> parts designed to clean the exterior of the sailplane during flight.
> In certain classes (Rule 6.12), the use of such devices is prohibited.
> 6.6.3 ‡ Carrying any two-way communication device is
> prohibited, with the following exceptions:
> • ‡ A standard aircraft-band VHF radio
> • ‡ A wireless telephone (which is not to be used
> during flight)
> • ‡ A position reporting device
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> US Rules Committee
Is an artificial horizon prohibited? Most people would consider that a
safety item in the event you unexpectedly find yourself in IMC. Safety
items should not be prohibited by any contest rules.

--
Mike Schumann

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 10/10/2010 11:59 PM, Andy wrote:
> On Oct 10, 10:29 pm, "Matt Herron > wrote:
>
>
>> It's a transmitter. Is there any chance it
>> will interfere with PCAS, radios, bluetooth, or other equipment in my
>> cockpit?
>>
> IDK - I have not heard of issues in Europe.
>
To clarify: PowerFlarm contains a PCAS (transponder detector), so you
don't need to have another one on board; in any case, the transmitter is
a much different frequency (~900MHz) than used by the PCAS (1090 MHz) or
your radio.

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

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Martin Gregorie wrote: “Can you put numbers on the required
separation?” [snip]


Martin, hi.

My answer is a bit digital, unfortunately. Keeping the Flarm GPS
aerial on top of the instrument panel coaming kept it within about 1
foot, or 30 cm, of the Volkslogger, which seemed to be too close.

Other than sticking it on the canopy, which I did not think a good
idea, the only other place was on the headrest which I suppose is 2 or
3 feet from the Volkslogger, and everything works okay when it is
there.

500mm might be far enough, I suppose, if Redbox is that similar to the
Swiss Flarm – which I don’t know. I also don’t know how
representative was my experience.


Hope that helps, but I guess not much!

Regards - Chris

[Brian[_1_]]

<snip>
> Is an artificial horizon prohibited? *Most people would consider that a
> safety item in the event you unexpectedly find yourself in IMC. *Safety
> items should not be prohibited by any contest rules.

<snip>
Yes, an artificial horizon is prohibited, the thinking being that if
you have it you are more likely yourself to get in a situation where
you need it. Or worse yet might intentionlly use it to climb into a
cloud.


6.6 >> Restricted Equipment
6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Checking the PowerFLARM website, the physical size of the unit raises
some concerns for both temporary (rental) and permanent
installations. The unit is almost 4 inches wide by 1.8" high, and
about 4 inches deep. This is by no means a radar detector sized gizmo
like the PCAS. It's a big box.

RENTAL INSTALLATION: I am not sure I have room to velcro this unit on
my glare shield and still close the canopy. 2 inches of vertical
clearance when offset from the centerline by 2 inches (1/2 the width
of the unit) may be asking a lot from most cockpits. It would also
mean removing my flip chart style checklist (thank you Kemp) and would
block the view of my compass. Also, it would obscure a good portion
of the view straight ahead, where I scan for head-on collisions... It
would be mounted right in front of my Transponder antenna, and my GPS
antenna, both residing on top of the glare shield, possibly causing RF
issues?. FInally, I am not sure how I feel about this undoubtedly
heavy, potential projectile velcroed to the dash (no weight was listed
on the PowerFlarm website) in the event of turbulence or impact.

PANEL INSTALLATION: The unit is quite wide, and would probably wipe
out at least two instruments currently on my panel. I would have to
re-do the entire panel to make this install work. That makes the
whole thing a lot less attractive. If PowerFLARM wants wide adoption
in the glider community, they might want to re-consider the form
factor of their device. The display appears to be small, but there is
a gigantic knob on the front panel next to it, making the unit very
wide. If the form factor was such that I could remove my 57mm
transponder and pop in the PowerFLARM into that hole, then add a new
headless transponder somewhere, That would be great!

Suggestion: Why not have someone (SSA?, FLARM Fund?, PowerFLARM?)
make a free cardboard box the size of the proposed PowerFLARM that
could be mailed out to anyone that wanted it, especially contest
pilots, to see how many cockpits/pilots could actually accommodate the
unit if it were made available as a rental.

Pleas note: I want this technology in my glider, but I am not sure
the current embodiment will work for me.

[mattm[_2_]]

On Oct 11, 4:41*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
> Checking the PowerFLARM website, the physical size of the unit raises
> some concerns for both temporary (rental) and permanent
> installations. *The unit is almost 4 inches wide by 1.8" high, and
> about 4 inches deep. *This is by no means a radar detector sized gizmo
> like the PCAS. *It's a big box.
>
> RENTAL INSTALLATION: *I am not sure I have room to velcro this unit on
> my glare shield and still close the canopy. 2 inches of vertical
> clearance when offset from the centerline by 2 inches (1/2 the width
> of the unit) may be asking a lot from most cockpits. * It would also
> mean removing my flip chart style checklist (thank you Kemp) and would
> block the view of my compass. *Also, it would obscure a good portion
> of the view straight ahead, where I scan for head-on collisions... *It
> would be mounted right in front of my Transponder antenna, and my GPS
> antenna, both residing on top of the glare shield, possibly causing RF
> issues?. *FInally, I am not sure how I feel about this undoubtedly
> heavy, potential projectile velcroed to the dash (no weight was listed
> on the PowerFlarm website) in the event of turbulence or impact.
>
> PANEL INSTALLATION: The unit is quite wide, and would probably wipe
> out at least two instruments currently on my panel. *I would have to
> re-do the entire panel to make this install work. *That makes the
> whole thing a lot less attractive. *If PowerFLARM wants wide adoption
> in the glider community, they might want to re-consider the form
> factor of their device. The display appears to be small, but there is
> a gigantic knob on the front panel next to it, making the unit very
> wide. If the form factor was such that I could remove my 57mm
> transponder and pop in the PowerFLARM into that hole, then add a new
> headless transponder somewhere, *That would be great!
>
> Suggestion: *Why not have someone (SSA?, FLARM Fund?, PowerFLARM?)
> make a free cardboard box the size of the proposed PowerFLARM that
> could be mailed out to anyone that wanted it, especially contest
> pilots, to see how many cockpits/pilots could actually accommodate the
> unit if it were made available as a rental.
>
> Pleas note: *I want this technology in my glider, but I am not sure
> the current embodiment will work for me.

You're in luck on both counts. Darryl Ramm made a downloadable PDF
file that folds up into a life size paper box the same size as the
PowerFLARM.
There will also be a "brick" installation available for the PowerFLARM
that
has a remote radio unit and a round radar-type display that fits in a
standard
57mm cutout. Poke around on the butterfly.aero web site for the
displays,
or check out Bill Elliot's install of FLARM shown on the
gliderpilot.org web site.

-- Matt

[Darryl Ramm]

On Oct 11, 1:41*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
> Checking the PowerFLARM website, the physical size of the unit raises
> some concerns for both temporary (rental) and permanent
> installations. *The unit is almost 4 inches wide by 1.8" high, and
> about 4 inches deep. *This is by no means a radar detector sized gizmo
> like the PCAS. *It's a big box.
>
> RENTAL INSTALLATION: *I am not sure I have room to velcro this unit on
> my glare shield and still close the canopy. 2 inches of vertical
> clearance when offset from the centerline by 2 inches (1/2 the width
> of the unit) may be asking a lot from most cockpits. * It would also
> mean removing my flip chart style checklist (thank you Kemp) and would
> block the view of my compass. *Also, it would obscure a good portion
> of the view straight ahead, where I scan for head-on collisions... *It
> would be mounted right in front of my Transponder antenna, and my GPS
> antenna, both residing on top of the glare shield, possibly causing RF
> issues?. *FInally, I am not sure how I feel about this undoubtedly
> heavy, potential projectile velcroed to the dash (no weight was listed
> on the PowerFlarm website) in the event of turbulence or impact.
>
> PANEL INSTALLATION: The unit is quite wide, and would probably wipe
> out at least two instruments currently on my panel. *I would have to
> re-do the entire panel to make this install work. *That makes the
> whole thing a lot less attractive. *If PowerFLARM wants wide adoption
> in the glider community, they might want to re-consider the form
> factor of their device. The display appears to be small, but there is
> a gigantic knob on the front panel next to it, making the unit very
> wide. If the form factor was such that I could remove my 57mm
> transponder and pop in the PowerFLARM into that hole, then add a new
> headless transponder somewhere, *That would be great!
>
> Suggestion: *Why not have someone (SSA?, FLARM Fund?, PowerFLARM?)
> make a free cardboard box the size of the proposed PowerFLARM that
> could be mailed out to anyone that wanted it, especially contest
> pilots, to see how many cockpits/pilots could actually accommodate the
> unit if it were made available as a rental.

Like Matt mentioned, I did that already...

http://www.darryl-ramm.com/2010/08/build-your-own-powerflarm-paper-model/

> Pleas note: *I want this technology in my glider, but I am not sure
> the current embodiment will work for me.

Please no complaining about needing to redo the whole panel in your
new Ventus toy. It's like the really pretty girl complaining how tough
it is to be popular. When you buy a glider you are *supposed* to redo
the entire panel, man up, its a rite of passage.

But you really should have no problem finding space for it in your
Ventus thingy. It either goes on top of the glareshield or you can
mount the headless brick behind the panel.

And Matt, I hope to see you at the PASCO Safety Seminar on October
30th. Urs Rothacher CEO of FLARM will be speaking. So you can have any
remaining questions answered. And the PowerFLARM dealers attending can
follow up with you for your order :-)

Darryl

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Oct 11, 2:11*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 1:41*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Checking the PowerFLARM website, the physical size of the unit raises
> > some concerns for both temporary (rental) and permanent
> > installations. *The unit is almost 4 inches wide by 1.8" high, and
> > about 4 inches deep. *This is by no means a radar detector sized gizmo
> > like the PCAS. *It's a big box.
>
> > RENTAL INSTALLATION: *I am not sure I have room to velcro this unit on
> > my glare shield and still close the canopy. 2 inches of vertical
> > clearance when offset from the centerline by 2 inches (1/2 the width
> > of the unit) may be asking a lot from most cockpits. * It would also
> > mean removing my flip chart style checklist (thank you Kemp) and would
> > block the view of my compass. *Also, it would obscure a good portion
> > of the view straight ahead, where I scan for head-on collisions... *It
> > would be mounted right in front of my Transponder antenna, and my GPS
> > antenna, both residing on top of the glare shield, possibly causing RF
> > issues?. *FInally, I am not sure how I feel about this undoubtedly
> > heavy, potential projectile velcroed to the dash (no weight was listed
> > on the PowerFlarm website) in the event of turbulence or impact.
>
> > PANEL INSTALLATION: The unit is quite wide, and would probably wipe
> > out at least two instruments currently on my panel. *I would have to
> > re-do the entire panel to make this install work. *That makes the
> > whole thing a lot less attractive. *If PowerFLARM wants wide adoption
> > in the glider community, they might want to re-consider the form
> > factor of their device. The display appears to be small, but there is
> > a gigantic knob on the front panel next to it, making the unit very
> > wide. If the form factor was such that I could remove my 57mm
> > transponder and pop in the PowerFLARM into that hole, then add a new
> > headless transponder somewhere, *That would be great!
>
> > Suggestion: *Why not have someone (SSA?, FLARM Fund?, PowerFLARM?)
> > make a free cardboard box the size of the proposed PowerFLARM that
> > could be mailed out to anyone that wanted it, especially contest
> > pilots, to see how many cockpits/pilots could actually accommodate the
> > unit if it were made available as a rental.
>
> Like Matt mentioned, I did that already...
>
> http://www.darryl-ramm.com/2010/08/build-your-own-powerflarm-paper-mo...
>
Please no complaining about needing to redo the whole panel in your
> new Ventus toy. It's like the really pretty girl complaining how tough
> it is to be popular. When you buy a glider you are *supposed* to redo
> the entire panel, man up, its a rite of passage.
>

> Darryl

But Darryl, it IS tough being so popular (grin).

Thanks for the cutout. as usual, you are way ahead of me. I will give
it a try and report back to the thread. The headless version of
PowerFLARM definitely alleviates my concerns about a permanent
installation. I will be at PASCO, Job and S.O. permitting...

Matt

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Oct 11, 7:47*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2:11*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 1:41*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:
>
> > > Checking the PowerFLARM website, the physical size of the unit raises
> > > some concerns for both temporary (rental) and permanent
> > > installations. *The unit is almost 4 inches wide by 1.8" high, and
> > > about 4 inches deep. *This is by no means a radar detector sized gizmo
> > > like the PCAS. *It's a big box.
>
> > > RENTAL INSTALLATION: *I am not sure I have room to velcro this unit on
> > > my glare shield and still close the canopy. 2 inches of vertical
> > > clearance when offset from the centerline by 2 inches (1/2 the width
> > > of the unit) may be asking a lot from most cockpits. * It would also
> > > mean removing my flip chart style checklist (thank you Kemp) and would
> > > block the view of my compass. *Also, it would obscure a good portion
> > > of the view straight ahead, where I scan for head-on collisions... *It
> > > would be mounted right in front of my Transponder antenna, and my GPS
> > > antenna, both residing on top of the glare shield, possibly causing RF
> > > issues?. *FInally, I am not sure how I feel about this undoubtedly
> > > heavy, potential projectile velcroed to the dash (no weight was listed
> > > on the PowerFlarm website) in the event of turbulence or impact.
>
> > > PANEL INSTALLATION: The unit is quite wide, and would probably wipe
> > > out at least two instruments currently on my panel. *I would have to
> > > re-do the entire panel to make this install work. *That makes the
> > > whole thing a lot less attractive. *If PowerFLARM wants wide adoption
> > > in the glider community, they might want to re-consider the form
> > > factor of their device. The display appears to be small, but there is
> > > a gigantic knob on the front panel next to it, making the unit very
> > > wide. If the form factor was such that I could remove my 57mm
> > > transponder and pop in the PowerFLARM into that hole, then add a new
> > > headless transponder somewhere, *That would be great!
>
> > > Suggestion: *Why not have someone (SSA?, FLARM Fund?, PowerFLARM?)
> > > make a free cardboard box the size of the proposed PowerFLARM that
> > > could be mailed out to anyone that wanted it, especially contest
> > > pilots, to see how many cockpits/pilots could actually accommodate the
> > > unit if it were made available as a rental.
>
> > Like Matt mentioned, I did that already...
>
> >http://www.darryl-ramm.com/2010/08/build-your-own-powerflarm-paper-mo...
>
> *Please no complaining about needing to redo the whole panel in your
>
> > new Ventus toy. It's like the really pretty girl complaining how tough
> > it is to be popular. When you buy a glider you are *supposed* to redo
> > the entire panel, man up, its a rite of passage.
>
> > Darryl
>
> But Darryl, it IS tough being so popular (grin).
>
> Thanks for the cutout. *as usual, you are way ahead of me. I will give
> it a try and report back to the thread. *The headless version of
> PowerFLARM definitely alleviates my concerns about a permanent
> installation. *I will be at PASCO, Job and S.O. permitting...
>
> Matt

You mean your new glider might prevent you from attending ;)