PowerFLARM Mode S question [Archive]

Darryl Ramm

October 21st 10, 07:45 PM

On Oct 21, 11:30*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Oct 21, 10:36*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
> > Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. *How many aircraft
> > (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>
> > This is for the US, of course.
>
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> Very very few right now - if you can find better information I'd love
> to know. UPS and a few others are working on equipping faster than
> most.
>
> There is very little reason for biz jets to equip. UPS and some others
> can argue for playing with this to look at scheduling, future in-trail
> separation benefits etc. and UPS has been a leader in ADS-B technology
> for a while -- their Louisville airport hub has ADS-B ground station
> deployment early for this reason. Biz jets and others there are very
> few argument for being an early user.
>
> The FAA recently set the pretty draconian requirement for every ADS-B
> data-out installation to be done via an STC, and specifically forbade
> 337/field approval. So even with full TSO approval of the WAAS GPS and
> ADS-B data-out device they require each installation type (airframe +
> equipment combo) to have an STC. This is supposed to go away
> eventually, but who knows when. This single requirement will stifle
> ADS-B data-out deployment in GA aircraft. This impediment to ADS-B
> data-out deployment is a double whammy in the USA since you need ADS-B
> data-out for TIS-B and ADS-R to work effectively (not that the
> infrastructure to do those are widely deployed yet they will be over
> the next few years). You've got to scratch you head with the whole FAA
> handling of ADS-B.
>
> The only think I think we can say with confidence is that by 2020 most
> aircraft that today have transponders will have ADS-B data-out. I
> expect many of those will be 1090ES (but will see). Of course there is
> some finite probability the wheels could come off the bus along the
> way.
>
> Darryl

One thing I meant to include was that Europe has a 2015 mandate for
1090ES data-out for existing heavy aircraft (>5,700kg) and a 2011
mandate for new aircraft (>,5700kg) - so that likely gets many
international carriers to equip earlier than they otherwise might for
the USA alone. So that will drive some of the fleet flying in the USA
to be equipped. Not that it is likely the international B767/B777/B747
type airliners that we get near most of the time with gliders in the
USA.

Darryl

ray conlon

October 22nd 10, 01:47 AM

On Oct 21, 2:30*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Oct 21, 10:36*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
> > Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. *How many aircraft
> > (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>
> > This is for the US, of course.
>
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> Very very few right now - if you can find better information I'd love
> to know. UPS and a few others are working on equipping faster than
> most.
>
> There is very little reason for biz jets to equip. UPS and some others
> can argue for playing with this to look at scheduling, future in-trail
> separation benefits etc. and UPS has been a leader in ADS-B technology
> for a while -- their Louisville airport hub has ADS-B ground station
> deployment early for this reason. Biz jets and others there are very
> few argument for being an early user.
>
> The FAA recently set the pretty draconian requirement for every ADS-B
> data-out installation to be done via an STC, and specifically forbade
> 337/field approval. So even with full TSO approval of the WAAS GPS and
> ADS-B data-out device they require each installation type (airframe +
> equipment combo) to have an STC. This is supposed to go away
> eventually, but who knows when. This single requirement will stifle
> ADS-B data-out deployment in GA aircraft. This impediment to ADS-B
> data-out deployment is a double whammy in the USA since you need ADS-B
> data-out for TIS-B and ADS-R to work effectively (not that the
> infrastructure to do those are widely deployed yet they will be over
> the next few years). You've got to scratch you head with the whole FAA
> handling of ADS-B.
>
> The only think I think we can say with confidence is that by 2020 most
> aircraft that today have transponders will have ADS-B data-out. I
> expect many of those will be 1090ES (but will see). Of course there is
> some finite probability the wheels could come off the bus along the
> way.
>
> Darryl

Anyone seen this little jewel, seems there is a new report out from
the OIG that ADS-B will be far more expensive than the FAA has
projected... FAA Report Number AV-2011-002 issued 10-12-2010 see
dot.gov//library-item/5415

Like up to 30 for GA aircraft and 600K for airliners....

Frank Whiteley

October 22nd 10, 06:49 AM

On Oct 21, 6:47*pm, ray conlon > wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2:30*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 10:36*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > > PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
> > > Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. *How many aircraft
> > > (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>
> > > This is for the US, of course.
>
> > > Kirk
> > > 66
>
> > Very very few right now - if you can find better information I'd love
> > to know. UPS and a few others are working on equipping faster than
> > most.
>
> > There is very little reason for biz jets to equip. UPS and some others
> > can argue for playing with this to look at scheduling, future in-trail
> > separation benefits etc. and UPS has been a leader in ADS-B technology
> > for a while -- their Louisville airport hub has ADS-B ground station
> > deployment early for this reason. Biz jets and others there are very
> > few argument for being an early user.
>
> > The FAA recently set the pretty draconian requirement for every ADS-B
> > data-out installation to be done via an STC, and specifically forbade
> > 337/field approval. So even with full TSO approval of the WAAS GPS and
> > ADS-B data-out device they require each installation type (airframe +
> > equipment combo) to have an STC. This is supposed to go away
> > eventually, but who knows when. This single requirement will stifle
> > ADS-B data-out deployment in GA aircraft. This impediment to ADS-B
> > data-out deployment is a double whammy in the USA since you need ADS-B
> > data-out for TIS-B and ADS-R to work effectively (not that the
> > infrastructure to do those are widely deployed yet they will be over
> > the next few years). You've got to scratch you head with the whole FAA
> > handling of ADS-B.
>
> > The only think I think we can say with confidence is that by 2020 most
> > aircraft that today have transponders will have ADS-B data-out. I
> > expect many of those will be 1090ES (but will see). Of course there is
> > some finite probability the wheels could come off the bus along the
> > way.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Anyone seen this little jewel, seems there is a new report out from
> the OIG that ADS-B will be far more expensive than the FAA has
> projected... FAA Report Number AV-2011-002 issued 10-12-2010 *see
> dot.gov//library-item/5415
>
> Like up to 30 for GA aircraft and 600K for airliners....

How about these gems?

http://www.aviationtoday.com/webinars/2010-1118.html

I guess the price of the webinar is to keep the riff raff out.

I don't suppose they will be carrying TCAS or ADS-B any time soon
either.

Frank Whiteley

ray conlon

October 22nd 10, 11:00 AM

On Oct 22, 1:49*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Oct 21, 6:47*pm, ray conlon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 2:30*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 21, 10:36*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > > > PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
> > > > Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. *How many aircraft
> > > > (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>
> > > > This is for the US, of course.
>
> > > > Kirk
> > > > 66
>
> > > Very very few right now - if you can find better information I'd love
> > > to know. UPS and a few others are working on equipping faster than
> > > most.
>
> > > There is very little reason for biz jets to equip. UPS and some others
> > > can argue for playing with this to look at scheduling, future in-trail
> > > separation benefits etc. and UPS has been a leader in ADS-B technology
> > > for a while -- their Louisville airport hub has ADS-B ground station
> > > deployment early for this reason. Biz jets and others there are very
> > > few argument for being an early user.
>
> > > The FAA recently set the pretty draconian requirement for every ADS-B
> > > data-out installation to be done via an STC, and specifically forbade
> > > 337/field approval. So even with full TSO approval of the WAAS GPS and
> > > ADS-B data-out device they require each installation type (airframe +
> > > equipment combo) to have an STC. This is supposed to go away
> > > eventually, but who knows when. This single requirement will stifle
> > > ADS-B data-out deployment in GA aircraft. This impediment to ADS-B
> > > data-out deployment is a double whammy in the USA since you need ADS-B
> > > data-out for TIS-B and ADS-R to work effectively (not that the
> > > infrastructure to do those are widely deployed yet they will be over
> > > the next few years). You've got to scratch you head with the whole FAA
> > > handling of ADS-B.
>
> > > The only think I think we can say with confidence is that by 2020 most
> > > aircraft that today have transponders will have ADS-B data-out. I
> > > expect many of those will be 1090ES (but will see). Of course there is
> > > some finite probability the wheels could come off the bus along the
> > > way.
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > Anyone seen this little jewel, seems there is a new report out from
> > the OIG that ADS-B will be far more expensive than the FAA has
> > projected... FAA Report Number AV-2011-002 issued 10-12-2010 *see
> > dot.gov//library-item/5415
>
> > Like up to 30 for GA aircraft and 600K for airliners....
>
> How about these gems?
>
> http://www.aviationtoday.com/webinars/2010-1118.html
>
> I guess the price of the webinar is to keep the riff raff out.
>
> I don't suppose they will be carrying TCAS or ADS-B any time soon
> either.
>
> Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No its like the WASS/GPS bird that got fried by a solar flair April
3rd. and they don't have the money to build a new replacement and
launch it into orbit..maybe the Chicoms will be nice enought to launch
it for us (for a price I am sure) since we don't have the booster to
put new birds in orbit... The FAA has been very quiet about the fact
they lost the WASS west of the Rockies....

Mike Schumann

October 22nd 10, 02:55 PM

On 10/21/2010 1:36 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
> PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
> Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. How many aircraft
> (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>
> This is for the US, of course.
>
> Kirk
> 66

If PowerFLARM was a full blown ADS-B IN/OUT system, you would be able to
see all transponder equipped aircraft using the TIS-B data transmitted
from your local ADS-B ground station. But......

--
Mike Schumann

Darryl Ramm

October 22nd 10, 03:30 PM

On Oct 22, 6:55*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 1:36 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
> > Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. *How many aircraft
> > (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>
> > This is for the US, of course.
>
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> If PowerFLARM was a full blown ADS-B IN/OUT system, you would be able to
> see all transponder equipped aircraft using the TIS-B data transmitted
> from your local ADS-B ground station. *But......
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

The question was about airliners and you will not need ADS-B data out
to see the 1090ES data out from airliners or many of the other
aircraft who (fly above FL180 and so) are all required to equip with
1090ES by 2020. PowerFLARM will do that just fine out of the box.

For one I am glad that Flarm and Butterfly are not stupid enough to go
down that rathole. If you want 1090ES data-out you add a Mode S
transponder. There are many reasons to separate the functions in two
boxes, starting with there is a large market worldwide already for
stand alone Mode S transponders and by decoupling the highly regulated
data-out functions from the data-in functions allows innovative
companies to develop innovative products--just like PowerFLARM. And in
most countries you do not need ADS-B data out to see other ADS-B data
out equipped aircraft - only in the USA. Vendors are going to optimize
products for a worldwide market? I seems Mike Schumann thinks the
answer to everything is more complexity... and this is yet another
awful suggestion. And if PowerFLARM had 1090ES data-out it would cost
thousands of dollars more plus likely require a certified GPS (the FAA
may have closed off any chance of not requiring this by forcing STC
approval-experimental gliders might still get away eith this?) that
currently costs thousands plus for the forseablefuture require an STC
approval for each glider type it is installed in

Mike Schumann

October 22nd 10, 03:34 PM

On 10/22/2010 10:30 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Oct 22, 6:55 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 10/21/2010 1:36 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
>>
>>> PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
>>> Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. How many aircraft
>>> (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>>
>>> This is for the US, of course.
>>
>>> Kirk
>>> 66
>>
>> If PowerFLARM was a full blown ADS-B IN/OUT system, you would be able to
>> see all transponder equipped aircraft using the TIS-B data transmitted
>> from your local ADS-B ground station. But......
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> The question was about airliners and you will not need ADS-B data out
> to see the 1090ES data out from airliners or many of the other
> aircraft who (fly above FL180 and so) are all required to equip with
> 1090ES by 2020. PowerFLARM will do that just fine out of the box.
>
> For one I am glad that Flarm and Butterfly are not stupid enough to go
> down that rathole. If you want 1090ES data-out you add a Mode S
> transponder. There are many reasons to separate the functions in two
> boxes, starting with there is a large market worldwide already for
> stand alone Mode S transponders and by decoupling the highly regulated
> data-out functions from the data-in functions allows innovative
> companies to develop innovative products--just like PowerFLARM. And in
> most countries you do not need ADS-B data out to see other ADS-B data
> out equipped aircraft - only in the USA. Vendors are going to optimize
> products for a worldwide market? I seems Mike Schumann thinks the
> answer to everything is more complexity... and this is yet another
> awful suggestion. And if PowerFLARM had 1090ES data-out it would cost
> thousands of dollars more plus likely require a certified GPS (the FAA
> may have closed off any chance of not requiring this by forcing STC
> approval-experimental gliders might still get away eith this?) that
> currently costs thousands plus for the forseablefuture require an STC
> approval for each glider type it is installed in

I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? Adding a 3rd
collision avoidance technology is more complexity. If I was running the
the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. That's simplicity.

It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
hallucinate.

--
Mike Schumann

Darryl Ramm

October 22nd 10, 03:53 PM

On Oct 22, 7:34*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 10:30 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 6:55 am, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2010 1:36 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> >>> PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
> >>> Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. *How many aircraft
> >>> (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>
> >>> This is for the US, of course.
>
> >>> Kirk
> >>> 66
>
> >> If PowerFLARM was a full blown ADS-B IN/OUT system, you would be able to
> >> see all transponder equipped aircraft using the TIS-B data transmitted
> >> from your local ADS-B ground station. *But......
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> > The question was about airliners and you will not need ADS-B data out
> > to see the 1090ES data out from airliners or many of the other
> > aircraft who (fly above FL180 and so) are all required to equip with
> > 1090ES by 2020. PowerFLARM will do that just fine out of the box.
>
> > For one I am glad that Flarm and Butterfly are not stupid enough to go
> > down that rathole. If you want 1090ES data-out you add a Mode S
> > transponder. There are many reasons to separate the functions in two
> > boxes, starting with there is a large market worldwide already for
> > stand alone Mode S transponders and by decoupling the highly regulated
> > data-out functions from the data-in functions allows innovative
> > companies to develop innovative products--just like PowerFLARM. And in
> > most countries you do not need ADS-B data out to see other ADS-B data
> > out equipped aircraft - only in the USA. Vendors are going to optimize
> > products for a worldwide market? I seems Mike Schumann thinks the
> > answer to everything is more complexity... and this is yet another
> > awful suggestion. And if PowerFLARM had 1090ES data-out it would cost
> > thousands of dollars more plus likely require a certified GPS (the FAA
> > may have closed off any chance of not requiring this by forcing STC
> > approval-experimental gliders might still get away eith this?) that
> > currently costs thousands plus for the forseablefuture require an STC
> > approval for each glider type it is installed in
>
> I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
> collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
> the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity..
>
> It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
> hallucinate.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Mike I focus here on trying to point out what technologies will do and
what they won't and trying to help pilots navigate the reality of a
complex mess of technology. You seem to spend a lot of time dreaming
about what might be if only... Regardless of how impractical or
unlikely for practical market reasons they might be.

The collision concern for most glider pilots is I believe glider-
glider risk. The clear, well proven and logical choice for helping
reduce that risk is for pilots to deploy FLARM asap and stop dreaming
about ADS-B UAT vaporware for glider-glider collision avoidance. I
think folks here can look at the mess around ADS-B right now and
realize that the minimal complexity path to solve that problem is
PowerFLARM (which also provides PCAS and a future path to ADS-B). If
airliners are a concern then add a transponder (right now-it also is
simple, straightforward and just works).

Darryl

John Cochrane[_2_]

October 22nd 10, 03:58 PM

>
> I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
> collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
> the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity..
>
> It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
> hallucinate.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
plus interminable certification delays.

It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?

John Cochrane

ray conlon

October 22nd 10, 07:09 PM

On Oct 22, 10:58*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
> > collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
> > the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity.
>
> > It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
> > hallucinate.
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
> way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
> out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
> radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
> plus interminable certification delays.
>
> It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
> jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
> towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
> jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
> glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
> certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
> fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?
>
> John Cochrane

I work with the FAA as a contractor, trust me NOTHING is ever simple
with them....

Mike Schumann

October 22nd 10, 08:59 PM

On 10/22/2010 10:53 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Oct 22, 7:34 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 10/22/2010 10:30 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 22, 6:55 am, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2010 1:36 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
>>
>>>>> PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
>>>>> Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. How many aircraft
>>>>> (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>>
>>>>> This is for the US, of course.
>>
>>>>> Kirk
>>>>> 66
>>
>>>> If PowerFLARM was a full blown ADS-B IN/OUT system, you would be able to
>>>> see all transponder equipped aircraft using the TIS-B data transmitted
>>>> from your local ADS-B ground station. But......
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>> The question was about airliners and you will not need ADS-B data out
>>> to see the 1090ES data out from airliners or many of the other
>>> aircraft who (fly above FL180 and so) are all required to equip with
>>> 1090ES by 2020. PowerFLARM will do that just fine out of the box.
>>
>>> For one I am glad that Flarm and Butterfly are not stupid enough to go
>>> down that rathole. If you want 1090ES data-out you add a Mode S
>>> transponder. There are many reasons to separate the functions in two
>>> boxes, starting with there is a large market worldwide already for
>>> stand alone Mode S transponders and by decoupling the highly regulated
>>> data-out functions from the data-in functions allows innovative
>>> companies to develop innovative products--just like PowerFLARM. And in
>>> most countries you do not need ADS-B data out to see other ADS-B data
>>> out equipped aircraft - only in the USA. Vendors are going to optimize
>>> products for a worldwide market? I seems Mike Schumann thinks the
>>> answer to everything is more complexity... and this is yet another
>>> awful suggestion. And if PowerFLARM had 1090ES data-out it would cost
>>> thousands of dollars more plus likely require a certified GPS (the FAA
>>> may have closed off any chance of not requiring this by forcing STC
>>> approval-experimental gliders might still get away eith this?) that
>>> currently costs thousands plus for the forseablefuture require an STC
>>> approval for each glider type it is installed in
>>
>> I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? Adding a 3rd
>> collision avoidance technology is more complexity. If I was running the
>> the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. That's simplicity.
>>
>> It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
>> hallucinate.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> Mike I focus here on trying to point out what technologies will do and
> what they won't and trying to help pilots navigate the reality of a
> complex mess of technology. You seem to spend a lot of time dreaming
> about what might be if only... Regardless of how impractical or
> unlikely for practical market reasons they might be.
>
> The collision concern for most glider pilots is I believe glider-
> glider risk. The clear, well proven and logical choice for helping
> reduce that risk is for pilots to deploy FLARM asap and stop dreaming
> about ADS-B UAT vaporware for glider-glider collision avoidance. I
> think folks here can look at the mess around ADS-B right now and
> realize that the minimal complexity path to solve that problem is
> PowerFLARM (which also provides PCAS and a future path to ADS-B). If
> airliners are a concern then add a transponder (right now-it also is
> simple, straightforward and just works).
>
> Darryl
>
>

Amongst the glider pilots I fly with, glider / GA and glider / Airliner
collision risks are at least as big a concern, if not bigger than glider
/ glider. Only 10% of US pilots fly in contests, where glider / glider
collisions is obviously a very big problem.

The FAA has obviously made a HUGE mess of ADS-B. However, the ground
stations are rolling out. The Navworx ADS-B transceiver is shipping,
and could easily be interfaced to Clear Nav, See You Mobile, etc... if
we could get the soaring community to help get the parties to cooperate.
Obviously the cost of the Navworx unit is higher than we would like,
so the commercial viability of this unit in the glider world remains to
be seen.

Your dismissive attitude towards ADS-B is not helping to get vendors
interested in providing solutions for the glider community. If this is
your intent, then you are doing a great job. I hope you are getting a
nice fat commission check from the FLARM boys.

--
Mike Schumann

jcarlyle

October 22nd 10, 10:54 PM

Mike, you are way out of line for your uncalled for insult to Darryl.
I would also remind you that an ADS-B transceiver was in the cockpit
of a glider involved in a recent mid-air with another glider.
Unfortunately, it didn't help. Like FLARM itself, one needs ADS-B
devices in both cockpits. In my opinion, the cheaper PowerFLARM and
1090 Mode S combination has a much better chance of being adopted than
the Navwork solution you tout.

-John

On Oct 22, 3:59 pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> Amongst the glider pilots I fly with, glider / GA and glider / Airliner
> collision risks are at least as big a concern, if not bigger than glider
> / glider. Only 10% of US pilots fly in contests, where glider / glider
> collisions is obviously a very big problem.
>
> The FAA has obviously made a HUGE mess of ADS-B. However, the ground
> stations are rolling out. The Navworx ADS-B transceiver is shipping,
> and could easily be interfaced to Clear Nav, See You Mobile, etc... if
> we could get the soaring community to help get the parties to cooperate.
> Obviously the cost of the Navworx unit is higher than we would like,
> so the commercial viability of this unit in the glider world remains to
> be seen.
>
> Your dismissive attitude towards ADS-B is not helping to get vendors
> interested in providing solutions for the glider community. If this is
> your intent, then you are doing a great job. I hope you are getting a
> nice fat commission check from the FLARM boys.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

[email protected]

October 23rd 10, 03:55 PM

On Oct 21, 10:36*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
> Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. *How many aircraft
> (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>
> This is for the US, of course.
>
> Kirk
> 66

I see on average about 6-7 1090ES ADS-B aircraft with a simple rooftop
antenna in Oakland, CA, USA.
Off course, most are international carriers going in and out of SFO.

Urs
FLARM

Darryl Ramm

October 23rd 10, 06:16 PM

On Oct 23, 7:55*am, " > wrote:
> On Oct 21, 10:36*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
> > Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. *How many aircraft
> > (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>
> > This is for the US, of course.
>
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> I see on average about 6-7 1090ES ADS-B aircraft with a simple rooftop
> antenna in Oakland, CA, USA.
> Off course, most are international carriers going in and out of SFO.
>
> Urs
> FLARM

Which also brings up another source of info on this - so called
"virtual radar", Dave Nadler and I was also talking with me about
offline about this so I thought I'd share. There are relatively low
cost ADS-B 1090ES receivers available that hook up to PCs and vendors
of those products have built closed networks based on those systems
where you can see 1090ES based traffic. Those receivers can get pretty
impressive ranges (up to hundred of miles) with a good rooftop
antenna. The momentum to do all this has been from aviation/technology
hobbyist in Europe where there has been early adoption of 1090ES data-
out by airliners. There is not full 1090ES data-out carriage
requirements in Europe yet and we are many years away from full
carriage in the USA. The network of private 1090ES monitoring
receivers in Europe is pretty impressive but relatively sparse in the
USA.

In additon to these closed networks (where you have to buy one of
their receiver boxes or at least software to join) is there are also
open-network versions of these systems including FlightRadar24 which
has sparse USA coverage. But here is what you can do with it...

o On http://www.flightradar24.com go to "Jump to Area" and select
USA.
o You will see some traffic around Washington state, Los Angeles Basin
and a few other places.
o Click on an aircraft icon to get information about the aircraft and
the carrier.

If you see the flight there it is equipped with 1090ES data-out so
this gives a feel for what airlines, aircraft and flights in the USA
are 1090ES data-out equipped. The coverage is very sparse and it is
not clear what coverage each location actually has and it is not clear
what filtering if any is applied to non-airline flights. The confusing
"Radar" labels like KLAX do *not* mean this is a feed from KLAX tower
radar, SOCAL approach etc. its just what the private owner of the
1090ES receiver called his receiver station.

Here for example are the flights I see right now over the Los Angeles
Basin.

American Airlines B737-823 (B738)
American Airlines Boeing 767-323 (B763)
Delta Airlines <unknown>
United Airlines Boeing 777-222 (B772)
Virgin America Airbus A319-112 (A319)
Virgin America Airbus A320-214 (A320)

We are just at the start of this. Europe has been leading with heavy
aircraft adoption (look at the Flight Radar 24 maps for Europe) but
with the 2020 ADS-B data-out mandate now the USA is finally starting
to get going. By 2020 all the airliners, private jets, turboprops,
some high performance singles and twins etc. (anybody who flies over
FL180) will be mandated to have 1090ES data-out. And I expect many
other aircraft owners will choose 1090ES data-out to meet the 2020 ADS-
B carriage mandate. I expect some domestic airliners and freight
haulers who see some early ADS-B data-out benefits in the USA will
adopt within their fleet well before 2020, its just hard to find out
exactly their plans. Personally I am very happy that PowerFLARM in the
USA gives us this ADS-B compatibility/future path.

And there is a virtual radar portal at http://radarspotters.eu/ which
links to different products etc. if you are interested in this stuff.

Darryl

Andy[_10_]

October 23rd 10, 08:43 PM

On Oct 22, 7:58*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
> > collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
> > the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity.
>
> > It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
> > hallucinate.
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
> way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
> out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
> radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
> plus interminable certification delays.
>
> It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
> jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
> towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
> jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
> glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
> certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
> fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?
>
> John Cochrane

Amen. The Navworx "simple solution" transceiver draws nearly 1 amp at
12 volts WITHOUT a display, doesn't integrate with any existing
soaring computers, doesn't do glider flight path projection that is
essential to glider-glider collision avoidance and doesn't directly
receive 1090ES data-out signals for the multitude of areas where
that's what you need because the ground station coverage isn't
designed for the places glider fly. Oh, and it costs $2500 but doesn't
include PCAS. So it solves exactly ZERO of the problems that currently
matter to glider pilots and, IMO, is likely to lose out to 1090ES in
the long run because of the aforementioned regulatory requirements.

PowerFlarm plus a Trig 21 is a great way to go because it solves
actual problems we have today and PowerFlarm alone is a pretty good
improvement overall and adequate if you don't fly near a major
commercial airport. Seems simple enough to me.

9B

Mike Schumann

October 24th 10, 12:02 AM

On 10/23/2010 3:43 PM, Andy wrote:
> On Oct 22, 7:58 am, John >
> wrote:
>>> I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? Adding a 3rd
>>> collision avoidance technology is more complexity. If I was running the
>>> the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. That's simplicity.
>>
>>> It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
>>> hallucinate.
>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
>> way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
>> out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
>> radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
>> plus interminable certification delays.
>>
>> It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
>> jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
>> towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
>> jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
>> glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
>> certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
>> fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?
>>
>> John Cochrane
>
> Amen. The Navworx "simple solution" transceiver draws nearly 1 amp at
> 12 volts WITHOUT a display, doesn't integrate with any existing
> soaring computers, doesn't do glider flight path projection that is
> essential to glider-glider collision avoidance and doesn't directly
> receive 1090ES data-out signals for the multitude of areas where
> that's what you need because the ground station coverage isn't
> designed for the places glider fly. Oh, and it costs $2500 but doesn't
> include PCAS. So it solves exactly ZERO of the problems that currently
> matter to glider pilots and, IMO, is likely to lose out to 1090ES in
> the long run because of the aforementioned regulatory requirements.
>
> PowerFlarm plus a Trig 21 is a great way to go because it solves
> actual problems we have today and PowerFlarm alone is a pretty good
> improvement overall and adequate if you don't fly near a major
> commercial airport. Seems simple enough to me.
>
> 9B

You can argue all of these points ad nauseum, but your credibility goes
out the window when you say that PowerFlarm is here and now. It has not
been FCC approved, is not available for sale in the US and is not
shipping. When it is, go ahead and push it all you want. In the mean
time, the Navworx box is shipping. Yes, it may not be the ideal
solution; it may not integrate with glide computers; it may draw more
power than you want; it may be too expensive. But it is here and now,
unlike PowerFlarm.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann

October 24th 10, 12:03 AM

On 10/23/2010 10:55 AM, wrote:
> On Oct 21, 10:36 am, > wrote:
>> PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
>> Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. How many aircraft
>> (Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?
>>
>> This is for the US, of course.
>>
>> Kirk
>> 66
>
> I see on average about 6-7 1090ES ADS-B aircraft with a simple rooftop
> antenna in Oakland, CA, USA.
> Off course, most are international carriers going in and out of SFO.
>
> Urs
> FLARM

Over what period of time?

--
Mike Schumann

Darryl Ramm

October 24th 10, 12:56 AM

On Oct 23, 4:02*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 3:43 PM, Andy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 7:58 am, John >
> > wrote:
> >>> I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
> >>> collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
> >>> the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity.
>
> >>> It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
> >>> hallucinate.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Mike Schumann
>
> >> But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
> >> way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
> >> out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
> >> radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
> >> plus interminable certification delays.
>
> >> It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
> >> jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
> >> towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
> >> jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
> >> glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
> >> certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
> >> fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?
>
> >> John Cochrane
>
> > Amen. *The Navworx "simple solution" transceiver draws nearly 1 amp at
> > 12 volts WITHOUT a display, doesn't integrate with any existing
> > soaring computers, doesn't do glider flight path projection that is
> > essential to glider-glider collision avoidance and doesn't directly
> > receive 1090ES data-out signals for the multitude of areas where
> > that's what you need because the ground station coverage isn't
> > designed for the places glider fly. Oh, and it costs $2500 but doesn't
> > include PCAS. So it solves exactly ZERO of the problems that currently
> > matter to glider pilots and, IMO, is likely to lose out to 1090ES in
> > the long run because of the aforementioned regulatory requirements.
>
> > PowerFlarm plus a Trig 21 is a great way to go because it solves
> > actual problems we have today and PowerFlarm alone is a pretty good
> > improvement overall and adequate if you don't fly near a major
> > commercial airport. Seems simple enough to me.
>
> > 9B
>
> You can argue all of these points ad nauseum, but your credibility goes
> out the window when you say that PowerFlarm is here and now. *It has not
> been FCC approved, is not available for sale in the US and is not
> shipping. *When it is, go ahead and push it all you want. *In the mean
> time, the Navworx box is shipping. *Yes, it may not be the ideal
> solution; it may not integrate with glide computers; it may draw more
> power than you want; it may be too expensive. *But it is here and now,
> unlike PowerFlarm.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

I hope most people can work out that your thought process around
collision avoidance technology lacks any practicality of foundation in
reality. But since this involves saftey I'll keep pointing out the
obvious.

So something is coming that will meet many of our needs much better
than anything else, and especially for glider-glider collision threats
will be absolutely better than anything else, but it is not here yet
so instead of waiting we should use something that likely will meet
very few needs? And still be relatively expensive. And there is
unlikely to every be a business case for finishing/tailoring that
product for the needs of the USA glider market. And how exactly do you
solve the current STC installation requirement? Who will fund the
development of the STC approval for installation in gliders?

In past discussions with Bill Moffitt, President of NavWorx he seemed
a pretty reasonable guy and his impression of PowerFLARM technology
for the glider market seemed to me to be pretty positive. So that just
confuses me, do NavWorx share you unbridled enthusiasm for pushing
their current UAT products into glider applications? NavWorx's UAT
receivers have an interesting potential market as FIS-B receivers and
their transceivers have an interesting potential market as add-on ADS-
B devices for aircraft owners who want to keep their Mode C
transponder. I suspect they don't need the distraction of trying to
develop products to meet the need of the tiny USA glider market.

Darryl

Andy[_1_]

October 24th 10, 02:18 AM

On Oct 22, 7:58*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
>Powerflarm is here and now.

Did I miss something? Where can I buy one today?

Andy (GY)

Mike Schumann

October 24th 10, 02:48 AM

On 10/23/2010 7:56 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Oct 23, 4:02 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2010 3:43 PM, Andy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 22, 7:58 am, John >
>>> wrote:
>>>>> I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? Adding a 3rd
>>>>> collision avoidance technology is more complexity. If I was running the
>>>>> the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. That's simplicity.
>>
>>>>> It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
>>>>> hallucinate.
>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>>> But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
>>>> way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
>>>> out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
>>>> radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
>>>> plus interminable certification delays.
>>
>>>> It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
>>>> jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
>>>> towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
>>>> jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
>>>> glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
>>>> certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
>>>> fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?
>>
>>>> John Cochrane
>>
>>> Amen. The Navworx "simple solution" transceiver draws nearly 1 amp at
>>> 12 volts WITHOUT a display, doesn't integrate with any existing
>>> soaring computers, doesn't do glider flight path projection that is
>>> essential to glider-glider collision avoidance and doesn't directly
>>> receive 1090ES data-out signals for the multitude of areas where
>>> that's what you need because the ground station coverage isn't
>>> designed for the places glider fly. Oh, and it costs $2500 but doesn't
>>> include PCAS. So it solves exactly ZERO of the problems that currently
>>> matter to glider pilots and, IMO, is likely to lose out to 1090ES in
>>> the long run because of the aforementioned regulatory requirements.
>>
>>> PowerFlarm plus a Trig 21 is a great way to go because it solves
>>> actual problems we have today and PowerFlarm alone is a pretty good
>>> improvement overall and adequate if you don't fly near a major
>>> commercial airport. Seems simple enough to me.
>>
>>> 9B
>>
>> You can argue all of these points ad nauseum, but your credibility goes
>> out the window when you say that PowerFlarm is here and now. It has not
>> been FCC approved, is not available for sale in the US and is not
>> shipping. When it is, go ahead and push it all you want. In the mean
>> time, the Navworx box is shipping. Yes, it may not be the ideal
>> solution; it may not integrate with glide computers; it may draw more
>> power than you want; it may be too expensive. But it is here and now,
>> unlike PowerFlarm.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> I hope most people can work out that your thought process around
> collision avoidance technology lacks any practicality of foundation in
> reality. But since this involves saftey I'll keep pointing out the
> obvious.
>
> So something is coming that will meet many of our needs much better
> than anything else, and especially for glider-glider collision threats
> will be absolutely better than anything else, but it is not here yet
> so instead of waiting we should use something that likely will meet
> very few needs? And still be relatively expensive. And there is
> unlikely to every be a business case for finishing/tailoring that
> product for the needs of the USA glider market. And how exactly do you
> solve the current STC installation requirement? Who will fund the
> development of the STC approval for installation in gliders?
>
> In past discussions with Bill Moffitt, President of NavWorx he seemed
> a pretty reasonable guy and his impression of PowerFLARM technology
> for the glider market seemed to me to be pretty positive. So that just
> confuses me, do NavWorx share you unbridled enthusiasm for pushing
> their current UAT products into glider applications? NavWorx's UAT
> receivers have an interesting potential market as FIS-B receivers and
> their transceivers have an interesting potential market as add-on ADS-
> B devices for aircraft owners who want to keep their Mode C
> transponder. I suspect they don't need the distraction of trying to
> develop products to meet the need of the tiny USA glider market.
>
> Darryl
>

I am not arguing that Navworx is the ideal solution for gliders. What I
object to is the assertions in this thread that PowerFlarm is the
ultimate solution, better than all others, and that it is currently
available.

It is NOT currently available, and any claims to the contrary are false.
It may be available in the relatively near future, and when it is, it
may be the best solution available for a certain segment of the glider
population. That doesn't guarantee that it will be the best solution
out there in a year or two or three.

Everyone has to make their own decisions on what they are going to buy
and when they are going to do that. That is a very personal decision
based on everyone's personal threat environment or their risk tolerance.

--
Mike Schumann

Greg Arnold[_2_]

October 24th 10, 03:27 AM

On 10/23/2010 6:48 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:

> I am not arguing that Navworx is the ideal solution for gliders. What I
> object to is the assertions in this thread that PowerFlarm is the
> ultimate solution, better than all others, and that it is currently
> available.

All that anyone is saying is that it is the best solution in the near
future. Do you disagree?

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 24th 10, 04:49 AM

On 10/23/2010 6:18 PM, Andy wrote:
> On Oct 22, 7:58 am, John >
> wrote:
>
>> Powerflarm is here and now.
>>
> Did I miss something? Where can I buy one today?
>
> Andy (GY)
You didn't miss anything. It's due in April 2011, which is soon enough
for my flying.

You can order one now, as I have. I don't do much flying during the
winter, so I'd rather wait for a good glider/glider solution, than buy a
poor solution now. I already have a transponder, so I've got "half a deal".

--

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

Andy[_10_]

October 24th 10, 07:39 AM

On Oct 23, 6:48*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 7:56 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 4:02 pm, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/23/2010 3:43 PM, Andy wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 22, 7:58 am, John >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
> >>>>> collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
> >>>>> the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity.
>
> >>>>> It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
> >>>>> hallucinate.
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Mike Schumann
>
> >>>> But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
> >>>> way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
> >>>> out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
> >>>> radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
> >>>> plus interminable certification delays.
>
> >>>> It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
> >>>> jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
> >>>> towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
> >>>> jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
> >>>> glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
> >>>> certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
> >>>> fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?
>
> >>>> John Cochrane
>
> >>> Amen. *The Navworx "simple solution" transceiver draws nearly 1 amp at
> >>> 12 volts WITHOUT a display, doesn't integrate with any existing
> >>> soaring computers, doesn't do glider flight path projection that is
> >>> essential to glider-glider collision avoidance and doesn't directly
> >>> receive 1090ES data-out signals for the multitude of areas where
> >>> that's what you need because the ground station coverage isn't
> >>> designed for the places glider fly. Oh, and it costs $2500 but doesn't
> >>> include PCAS. So it solves exactly ZERO of the problems that currently
> >>> matter to glider pilots and, IMO, is likely to lose out to 1090ES in
> >>> the long run because of the aforementioned regulatory requirements.
>
> >>> PowerFlarm plus a Trig 21 is a great way to go because it solves
> >>> actual problems we have today and PowerFlarm alone is a pretty good
> >>> improvement overall and adequate if you don't fly near a major
> >>> commercial airport. Seems simple enough to me.
>
> >>> 9B
>
> >> You can argue all of these points ad nauseum, but your credibility goes
> >> out the window when you say that PowerFlarm is here and now. *It has not
> >> been FCC approved, is not available for sale in the US and is not
> >> shipping. *When it is, go ahead and push it all you want. *In the mean
> >> time, the Navworx box is shipping. *Yes, it may not be the ideal
> >> solution; it may not integrate with glide computers; it may draw more
> >> power than you want; it may be too expensive. *But it is here and now,
> >> unlike PowerFlarm.
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> > I hope most people can work out that your thought process around
> > collision avoidance technology lacks any practicality of foundation in
> > reality. But since this involves saftey I'll keep pointing out the
> > obvious.
>
> > So something is coming that will meet many of our needs much better
> > than anything else, and especially for glider-glider collision threats
> > will be absolutely better than anything else, but it is not here yet
> > so instead of waiting we should use something that likely will meet
> > very few needs? And still be relatively expensive. And there is
> > unlikely to every be a business case for finishing/tailoring that
> > product for the needs of the USA glider market. And how exactly do you
> > solve the current STC installation requirement? Who will fund the
> > development of the STC approval for installation in gliders?
>
> > In past discussions with Bill Moffitt, President of NavWorx he seemed
> > a pretty reasonable guy and his impression of PowerFLARM technology
> > for the glider market seemed to me to be pretty positive. So that just
> > confuses me, do NavWorx share you unbridled enthusiasm for pushing
> > their current UAT products into glider applications? NavWorx's UAT
> > receivers have an interesting potential market as FIS-B receivers and
> > their transceivers have an interesting potential market as add-on ADS-
> > B devices for aircraft owners who want to keep their Mode C
> > transponder. I suspect they don't need the distraction of trying to
> > develop products to meet the need of the tiny USA glider market.
>
> > Darryl
>
> I am not arguing that Navworx is the ideal solution for gliders. *What I
> object to is the assertions in this thread that PowerFlarm is the
> ultimate solution, better than all others, and that it is currently
> available.
>
> It is NOT currently available, and any claims to the contrary are false.
> * It may be available in the relatively near future, and when it is, it
> may be the best solution available for a certain segment of the glider
> population. *That doesn't guarantee that it will be the best solution
> out there in a year or two or three.
>
> Everyone has to make their own decisions on what they are going to buy
> and when they are going to do that. *That is a very personal decision
> based on everyone's personal threat environment or their risk tolerance.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

I think it's pretty clear - Mike admits that when PowerFlarm gets FCC
approval he will unequivocally support it as the optimal solution for
gliders. His arguments to-date have been uniformly based on
PowarFlarm's pending approval.

Mike, are you going to change your argument or be consistent?

9B

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

October 24th 10, 01:51 PM

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:03:15 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote:

>
> Over what period of time?
>
All at once, presumably. Just now (5:45 AM PDT) I looked at Flight Radar
24 http://www.flightradar24.com/ and saw 4 aircraft near Portland and 3
near LA.

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

Mike Schumann

October 24th 10, 03:10 PM

On 10/24/2010 2:39 AM, Andy wrote:
> On Oct 23, 6:48 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2010 7:56 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 23, 4:02 pm, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2010 3:43 PM, Andy wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 22, 7:58 am, John >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? Adding a 3rd
>>>>>>> collision avoidance technology is more complexity. If I was running the
>>>>>>> the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. That's simplicity.
>>
>>>>>>> It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
>>>>>>> hallucinate.
>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>>>>> But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
>>>>>> way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
>>>>>> out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
>>>>>> radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
>>>>>> plus interminable certification delays.
>>
>>>>>> It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
>>>>>> jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
>>>>>> towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
>>>>>> jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
>>>>>> glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
>>>>>> certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
>>>>>> fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?
>>
>>>>>> John Cochrane
>>
>>>>> Amen. The Navworx "simple solution" transceiver draws nearly 1 amp at
>>>>> 12 volts WITHOUT a display, doesn't integrate with any existing
>>>>> soaring computers, doesn't do glider flight path projection that is
>>>>> essential to glider-glider collision avoidance and doesn't directly
>>>>> receive 1090ES data-out signals for the multitude of areas where
>>>>> that's what you need because the ground station coverage isn't
>>>>> designed for the places glider fly. Oh, and it costs $2500 but doesn't
>>>>> include PCAS. So it solves exactly ZERO of the problems that currently
>>>>> matter to glider pilots and, IMO, is likely to lose out to 1090ES in
>>>>> the long run because of the aforementioned regulatory requirements.
>>
>>>>> PowerFlarm plus a Trig 21 is a great way to go because it solves
>>>>> actual problems we have today and PowerFlarm alone is a pretty good
>>>>> improvement overall and adequate if you don't fly near a major
>>>>> commercial airport. Seems simple enough to me.
>>
>>>>> 9B
>>
>>>> You can argue all of these points ad nauseum, but your credibility goes
>>>> out the window when you say that PowerFlarm is here and now. It has not
>>>> been FCC approved, is not available for sale in the US and is not
>>>> shipping. When it is, go ahead and push it all you want. In the mean
>>>> time, the Navworx box is shipping. Yes, it may not be the ideal
>>>> solution; it may not integrate with glide computers; it may draw more
>>>> power than you want; it may be too expensive. But it is here and now,
>>>> unlike PowerFlarm.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>> I hope most people can work out that your thought process around
>>> collision avoidance technology lacks any practicality of foundation in
>>> reality. But since this involves saftey I'll keep pointing out the
>>> obvious.
>>
>>> So something is coming that will meet many of our needs much better
>>> than anything else, and especially for glider-glider collision threats
>>> will be absolutely better than anything else, but it is not here yet
>>> so instead of waiting we should use something that likely will meet
>>> very few needs? And still be relatively expensive. And there is
>>> unlikely to every be a business case for finishing/tailoring that
>>> product for the needs of the USA glider market. And how exactly do you
>>> solve the current STC installation requirement? Who will fund the
>>> development of the STC approval for installation in gliders?
>>
>>> In past discussions with Bill Moffitt, President of NavWorx he seemed
>>> a pretty reasonable guy and his impression of PowerFLARM technology
>>> for the glider market seemed to me to be pretty positive. So that just
>>> confuses me, do NavWorx share you unbridled enthusiasm for pushing
>>> their current UAT products into glider applications? NavWorx's UAT
>>> receivers have an interesting potential market as FIS-B receivers and
>>> their transceivers have an interesting potential market as add-on ADS-
>>> B devices for aircraft owners who want to keep their Mode C
>>> transponder. I suspect they don't need the distraction of trying to
>>> develop products to meet the need of the tiny USA glider market.
>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> I am not arguing that Navworx is the ideal solution for gliders. What I
>> object to is the assertions in this thread that PowerFlarm is the
>> ultimate solution, better than all others, and that it is currently
>> available.
>>
>> It is NOT currently available, and any claims to the contrary are false.
>> It may be available in the relatively near future, and when it is, it
>> may be the best solution available for a certain segment of the glider
>> population. That doesn't guarantee that it will be the best solution
>> out there in a year or two or three.
>>
>> Everyone has to make their own decisions on what they are going to buy
>> and when they are going to do that. That is a very personal decision
>> based on everyone's personal threat environment or their risk tolerance.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> I think it's pretty clear - Mike admits that when PowerFlarm gets FCC
> approval he will unequivocally support it as the optimal solution for
> gliders. His arguments to-date have been uniformly based on
> PowarFlarm's pending approval.
>
> Mike, are you going to change your argument or be consistent?
>
> 9B

When the product is FCC approved, and you can get a datasheet and a
manual then we can have a discussion on the pluses and minuses. I am
open minded to any solution that not only addresses glider on glider
threats, but also glider / GA and glider / airliners threats.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann

October 24th 10, 03:51 PM

On 10/24/2010 8:51 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:03:15 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>>
>> Over what period of time?
>>
> All at once, presumably. Just now (5:45 AM PDT) I looked at Flight Radar
> 24 http://www.flightradar24.com/ and saw 4 aircraft near Portland and 3
> near LA.
>
>
So much for the assertion that ADS-B is far off into the future.

--
Mike Schumann

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

October 24th 10, 05:04 PM

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:51:46 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote:

> On 10/24/2010 8:51 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:03:15 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Over what period of time?
>>>
>> All at once, presumably. Just now (5:45 AM PDT) I looked at Flight
>> Radar 24 http://www.flightradar24.com/ and saw 4 aircraft near Portland
>> and 3 near LA.
>>
>>
> So much for the assertion that ADS-B is far off into the future.

Don't forget that this is all from aircraft with Mode S/1090ES kit.

Take a look at Flight Radar 24 and point it at Europe or the UK if you
want to see how far the USA has to go in equipment uptake and coverage,
though in fairness, as the site's coverage depends on volunteers
connecting receivers to the 'net it will be deficient in the USA because
there's so far little incentive for plane spotters to install the
receivers.

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

Darryl Ramm

October 24th 10, 06:03 PM

On Oct 24, 7:51*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 10/24/2010 8:51 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:03:15 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> >> Over what period of time?
>
> > All at once, presumably. Just now (5:45 AM PDT) I looked at Flight Radar
> > 24http://www.flightradar24.com/and saw 4 aircraft near Portland and 3
> > near LA.
>
> So much for the assertion that ADS-B is far off into the future.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

And a few airliners flying around today with 1090ES data-out (and not
integrated with most ATC services yet) somehow changes what has been
said here by anybody? Its exactly consistent.

ADS-B is coming. I've stated the situation as best as I know it with
ADS-B adoption. If you can add anything cogent to that discussion
speak up.

You are looking at airliners. As I've said here already - airliners
out of Europe are very likely to have 1090ES data-out. New airliners
in the USA are very likely to have 1090ES data-out. Some airlines and
freight carriers are likely to adopt earlier because they start to see
benefits like in-trail separation and sequencing or just because they
are interested in exploring the capability to do that in future. On
the other hand for GA and gliders there is very little incentive to
adopt ADS-B data-out, its expensive and the recent STC requirement is
a significant barrier. Significant enough that I suspect it just
stopped GA ADS-B upgrades cold for a while (outside locations where
there is a clear benefit like GOMEX and a oil industry helicopter
fleet that can pay for it). And we are still a few years away from
extensive ground station coverage with full ADS-B services (full roll
out of critical services at TRACON/approach locations, not just the
enroute essential services rolling out now in most places). And even
when there service is fully rolled out there it looks like there will
be poor coverage in many important glider locations. So all we can say
is (unless the wheels fall off ADS-B) there will be widespread
carriage of ADS-B data-out by 2020. Where widespread means all the big
guys and installed at least in GA aircraft that fly where they require
transponders today. And all the big guys will be 1090ES data-out and
what GA adopts we'll have to wait and see (but I expect much more
1090ES data-out than the FAA seemed to ever expect).

I assume you have the ability to find out what current UAT adoption is
around some locations. That would be interesting to know.

Nobody I can find from AOPA, NBAA, avionics industry organizations
etc. seems to have any predictions for ADS-B fleet adoption rates. I
would certainly not assume aggressive roll-out of ADS-B data-out in GA
aircraft--because of the current STC hurdle, the costs and lack of
benefits (that AOPA and EAA and others are pretty clear of in their
criticisms of ADS-B).

And back to gliders... there seems no way that certified gliders can
install any ADS-B data-out today because of the lack of STC approval.
So its largely academic right now for many of us if a product is FCC
and TSO approved if there is no STC for installation on type. If you
want to keep saying that certain UAT transceivers are available now
you need to qualify that would be for experimental gliders only or let
us know who is working on the install STC and for what gliders.

Darryl

Mike Schumann

October 24th 10, 07:24 PM

On 10/24/2010 1:03 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Oct 24, 7:51 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 10/24/2010 8:51 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:03:15 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>
>>>> Over what period of time?
>>
>>> All at once, presumably. Just now (5:45 AM PDT) I looked at Flight Radar
>>> 24http://www.flightradar24.com/and saw 4 aircraft near Portland and 3
>>> near LA.
>>
>> So much for the assertion that ADS-B is far off into the future.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> And a few airliners flying around today with 1090ES data-out (and not
> integrated with most ATC services yet) somehow changes what has been
> said here by anybody? Its exactly consistent.
>
> ADS-B is coming. I've stated the situation as best as I know it with
> ADS-B adoption. If you can add anything cogent to that discussion
> speak up.
>
> You are looking at airliners. As I've said here already - airliners
> out of Europe are very likely to have 1090ES data-out. New airliners
> in the USA are very likely to have 1090ES data-out. Some airlines and
> freight carriers are likely to adopt earlier because they start to see
> benefits like in-trail separation and sequencing or just because they
> are interested in exploring the capability to do that in future. On
> the other hand for GA and gliders there is very little incentive to
> adopt ADS-B data-out, its expensive and the recent STC requirement is
> a significant barrier. Significant enough that I suspect it just
> stopped GA ADS-B upgrades cold for a while (outside locations where
> there is a clear benefit like GOMEX and a oil industry helicopter
> fleet that can pay for it). And we are still a few years away from
> extensive ground station coverage with full ADS-B services (full roll
> out of critical services at TRACON/approach locations, not just the
> enroute essential services rolling out now in most places). And even
> when there service is fully rolled out there it looks like there will
> be poor coverage in many important glider locations. So all we can say
> is (unless the wheels fall off ADS-B) there will be widespread
> carriage of ADS-B data-out by 2020. Where widespread means all the big
> guys and installed at least in GA aircraft that fly where they require
> transponders today. And all the big guys will be 1090ES data-out and
> what GA adopts we'll have to wait and see (but I expect much more
> 1090ES data-out than the FAA seemed to ever expect).
>
> I assume you have the ability to find out what current UAT adoption is
> around some locations. That would be interesting to know.
>
> Nobody I can find from AOPA, NBAA, avionics industry organizations
> etc. seems to have any predictions for ADS-B fleet adoption rates. I
> would certainly not assume aggressive roll-out of ADS-B data-out in GA
> aircraft--because of the current STC hurdle, the costs and lack of
> benefits (that AOPA and EAA and others are pretty clear of in their
> criticisms of ADS-B).
>
> And back to gliders... there seems no way that certified gliders can
> install any ADS-B data-out today because of the lack of STC approval.
> So its largely academic right now for many of us if a product is FCC
> and TSO approved if there is no STC for installation on type. If you
> want to keep saying that certain UAT transceivers are available now
> you need to qualify that would be for experimental gliders only or let
> us know who is working on the install STC and for what gliders.
>
> Darryl
The reality is that the big short term opportunity with ADS-B is TIS-B.
If you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will be able
to see not just other ADS-B equipped aircraft, but all other Mode C / S
transponder equipped aircraft that are visible to ATC.

The ground station rollout is moving ahead briskly. I was told that
MSP's ground station is live as of September.

Most people flying gliders near major metropolitan areas will be within
range of an ADS-B ground station. With an ADS-B transceiver (UAT or
1090ES), you will be able to see all airliners, and also most GA
aircraft. In addition, ATC will be able to see you just like you had a
transponder.

This may not help people flying gliders in remote areas at low
altitudes, but it will be a huge plus for most recreational glider pilots.

The challenge is to come up with a low cost ADS-B transceiver package
that is acceptable, both from a cost, size, and functional perspective,
to the glider community. PowerFlarm, if, and only if, it is coupled
with an active ADS-B Out transmitter may be the best approach. There
will surely be others that are aimed at the GA market, which being much
larger than the glider market, will hopefully be more cost effective.

--
Mike Schumann

Dave Nadler

October 24th 10, 11:14 PM

On Oct 24, 2:24*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> The reality is that the big short term opportunity with ADS-B is TIS-B.
> * If you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will be able
> to see not just other ADS-B equipped aircraft, but all other Mode C / S
> transponder equipped aircraft that are visible to ATC.

Wrong.

Not unless *you* have ADS-B out.
Please read:
http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM-About-Transponders-And-ADSB

Now, go back and read it again, this time carefully.

Mike Schumann

October 25th 10, 12:06 AM

On 10/24/2010 6:14 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2:24 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> The reality is that the big short term opportunity with ADS-B is TIS-B.
>> If you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will be able
>> to see not just other ADS-B equipped aircraft, but all other Mode C / S
>> transponder equipped aircraft that are visible to ATC.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Not unless *you* have ADS-B out.
> Please read:
> http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM-About-Transponders-And-ADSB
>
> Now, go back and read it again, this time carefully.

How about fully reading my post? I indicated you needed an ADS-B
"transceiver", not a "receiver". I also indicated that PowerFlarm might
provide TIS-B services only if it was coupled with an ADS-B Out transmitter.

--
Mike Schumann

Dave Nadler

October 25th 10, 12:56 AM

On Oct 24, 7:06*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 10/24/2010 6:14 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
> > On Oct 24, 2:24 pm, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> The reality is that the big short term opportunity with ADS-B is TIS-B..
> >> * *If you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will be able
> >> to see not just other ADS-B equipped aircraft, but all other Mode C / S
> >> transponder equipped aircraft that are visible to ATC.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > Not unless *you* have ADS-B out.
> > Please read:
> >http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM-About-Transponders-And-ADSB
>
> > Now, go back and read it again, this time carefully.
>
> How about fully reading my post? *I indicated you needed an ADS-B
> "transceiver", not a "receiver". *I also indicated that PowerFlarm might
> provide TIS-B services only if it was coupled with an ADS-B Out transmitter.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Oh, so you're suggesting something that DOES NOT EXIST
FOR GLIDERS ?

Mike Schumann

October 25th 10, 02:50 AM

On 10/24/2010 7:56 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Oct 24, 7:06 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 10/24/2010 6:14 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 24, 2:24 pm, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> The reality is that the big short term opportunity with ADS-B is TIS-B.
>>>> If you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will be able
>>>> to see not just other ADS-B equipped aircraft, but all other Mode C / S
>>>> transponder equipped aircraft that are visible to ATC.
>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>>> Not unless *you* have ADS-B out.
>>> Please read:
>>> http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM-About-Transponders-And-ADSB
>>
>>> Now, go back and read it again, this time carefully.
>>
>> How about fully reading my post? I indicated you needed an ADS-B
>> "transceiver", not a "receiver". I also indicated that PowerFlarm might
>> provide TIS-B services only if it was coupled with an ADS-B Out transmitter.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> Oh, so you're suggesting something that DOES NOT EXIST
> FOR GLIDERS ?
>

Navworx exists. PowerFlarm does not.

You can hook up Navworx to a variety of GPS units to graphically see
aircraft in your vicinity. You might not like the cost, power
consumption or the selection of display devices that are supported, but
it will work in a glider and it will show you the accurate position and
altitude all of the other transponder equipped aircraft in your area if
you are within range of an ADS-B ground station.

If you want to accurately and reliably see GA and jet aircraft and you
operate in an area that has ADS-B ground station coverage, an ADS-B
based solution will give you the most accurate information, but ONLY if
you are also transmitting an ADS-B out signal.

--
Mike Schumann

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

October 25th 10, 05:46 AM

On 10/24/2010 7:10 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>> I think it's pretty clear - Mike admits that when PowerFlarm gets FCC
>> approval he will unequivocally support it as the optimal solution for
>> gliders. His arguments to-date have been uniformly based on
>> PowarFlarm's pending approval.
>>
>> Mike, are you going to change your argument or be consistent?
>>
>> 9B
>
> When the product is FCC approved, and you can get a datasheet and a
> manual then we can have a discussion on the pluses and minuses. I am
> open minded to any solution that not only addresses glider on glider
> threats, but also glider / GA and glider / airliners threats.

It's not like PowerFlarm is a completely new, untested concept, or that
the people bringing it to market are unknown ciphers. They've done this
before, to the tune of 10,000+ installations, and it's reasonable to
assume they'll do it again, so there is simply no point not to have the
discussion NOW. Your recalcitrance on this makes you look very
unreasonable, and casts doubt your arguments, deserved or not.

--
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

Darryl Ramm

October 25th 10, 06:52 AM

On Oct 24, 6:50*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 10/24/2010 7:56 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 7:06 pm, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/24/2010 6:14 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 24, 2:24 pm, Mike >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> The reality is that the big short term opportunity with ADS-B is TIS-B.
> >>>> * * If you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will be able
> >>>> to see not just other ADS-B equipped aircraft, but all other Mode C / S
> >>>> transponder equipped aircraft that are visible to ATC.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >>> Not unless *you* have ADS-B out.
> >>> Please read:
> >>>http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM-About-Transponders-And-ADSB
>
> >>> Now, go back and read it again, this time carefully.
>
> >> How about fully reading my post? *I indicated you needed an ADS-B
> >> "transceiver", not a "receiver". *I also indicated that PowerFlarm might
> >> provide TIS-B services only if it was coupled with an ADS-B Out transmitter.
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> > Oh, so you're suggesting something that DOES NOT EXIST
> > FOR GLIDERS ?
>
> Navworx exists. *PowerFlarm does not.
>
> You can hook up Navworx to a variety of GPS units to graphically see
> aircraft in your vicinity. *You might not like the cost, power
> consumption or the selection of display devices that are supported, but
> it will work in a glider and it will show you the accurate position and
> altitude all of the other transponder equipped aircraft in your area if
> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station.
>
> If you want to accurately and reliably see GA and jet aircraft and you
> operate in an area that has ADS-B ground station coverage, an ADS-B
> based solution will give you the most accurate information, but ONLY if
> you are also transmitting an ADS-B out signal.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

On Oct 24, 6:50 pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 10/24/2010 7:56 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 7:06 pm, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/24/2010 6:14 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 24, 2:24 pm, Mike >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> The reality is that the big short term opportunity with ADS-B is TIS-B.
> >>>> If you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will be able
> >>>> to see not just other ADS-B equipped aircraft, but all other Mode C / S
> >>>> transponder equipped aircraft that are visible to ATC.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >>> Not unless *you* have ADS-B out.
> >>> Please read:
> >>>http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM-About-Transponders-And-ADSB
>
> >>> Now, go back and read it again, this time carefully.
>
> >> How about fully reading my post? I indicated you needed an ADS-B
> >> "transceiver", not a "receiver". I also indicated that PowerFlarm might
> >> provide TIS-B services only if it was coupled with an ADS-B Out transmitter.
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> > Oh, so you're suggesting something that DOES NOT EXIST
> > FOR GLIDERS ?
>
> Navworx exists. PowerFlarm does not.
>
> You can hook up Navworx to a variety of GPS units to graphically see
> aircraft in your vicinity. You might not like the cost, power
> consumption or the selection of display devices that are supported, but
> it will work in a glider and it will show you the accurate position and
> altitude all of the other transponder equipped aircraft in your area if
> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station.
>
> If you want to accurately and reliably see GA and jet aircraft and you
> operate in an area that has ADS-B ground station coverage, an ADS-B
> based solution will give you the most accurate information, but ONLY if
> you are also transmitting an ADS-B out signal.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Again the devil is in the details.

Where is the STC that allows a NavWorx ADS600-B to be installed in a
certified glider to comply with the new FAA STC requirements announced
this August? (yes an experiential glider can get away without this).
The NavWorx ADS600-B transceiver is TSO as a UAT transceiver but its
built in GPS source does not meet the TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS
requirements to drive ADS-B data-out for the 2020 carriage mandate.
The NavWorx products were intended to have one of these higher end GPS
systems connected to it to meet the full 2020 carriage mandates for
powered aircraft but be usable now without that (which could easily
double or more their cost today and increase power consumption). And
that certainly seemed a good idea (and still doable for experimental
aircraft) but it looks like the FAA may have other ideas for certified
aircraft... since the FAA recently instituted this new STC requirement
it is not clear to me whether the FAA has any intention of allowing
STC approval for an install that does not meet the 2020 carriage
mandate requirements. And even if gliders were not otherwise required
to meet those GPS requirements. I've just about given up trying to
navigate this FAA mess, but then I'm not pushing people to adopt ADS-B
data-out now -- but Mike you are so maybe you can explain this actual
situation here. Will the FAA allow a STC to be developed for install
in a glider with a non-TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS? And who is funding the
development of that STC for installation of a NavWorx ADS600-B UAT in
a certified glider? Which gliders? Or any idea when the FAA plans to
drop the STC requirement and allow field approval/337 installs?

TIS-B will likely work well where there will be good GBT (ADS-B base
station) and radar coverage and with classic GA style aircraft
separation. But there won't be TIS-B coverage in many critical areas
such as many GA airport traffic patterns and other areas where I worry
about GA traffic - again that's not an overall slight on TIS-B but
pilots need to look at this coverage where they fly and be aware as
well when the TIS-B support is rolling out for their en-route (pretty
soon for most people) and approach/TRACON radar coverage (now for a
very few, over the next few years for most).

If you just fly a glider like a GA aircraft and never fly close to
other glider etc. then things are simpler, but most of us end up
flying in ways that cause some specific traffic display/threat warning
challenges. Again this UAT solution relies on a third party display/
warning system that processes data from the UAT transceiver. That
system likely needs to be optimized/designed for the type of flying
gliders do, and the applies to TIS-B data as well. To see why...
consider the case of flying within a short distance of other gliders
who are transponder equipped. This is not necessarily in the same
thermal, it could be a fraction of a mile or so away. But there is
more uncertainty with a SSR derived location data pumped through TIS-B
than there is with a GPS location based ADS-B direct or ADS-R (relay)
signal. Just how the traffic display/threat warning system handles
that situation might be critical but its may be something that only
somebody designing a system for gliders will worry about. In many
cases when a TIS-B based systems sees your glider buddy getting close
the best it may be be able to do is just throw up it hands and say
"threat nearby at altitude xxxx" it won't be able to give direction
data. And you don't want it to keep false warning you about your
glider buddies so you want some way to suppress that warning unless
they get really close (hopefully with an altitude and range margins
you can set) and an easy way to suppress recurring warnings and you
want those settings separate for TIS-B than ADS-B direct/ADS-R. The
devil again, is in the details. Who is going to get this right for UAT
traffic display/threat warning for a glider cockpit?

I believe that TIS-B is a useful add-on service for some GA folks who
can afford it and fly in the right areas. I'm more dubious that is is
financially justified in gliders now. This stuff may be interesting to
pilots if they can manage to legally install a UAT transceiver and
third party display/processor system, afford the thousands of dollars
purchase and install cost (could be over $5k or more with TSO GPS and
all the STC driven costs?), can power the system (over 1 amp with
display and TSO complaint GPS) and they need to check out that traffic
display/threat processing system indeed will meet the needs of their
glider cockpit/flying environment.

Mike if these things are here now and do TIS-B so well to solve the GA
traffic concerns you have mentioned so the obvious question is have
you purchased a NavWorx ADS600-Receiver? How have you legally
installed it in your glider? What traffic/display hardware are you
using and how well does it handle things like TIS-B when flying near
and thermalling with transponder equipped gliders or other UAT
equipped gliders? Seems like a research project not a product ready to
sell (to the glider market) to me.

Darryl

Dave Nadler

October 25th 10, 12:01 PM

On Oct 24, 9:50*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> Navworx exists. *PowerFlarm does not.
>
> You can hook up Navworx to a variety of GPS units to graphically see
> aircraft in your vicinity. *You might not like the cost, power
> consumption or the selection of display devices that are supported, but
> it will work in a glider and it will show you the accurate position and
> altitude all of the other transponder equipped aircraft in your area if
> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station.
> --
> Mike Schumann

WRONG

Too much power.
No STCs.
Too expensive.
No effective collision warning.

===>> DOES NOT EXIST FOR GLIDERS <<===
QED

Mike Schumann

October 25th 10, 02:10 PM

On 10/25/2010 12:46 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 10/24/2010 7:10 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>> I think it's pretty clear - Mike admits that when PowerFlarm gets FCC
>>> approval he will unequivocally support it as the optimal solution for
>>> gliders. His arguments to-date have been uniformly based on
>>> PowarFlarm's pending approval.
>>>
>>> Mike, are you going to change your argument or be consistent?
>>>
>>> 9B
>>
>> When the product is FCC approved, and you can get a datasheet and a
>> manual then we can have a discussion on the pluses and minuses. I am
>> open minded to any solution that not only addresses glider on glider
>> threats, but also glider / GA and glider / airliners threats.
>
> It's not like PowerFlarm is a completely new, untested concept, or that
> the people bringing it to market are unknown ciphers. They've done this
> before, to the tune of 10,000+ installations, and it's reasonable to
> assume they'll do it again, so there is simply no point not to have the
> discussion NOW. Your recalcitrance on this makes you look very
> unreasonable, and casts doubt your arguments, deserved or not.
>
I'm not opposed to having a discussion about future products. I've
participated in these before. My objection is in misrepresenting future
products as things that currently exist, while simultaneously
disparaging products that currently do exist as being "future" products.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike Schumann

October 25th 10, 02:32 PM

On 10/25/2010 1:52 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Oct 24, 6:50 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 10/24/2010 7:56 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 24, 7:06 pm, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2010 6:14 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 24, 2:24 pm, Mike >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The reality is that the big short term opportunity with ADS-B is TIS-B.
>>>>>> If you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will be able
>>>>>> to see not just other ADS-B equipped aircraft, but all other Mode C / S
>>>>>> transponder equipped aircraft that are visible to ATC.
>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>>> Not unless *you* have ADS-B out.
>>>>> Please read:
>>>>> http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM-About-Transponders-And-ADSB
>>
>>>>> Now, go back and read it again, this time carefully.
>>
>>>> How about fully reading my post? I indicated you needed an ADS-B
>>>> "transceiver", not a "receiver". I also indicated that PowerFlarm might
>>>> provide TIS-B services only if it was coupled with an ADS-B Out transmitter.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>> Oh, so you're suggesting something that DOES NOT EXIST
>>> FOR GLIDERS ?
>>
>> Navworx exists. PowerFlarm does not.
>>
>> You can hook up Navworx to a variety of GPS units to graphically see
>> aircraft in your vicinity. You might not like the cost, power
>> consumption or the selection of display devices that are supported, but
>> it will work in a glider and it will show you the accurate position and
>> altitude all of the other transponder equipped aircraft in your area if
>> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station.
>>
>> If you want to accurately and reliably see GA and jet aircraft and you
>> operate in an area that has ADS-B ground station coverage, an ADS-B
>> based solution will give you the most accurate information, but ONLY if
>> you are also transmitting an ADS-B out signal.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> On Oct 24, 6:50 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 10/24/2010 7:56 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 24, 7:06 pm, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2010 6:14 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 24, 2:24 pm, Mike >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The reality is that the big short term opportunity with ADS-B is TIS-B.
>>>>>> If you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will be able
>>>>>> to see not just other ADS-B equipped aircraft, but all other Mode C / S
>>>>>> transponder equipped aircraft that are visible to ATC.
>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>>> Not unless *you* have ADS-B out.
>>>>> Please read:
>>>>> http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM-About-Transponders-And-ADSB
>>
>>>>> Now, go back and read it again, this time carefully.
>>
>>>> How about fully reading my post? I indicated you needed an ADS-B
>>>> "transceiver", not a "receiver". I also indicated that PowerFlarm might
>>>> provide TIS-B services only if it was coupled with an ADS-B Out transmitter.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>> Oh, so you're suggesting something that DOES NOT EXIST
>>> FOR GLIDERS ?
>>
>> Navworx exists. PowerFlarm does not.
>>
>> You can hook up Navworx to a variety of GPS units to graphically see
>> aircraft in your vicinity. You might not like the cost, power
>> consumption or the selection of display devices that are supported, but
>> it will work in a glider and it will show you the accurate position and
>> altitude all of the other transponder equipped aircraft in your area if
>> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station.
>>
>> If you want to accurately and reliably see GA and jet aircraft and you
>> operate in an area that has ADS-B ground station coverage, an ADS-B
>> based solution will give you the most accurate information, but ONLY if
>> you are also transmitting an ADS-B out signal.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> Again the devil is in the details.
>
> Where is the STC that allows a NavWorx ADS600-B to be installed in a
> certified glider to comply with the new FAA STC requirements announced
> this August? (yes an experiential glider can get away without this).
> The NavWorx ADS600-B transceiver is TSO as a UAT transceiver but its
> built in GPS source does not meet the TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS
> requirements to drive ADS-B data-out for the 2020 carriage mandate.
> The NavWorx products were intended to have one of these higher end GPS
> systems connected to it to meet the full 2020 carriage mandates for
> powered aircraft but be usable now without that (which could easily
> double or more their cost today and increase power consumption). And
> that certainly seemed a good idea (and still doable for experimental
> aircraft) but it looks like the FAA may have other ideas for certified
> aircraft... since the FAA recently instituted this new STC requirement
> it is not clear to me whether the FAA has any intention of allowing
> STC approval for an install that does not meet the 2020 carriage
> mandate requirements. And even if gliders were not otherwise required
> to meet those GPS requirements. I've just about given up trying to
> navigate this FAA mess, but then I'm not pushing people to adopt ADS-B
> data-out now -- but Mike you are so maybe you can explain this actual
> situation here. Will the FAA allow a STC to be developed for install
> in a glider with a non-TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS? And who is funding the
> development of that STC for installation of a NavWorx ADS600-B UAT in
> a certified glider? Which gliders? Or any idea when the FAA plans to
> drop the STC requirement and allow field approval/337 installs?
>
> TIS-B will likely work well where there will be good GBT (ADS-B base
> station) and radar coverage and with classic GA style aircraft
> separation. But there won't be TIS-B coverage in many critical areas
> such as many GA airport traffic patterns and other areas where I worry
> about GA traffic - again that's not an overall slight on TIS-B but
> pilots need to look at this coverage where they fly and be aware as
> well when the TIS-B support is rolling out for their en-route (pretty
> soon for most people) and approach/TRACON radar coverage (now for a
> very few, over the next few years for most).
>
> If you just fly a glider like a GA aircraft and never fly close to
> other glider etc. then things are simpler, but most of us end up
> flying in ways that cause some specific traffic display/threat warning
> challenges. Again this UAT solution relies on a third party display/
> warning system that processes data from the UAT transceiver. That
> system likely needs to be optimized/designed for the type of flying
> gliders do, and the applies to TIS-B data as well. To see why...
> consider the case of flying within a short distance of other gliders
> who are transponder equipped. This is not necessarily in the same
> thermal, it could be a fraction of a mile or so away. But there is
> more uncertainty with a SSR derived location data pumped through TIS-B
> than there is with a GPS location based ADS-B direct or ADS-R (relay)
> signal. Just how the traffic display/threat warning system handles
> that situation might be critical but its may be something that only
> somebody designing a system for gliders will worry about. In many
> cases when a TIS-B based systems sees your glider buddy getting close
> the best it may be be able to do is just throw up it hands and say
> "threat nearby at altitude xxxx" it won't be able to give direction
> data. And you don't want it to keep false warning you about your
> glider buddies so you want some way to suppress that warning unless
> they get really close (hopefully with an altitude and range margins
> you can set) and an easy way to suppress recurring warnings and you
> want those settings separate for TIS-B than ADS-B direct/ADS-R. The
> devil again, is in the details. Who is going to get this right for UAT
> traffic display/threat warning for a glider cockpit?
>
> I believe that TIS-B is a useful add-on service for some GA folks who
> can afford it and fly in the right areas. I'm more dubious that is is
> financially justified in gliders now. This stuff may be interesting to
> pilots if they can manage to legally install a UAT transceiver and
> third party display/processor system, afford the thousands of dollars
> purchase and install cost (could be over $5k or more with TSO GPS and
> all the STC driven costs?), can power the system (over 1 amp with
> display and TSO complaint GPS) and they need to check out that traffic
> display/threat processing system indeed will meet the needs of their
> glider cockpit/flying environment.
>
> Mike if these things are here now and do TIS-B so well to solve the GA
> traffic concerns you have mentioned so the obvious question is have
> you purchased a NavWorx ADS600-Receiver? How have you legally
> installed it in your glider? What traffic/display hardware are you
> using and how well does it handle things like TIS-B when flying near
> and thermalling with transponder equipped gliders or other UAT
> equipped gliders? Seems like a research project not a product ready to
> sell (to the glider market) to me.
>
> Darryl

From what I see on the Navworx web site, the ADS600-B is NOT TSO'd,
even though it is FCC approved. I'm don't claim to be an expert on FAA
issues regarding installation of equipment in aircraft, so I have no
idea what that means.

I suspect that the current non TSO'd Navworx box will not meet the 2020
ADS-B rule. I suspect that you could install it in a certified glider
as a portable device, like you would a Garmin 496, without any trouble
(FAA trouble that is). However, the unit obviously doesn't look like it
was designed for this. I don't know what the ramifications are of a
permanent install.

You are certainly correct that installation of this kind of equipment in
a glider (or any aircraft), at this stage of the product / regulatory
life cycle should be treated as a research project. The same applies to
PowerFlarm when it initially starts shipping.

--
Mike Schumann

Darryl Ramm

October 25th 10, 05:02 PM

On Oct 25, 6:32 am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
[snip]
>
> > Again the devil is in the details.
>
> > Where is the STC that allows a NavWorx ADS600-B to be installed in a
> > certified glider to comply with the new FAA STC requirements announced
> > this August? (yes an experiential glider can get away without this).
> > The NavWorx ADS600-B transceiver is TSO as a UAT transceiver but its
> > built in GPS source does not meet the TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS
> > requirements to drive ADS-B data-out for the 2020 carriage mandate.
> > The NavWorx products were intended to have one of these higher end GPS
> > systems connected to it to meet the full 2020 carriage mandates for
> > powered aircraft but be usable now without that (which could easily
> > double or more their cost today and increase power consumption). And
> > that certainly seemed a good idea (and still doable for experimental
> > aircraft) but it looks like the FAA may have other ideas for certified
> > aircraft... since the FAA recently instituted this new STC requirement
> > it is not clear to me whether the FAA has any intention of allowing
> > STC approval for an install that does not meet the 2020 carriage
> > mandate requirements. And even if gliders were not otherwise required
> > to meet those GPS requirements. I've just about given up trying to
> > navigate this FAA mess, but then I'm not pushing people to adopt ADS-B
> > data-out now -- but Mike you are so maybe you can explain this actual
> > situation here. Will the FAA allow a STC to be developed for install
> > in a glider with a non-TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS? And who is funding the
> > development of that STC for installation of a NavWorx ADS600-B UAT in
> > a certified glider? Which gliders? Or any idea when the FAA plans to
> > drop the STC requirement and allow field approval/337 installs?
>
> > TIS-B will likely work well where there will be good GBT (ADS-B base
> > station) and radar coverage and with classic GA style aircraft
> > separation. But there won't be TIS-B coverage in many critical areas
> > such as many GA airport traffic patterns and other areas where I worry
> > about GA traffic - again that's not an overall slight on TIS-B but
> > pilots need to look at this coverage where they fly and be aware as
> > well when the TIS-B support is rolling out for their en-route (pretty
> > soon for most people) and approach/TRACON radar coverage (now for a
> > very few, over the next few years for most).
>
> > If you just fly a glider like a GA aircraft and never fly close to
> > other glider etc. then things are simpler, but most of us end up
> > flying in ways that cause some specific traffic display/threat warning
> > challenges. Again this UAT solution relies on a third party display/
> > warning system that processes data from the UAT transceiver. That
> > system likely needs to be optimized/designed for the type of flying
> > gliders do, and the applies to TIS-B data as well. To see why...
> > consider the case of flying within a short distance of other gliders
> > who are transponder equipped. This is not necessarily in the same
> > thermal, it could be a fraction of a mile or so away. But there is
> > more uncertainty with a SSR derived location data pumped through TIS-B
> > than there is with a GPS location based ADS-B direct or ADS-R (relay)
> > signal. Just how the traffic display/threat warning system handles
> > that situation might be critical but its may be something that only
> > somebody designing a system for gliders will worry about. In many
> > cases when a TIS-B based systems sees your glider buddy getting close
> > the best it may be be able to do is just throw up it hands and say
> > "threat nearby at altitude xxxx" it won't be able to give direction
> > data. And you don't want it to keep false warning you about your
> > glider buddies so you want some way to suppress that warning unless
> > they get really close (hopefully with an altitude and range margins
> > you can set) and an easy way to suppress recurring warnings and you
> > want those settings separate for TIS-B than ADS-B direct/ADS-R. The
> > devil again, is in the details. Who is going to get this right for UAT
> > traffic display/threat warning for a glider cockpit?
>
> > I believe that TIS-B is a useful add-on service for some GA folks who
> > can afford it and fly in the right areas. I'm more dubious that is is
> > financially justified in gliders now. This stuff may be interesting to
> > pilots if they can manage to legally install a UAT transceiver and
> > third party display/processor system, afford the thousands of dollars
> > purchase and install cost (could be over $5k or more with TSO GPS and
> > all the STC driven costs?), can power the system (over 1 amp with
> > display and TSO complaint GPS) and they need to check out that traffic
> > display/threat processing system indeed will meet the needs of their
> > glider cockpit/flying environment.
>
> > Mike if these things are here now and do TIS-B so well to solve the GA
> > traffic concerns you have mentioned so the obvious question is have
> > you purchased a NavWorx ADS600-Receiver? How have you legally
> > installed it in your glider? What traffic/display hardware are you
> > using and how well does it handle things like TIS-B when flying near
> > and thermalling with transponder equipped gliders or other UAT
> > equipped gliders? Seems like a research project not a product ready to
> > sell (to the glider market) to me.
>
> > Darryl
>
> From what I see on the Navworx web site, the ADS600-B is NOT TSO'd,
> even though it is FCC approved. I'm don't claim to be an expert on FAA
> issues regarding installation of equipment in aircraft, so I have no
> idea what that means.
>
> I suspect that the current non TSO'd Navworx box will not meet the 2020
> ADS-B rule. I suspect that you could install it in a certified glider
> as a portable device, like you would a Garmin 496, without any trouble
> (FAA trouble that is). However, the unit obviously doesn't look like it
> was designed for this. I don't know what the ramifications are of a
> permanent install.

Oh right the NavWorx ADS600-B is not TSO'ed just "designed to be" well
they better get cracking on that if they expect the FAA to let it be
installed in any certified aircraft under the current "need a STC"
requirement. I don't believe the FAA will grant a STC for a ADS-B data-
out device that is not already TSO'ed. The FAA is obviously being
paranoid/covering their ass on all ADS-B data-out compliance stuff. So
the market for the ADS600-B appears to be experimental aircraft only
until they develop TSO and STC approvals. Presuming a small company
can afford to do all that, maybe they just focus on experimental. They
have FreeFlight coming with competitive products - based on the Mitre
prototype (but be ready for the sticker shock, especially if it is an
install in a certified glider that looks like it requires an STC/
TSO'ed product) and FreeFlight is certainly pursuing full TSO approval
and differentiates their TSO and non TSO products for the experiential
and cerrified markets. No talk from FreeFlight of "portable" installs.
And FreeFlight has experience with STC approvals for their (expensive)
TSO'ed GPS units so presumably that likely helps them push ahead on
TSO approval for their ADS-B products. I'll drop them an email and get
their take on the TSO and STC approval situation of their and the
NavWorx products.

How the hell do you connect an ADS-B transceiver requiring a
connection to the aircraft's static line and call it a portable
install? It would be interesting to have the FAAs take on that. The
ADS600-B was clearly designed for fixed install. It needs antennas and
a external power etc. How does all that get packaged for a portable
install? And some of those issues are what the SSA was supposed to be
working on. Where is that research project at? The portable installs
that NavWorx talk about are likely their portable ADS-B *receiver*
products that come with a stub antenna and no need to connect to ships
static designed to stick on the top of an aircraft's glareshield (but
no ADS-B data-out no reliable TIS-B/ADS-R, ....). I expect the market
now for those receivers is as FIS-B (e.g. weather, TFR) receivers.

> You are certainly correct that installation of this kind of equipment in
> a glider (or any aircraft), at this stage of the product / regulatory
> life cycle should be treated as a research project. The same applies to
> PowerFlarm when it initially starts shipping.

No the regulatory quagmire that I'm pointing out does not apply *at
all* to the PowerFLARM. The whole point of not doing an ADS-B data-out
device was to avoid this mess. An approach that some other ADS-B
companies like SkyRadar is also taking.

PowerFLARM was developed for our market, Flarm have thousands and
thousands of existing units in the market and that company already has
done the research (real academic R&D not just software/hardware
development) to build the products to meets our technical market needs
I've talked about before. I suspect most pilots who want PowerFLARM
today share my views on this - which is I want it for the Flarm and
PCAS capability, and ADS-B data-in is icing on the cake for now and I
don't have high expectations for ADS-B overall since it is still in
its early days and there is very little data-out equipage. There will
be enough hairy bits around ADS-B that any ADS-B product is going to
need to be improved over time. I want to make sure the company to do
that will still be around to do so and has any technical and financial
interest in meeting the technical needs of the glider market.
So to try to summarize the situation with the NavWorx ADS600-B I'll
state the following and anybody can coorectly with factual data...

No TSO, No STC so no install in any certified glider
No known work to establish an STC for certified glider installs
Pesky things like > 1 amp power consumption for a systems install
No threat/processing display system intended for glider applications
(e.g. suitable false alarm reduction, compatibility with popular
flight computers/soaring software, no contest/stealth mode, no IGC
flight recorder, ...)
No vendor or third party company developing a threat/processing
display system intended for glider applications
No vendor experience or any vendor commitment for developing products
for the glider market
No installs in any gliders (let me know if there are...)
No purchase himself of a ADS600-B by Mike Schumann

Glad this is the "simple" and "available now" solution we all
apparently need. BTW I have a bridge for sale if anybody is
interested.

Darryl

noel.wade

October 25th 10, 06:40 PM

Why haven't we started selling ringside tickets to these? Or at least
get a TV deal going on?

I say we get one of those UFC Octagons and throw Darryl and Mike into
the ring to see which one emerges victorious! "Two men enter, one man
leaves..."

It'd be a hell of a lot more entertaining than all the political
debates & ads on TV right now...

--Noel

Wayne Paul

October 25th 10, 06:55 PM

"noel.wade" > wrote in message ...
> Why haven't we started selling ringside tickets to these? Or at least
> get a TV deal going on?
>
> I say we get one of those UFC Octagons and throw Darryl and Mike into
> the ring to see which one emerges victorious! "Two men enter, one man
> leaves..."
>
> It'd be a hell of a lot more entertaining than all the political
> debates & ads on TV right now...
>
> --Noel

I agree. This series has extended well past the point were learning and understanding occurs. Like religion and politics each has established their position and have anchored it in concrete so it will withstand the onslaught of other's opinions.

Wayne

Peter Purdie[_3_]

October 25th 10, 07:07 PM

Like Betamax and VHS, the market will decide.

At 17:55 25 October 2010, Wayne Paul wrote:
>
>"noel.wade" wrote in message =
...=
>
>> Why haven't we started selling ringside tickets to these? Or at
least
>> get a TV deal going on?
>>=20
>> I say we get one of those UFC Octagons and throw Darryl and Mike into
>> the ring to see which one emerges victorious! "Two men enter, one
man
>> leaves..."
>>=20
>> It'd be a hell of a lot more entertaining than all the political
>> debates & ads on TV right now...
>>=20
>> --Noel
>
>I agree. This series has extended well past the point were learning and
=
>understanding occurs. Like religion and politics each has established =
>their position and have anchored it in concrete so it will withstand the
=
>onslaught of other's opinions.
>
>Wayne
>

Darryl Ramm

October 25th 10, 07:08 PM

On Oct 25, 10:40*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Why haven't we started selling ringside tickets to these? *Or at least
> get a TV deal going on?
>
> I say we get one of those UFC Octagons and throw Darryl and Mike into
> the ring to see which one emerges victorious! *"Two men enter, one man
> leaves..."
>
> It'd be a hell of a lot more entertaining than all the political
> debates & ads on TV right now...
>
> --Noel

Noel, sorry you are late it already is being arranged and its a lucha
libre tag-team event. Dave Nadler, John Cochrane and myself are out
shopping for costumes right now (but Dave is having a bit of a problem
finding tights in his size). Not sure how tag-team works when you are
up against a single opponent. Mike might come as "UAT man" but I hear
plans to do that are on hold pending costume approval by the FAA.

--

Sorry to inflict this on folks here, but it is a saftey issue (and we
have had several glider pilots killed in mid-air collisions in the USA
this year). And collision avoidance and especially ADS-B stuff can be
confusingly complex, and suffering from a pile of misinformation that
needs to be corrected.

Darryl

sisu1a

October 25th 10, 07:22 PM

> Nadler, Cochrane and myself are out shopping for costumes right now
>(but Dave is having a bit of a problem finding tights in his size). Not sure
>how tag-team works when you are up against a single opponent. *Mike
>might come as "UAT man" but I hear plans to do that are on hold
>pending costume approval by the FAA.

Soooo, should we expect to see you guys in full attire at the upcoming
PASCO seminar/Halloween banquet? Do you think UAT man's costume will
be approved by the 30th? I will be very disappoint if not...

-Paul

Mike Schumann

October 25th 10, 08:02 PM

On 10/25/2010 12:02 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Oct 25, 6:32 am, Mike >
> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>>> Again the devil is in the details.
>>
>>> Where is the STC that allows a NavWorx ADS600-B to be installed in a
>>> certified glider to comply with the new FAA STC requirements announced
>>> this August? (yes an experiential glider can get away without this).
>>> The NavWorx ADS600-B transceiver is TSO as a UAT transceiver but its
>>> built in GPS source does not meet the TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS
>>> requirements to drive ADS-B data-out for the 2020 carriage mandate.
>>> The NavWorx products were intended to have one of these higher end GPS
>>> systems connected to it to meet the full 2020 carriage mandates for
>>> powered aircraft but be usable now without that (which could easily
>>> double or more their cost today and increase power consumption). And
>>> that certainly seemed a good idea (and still doable for experimental
>>> aircraft) but it looks like the FAA may have other ideas for certified
>>> aircraft... since the FAA recently instituted this new STC requirement
>>> it is not clear to me whether the FAA has any intention of allowing
>>> STC approval for an install that does not meet the 2020 carriage
>>> mandate requirements. And even if gliders were not otherwise required
>>> to meet those GPS requirements. I've just about given up trying to
>>> navigate this FAA mess, but then I'm not pushing people to adopt ADS-B
>>> data-out now -- but Mike you are so maybe you can explain this actual
>>> situation here. Will the FAA allow a STC to be developed for install
>>> in a glider with a non-TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS? And who is funding the
>>> development of that STC for installation of a NavWorx ADS600-B UAT in
>>> a certified glider? Which gliders? Or any idea when the FAA plans to
>>> drop the STC requirement and allow field approval/337 installs?
>>
>>> TIS-B will likely work well where there will be good GBT (ADS-B base
>>> station) and radar coverage and with classic GA style aircraft
>>> separation. But there won't be TIS-B coverage in many critical areas
>>> such as many GA airport traffic patterns and other areas where I worry
>>> about GA traffic - again that's not an overall slight on TIS-B but
>>> pilots need to look at this coverage where they fly and be aware as
>>> well when the TIS-B support is rolling out for their en-route (pretty
>>> soon for most people) and approach/TRACON radar coverage (now for a
>>> very few, over the next few years for most).
>>
>>> If you just fly a glider like a GA aircraft and never fly close to
>>> other glider etc. then things are simpler, but most of us end up
>>> flying in ways that cause some specific traffic display/threat warning
>>> challenges. Again this UAT solution relies on a third party display/
>>> warning system that processes data from the UAT transceiver. That
>>> system likely needs to be optimized/designed for the type of flying
>>> gliders do, and the applies to TIS-B data as well. To see why...
>>> consider the case of flying within a short distance of other gliders
>>> who are transponder equipped. This is not necessarily in the same
>>> thermal, it could be a fraction of a mile or so away. But there is
>>> more uncertainty with a SSR derived location data pumped through TIS-B
>>> than there is with a GPS location based ADS-B direct or ADS-R (relay)
>>> signal. Just how the traffic display/threat warning system handles
>>> that situation might be critical but its may be something that only
>>> somebody designing a system for gliders will worry about. In many
>>> cases when a TIS-B based systems sees your glider buddy getting close
>>> the best it may be be able to do is just throw up it hands and say
>>> "threat nearby at altitude xxxx" it won't be able to give direction
>>> data. And you don't want it to keep false warning you about your
>>> glider buddies so you want some way to suppress that warning unless
>>> they get really close (hopefully with an altitude and range margins
>>> you can set) and an easy way to suppress recurring warnings and you
>>> want those settings separate for TIS-B than ADS-B direct/ADS-R. The
>>> devil again, is in the details. Who is going to get this right for UAT
>>> traffic display/threat warning for a glider cockpit?
>>
>>> I believe that TIS-B is a useful add-on service for some GA folks who
>>> can afford it and fly in the right areas. I'm more dubious that is is
>>> financially justified in gliders now. This stuff may be interesting to
>>> pilots if they can manage to legally install a UAT transceiver and
>>> third party display/processor system, afford the thousands of dollars
>>> purchase and install cost (could be over $5k or more with TSO GPS and
>>> all the STC driven costs?), can power the system (over 1 amp with
>>> display and TSO complaint GPS) and they need to check out that traffic
>>> display/threat processing system indeed will meet the needs of their
>>> glider cockpit/flying environment.
>>
>>> Mike if these things are here now and do TIS-B so well to solve the GA
>>> traffic concerns you have mentioned so the obvious question is have
>>> you purchased a NavWorx ADS600-Receiver? How have you legally
>>> installed it in your glider? What traffic/display hardware are you
>>> using and how well does it handle things like TIS-B when flying near
>>> and thermalling with transponder equipped gliders or other UAT
>>> equipped gliders? Seems like a research project not a product ready to
>>> sell (to the glider market) to me.
>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> From what I see on the Navworx web site, the ADS600-B is NOT TSO'd,
>> even though it is FCC approved. I'm don't claim to be an expert on FAA
>> issues regarding installation of equipment in aircraft, so I have no
>> idea what that means.
>>
>> I suspect that the current non TSO'd Navworx box will not meet the 2020
>> ADS-B rule. I suspect that you could install it in a certified glider
>> as a portable device, like you would a Garmin 496, without any trouble
>> (FAA trouble that is). However, the unit obviously doesn't look like it
>> was designed for this. I don't know what the ramifications are of a
>> permanent install.
>
> Oh right the NavWorx ADS600-B is not TSO'ed just "designed to be" well
> they better get cracking on that if they expect the FAA to let it be
> installed in any certified aircraft under the current "need a STC"
> requirement. I don't believe the FAA will grant a STC for a ADS-B data-
> out device that is not already TSO'ed. The FAA is obviously being
> paranoid/covering their ass on all ADS-B data-out compliance stuff. So
> the market for the ADS600-B appears to be experimental aircraft only
> until they develop TSO and STC approvals. Presuming a small company
> can afford to do all that, maybe they just focus on experimental. They
> have FreeFlight coming with competitive products - based on the Mitre
> prototype (but be ready for the sticker shock, especially if it is an
> install in a certified glider that looks like it requires an STC/
> TSO'ed product) and FreeFlight is certainly pursuing full TSO approval
> and differentiates their TSO and non TSO products for the experiential
> and cerrified markets. No talk from FreeFlight of "portable" installs.
> And FreeFlight has experience with STC approvals for their (expensive)
> TSO'ed GPS units so presumably that likely helps them push ahead on
> TSO approval for their ADS-B products. I'll drop them an email and get
> their take on the TSO and STC approval situation of their and the
> NavWorx products.
>
> How the hell do you connect an ADS-B transceiver requiring a
> connection to the aircraft's static line and call it a portable
> install? It would be interesting to have the FAAs take on that. The
> ADS600-B was clearly designed for fixed install. It needs antennas and
> a external power etc. How does all that get packaged for a portable
> install? And some of those issues are what the SSA was supposed to be
> working on. Where is that research project at? The portable installs
> that NavWorx talk about are likely their portable ADS-B *receiver*
> products that come with a stub antenna and no need to connect to ships
> static designed to stick on the top of an aircraft's glareshield (but
> no ADS-B data-out no reliable TIS-B/ADS-R, ....). I expect the market
> now for those receivers is as FIS-B (e.g. weather, TFR) receivers.
>
>> You are certainly correct that installation of this kind of equipment in
>> a glider (or any aircraft), at this stage of the product / regulatory
>> life cycle should be treated as a research project. The same applies to
>> PowerFlarm when it initially starts shipping.
>
> No the regulatory quagmire that I'm pointing out does not apply *at
> all* to the PowerFLARM. The whole point of not doing an ADS-B data-out
> device was to avoid this mess. An approach that some other ADS-B
> companies like SkyRadar is also taking.
>
> PowerFLARM was developed for our market, Flarm have thousands and
> thousands of existing units in the market and that company already has
> done the research (real academic R&D not just software/hardware
> development) to build the products to meets our technical market needs
> I've talked about before. I suspect most pilots who want PowerFLARM
> today share my views on this - which is I want it for the Flarm and
> PCAS capability, and ADS-B data-in is icing on the cake for now and I
> don't have high expectations for ADS-B overall since it is still in
> its early days and there is very little data-out equipage. There will
> be enough hairy bits around ADS-B that any ADS-B product is going to
> need to be improved over time. I want to make sure the company to do
> that will still be around to do so and has any technical and financial
> interest in meeting the technical needs of the glider market.
> So to try to summarize the situation with the NavWorx ADS600-B I'll
> state the following and anybody can coorectly with factual data...
>
> No TSO, No STC so no install in any certified glider
> No known work to establish an STC for certified glider installs
> Pesky things like> 1 amp power consumption for a systems install
> No threat/processing display system intended for glider applications
> (e.g. suitable false alarm reduction, compatibility with popular
> flight computers/soaring software, no contest/stealth mode, no IGC
> flight recorder, ...)
> No vendor or third party company developing a threat/processing
> display system intended for glider applications
> No vendor experience or any vendor commitment for developing products
> for the glider market
> No installs in any gliders (let me know if there are...)
> No purchase himself of a ADS600-B by Mike Schumann
>
> Glad this is the "simple" and "available now" solution we all
> apparently need. BTW I have a bridge for sale if anybody is
> interested.
>
> Darryl

There you go again jumping to conclusions. Whoever said that the
Navworx transceiver was designed for portable installations? Their web
site doesn't say that, nor did I ever suggest that. My only comment was
that one possible way to install this type of device in a certified
glider was as a portable device, with the kaviat that the Navworx box
did not appear to be designed with that in mind.

Just for the record, I am not buying an ADS600-B for a variety of
reasons, some of which have been discussed at length in this thread.
It's a little bit frustrating that I am being vilified by a number of
people for suggesting that the soaring community should be putting the
heat on the FAA to solve the ADS-B mess so that we can move ahead and
get products that are affordable and meet the GA / Soaring communities
needs to market. Instead, what we have is a bunch of people who's view
is that the PowerFLARM savior has come and that their 50% solution is
good enough, so everything is going to be OK.

--
Mike Schumann

brianDG303[_2_]

October 25th 10, 08:28 PM

Dear Mike,
if you are really interested in why there is a reaction to your posts,
you might want to read back through them. They do border on the
offensive at times, And perhaps it is you who are doing the jumping:
your comment "what we have is a bunch of people who's view is that the
PowerFLARM savior has come and that their 50% solution is good enough"
is a pretty good leap. What we have is a bunch of people who think
that IF powerflarm is available by next season and IF enough people
get them, we stand a very good chance of one or two or three fewer
dead glider pilots.

Anyway, I personally think there was value in the discussion, even if
it went on a little long. It is an important topic and your comments
certainly pointed out all the possible downsides of PowerFlarm vs ADS-
B. In my mind immediate large scale adoption of Powerflarm (assuming
the product becomes available) followed by the development a practical
ADS-B option in the future is a best-case scenario. I think where you
are ending up at odds with pretty much everyone is the idea that
powerflarm will push ADS-B aside. Perhaps Powerflarm will just be a
step to ADS-B. In any case, the real issue is glider pilots dying. In
Europe Flarm seems to be helping glider pilots live, and that is the
fact that has gotten our attention.

see you up there, fly safe,

Brian

> > Glad this is the "simple" and "available now" solution we all
> > apparently need. BTW I have a bridge for sale if anybody is
> > interested.
>
> > Darryl
>
> There you go again jumping to conclusions. *Whoever said that the
> Navworx transceiver was designed for portable installations? *Their web
> site doesn't say that, nor did I ever suggest that. *My only comment was
> that one possible way to install this type of device in a certified
> glider was as a portable device, with the kaviat that the Navworx box
> did not appear to be designed with that in mind.
>
> Just for the record, I am not buying an ADS600-B for a variety of
> reasons, some of which have been discussed at length in this thread.
> It's a little bit frustrating that I am being vilified by a number of
> people for suggesting that the soaring community should be putting the
> heat on the FAA to solve the ADS-B mess so that we can move ahead and
> get products that are affordable and meet the GA / Soaring communities
> needs to market. *Instead, what we have is a bunch of people who's view
> is that the PowerFLARM savior has come and that their 50% solution is
> good enough, so everything is going to be OK.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Wayne Paul

October 25th 10, 08:31 PM

OK enough is enough. If you guys want to argue, do it by private email instead of on a global forum.

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message ...
> On 10/25/2010 12:02 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> On Oct 25, 6:32 am, Mike >
>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Again the devil is in the details.
>>>
>>>> Where is the STC that allows a NavWorx ADS600-B to be installed in a
>>>> certified glider to comply with the new FAA STC requirements announced
>>>> this August? (yes an experiential glider can get away without this).
>>>> The NavWorx ADS600-B transceiver is TSO as a UAT transceiver but its
>>>> built in GPS source does not meet the TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS
>>>> requirements to drive ADS-B data-out for the 2020 carriage mandate.
>>>> The NavWorx products were intended to have one of these higher end GPS
>>>> systems connected to it to meet the full 2020 carriage mandates for
>>>> powered aircraft but be usable now without that (which could easily
>>>> double or more their cost today and increase power consumption). And
>>>> that certainly seemed a good idea (and still doable for experimental
>>>> aircraft) but it looks like the FAA may have other ideas for certified
>>>> aircraft... since the FAA recently instituted this new STC requirement
>>>> it is not clear to me whether the FAA has any intention of allowing
>>>> STC approval for an install that does not meet the 2020 carriage
>>>> mandate requirements. And even if gliders were not otherwise required
>>>> to meet those GPS requirements. I've just about given up trying to
>>>> navigate this FAA mess, but then I'm not pushing people to adopt ADS-B
>>>> data-out now -- but Mike you are so maybe you can explain this actual
>>>> situation here. Will the FAA allow a STC to be developed for install
>>>> in a glider with a non-TSO-C145/C146 WAAS GPS? And who is funding the
>>>> development of that STC for installation of a NavWorx ADS600-B UAT in
>>>> a certified glider? Which gliders? Or any idea when the FAA plans to
>>>> drop the STC requirement and allow field approval/337 installs?
>>>
>>>> TIS-B will likely work well where there will be good GBT (ADS-B base
>>>> station) and radar coverage and with classic GA style aircraft
>>>> separation. But there won't be TIS-B coverage in many critical areas
>>>> such as many GA airport traffic patterns and other areas where I worry
>>>> about GA traffic - again that's not an overall slight on TIS-B but
>>>> pilots need to look at this coverage where they fly and be aware as
>>>> well when the TIS-B support is rolling out for their en-route (pretty
>>>> soon for most people) and approach/TRACON radar coverage (now for a
>>>> very few, over the next few years for most).
>>>
>>>> If you just fly a glider like a GA aircraft and never fly close to
>>>> other glider etc. then things are simpler, but most of us end up
>>>> flying in ways that cause some specific traffic display/threat warning
>>>> challenges. Again this UAT solution relies on a third party display/
>>>> warning system that processes data from the UAT transceiver. That
>>>> system likely needs to be optimized/designed for the type of flying
>>>> gliders do, and the applies to TIS-B data as well. To see why...
>>>> consider the case of flying within a short distance of other gliders
>>>> who are transponder equipped. This is not necessarily in the same
>>>> thermal, it could be a fraction of a mile or so away. But there is
>>>> more uncertainty with a SSR derived location data pumped through TIS-B
>>>> than there is with a GPS location based ADS-B direct or ADS-R (relay)
>>>> signal. Just how the traffic display/threat warning system handles
>>>> that situation might be critical but its may be something that only
>>>> somebody designing a system for gliders will worry about. In many
>>>> cases when a TIS-B based systems sees your glider buddy getting close
>>>> the best it may be be able to do is just throw up it hands and say
>>>> "threat nearby at altitude xxxx" it won't be able to give direction
>>>> data. And you don't want it to keep false warning you about your
>>>> glider buddies so you want some way to suppress that warning unless
>>>> they get really close (hopefully with an altitude and range margins
>>>> you can set) and an easy way to suppress recurring warnings and you
>>>> want those settings separate for TIS-B than ADS-B direct/ADS-R. The
>>>> devil again, is in the details. Who is going to get this right for UAT
>>>> traffic display/threat warning for a glider cockpit?
>>>
>>>> I believe that TIS-B is a useful add-on service for some GA folks who
>>>> can afford it and fly in the right areas. I'm more dubious that is is
>>>> financially justified in gliders now. This stuff may be interesting to
>>>> pilots if they can manage to legally install a UAT transceiver and
>>>> third party display/processor system, afford the thousands of dollars
>>>> purchase and install cost (could be over $5k or more with TSO GPS and
>>>> all the STC driven costs?), can power the system (over 1 amp with
>>>> display and TSO complaint GPS) and they need to check out that traffic
>>>> display/threat processing system indeed will meet the needs of their
>>>> glider cockpit/flying environment.
>>>
>>>> Mike if these things are here now and do TIS-B so well to solve the GA
>>>> traffic concerns you have mentioned so the obvious question is have
>>>> you purchased a NavWorx ADS600-Receiver? How have you legally
>>>> installed it in your glider? What traffic/display hardware are you
>>>> using and how well does it handle things like TIS-B when flying near
>>>> and thermalling with transponder equipped gliders or other UAT
>>>> equipped gliders? Seems like a research project not a product ready to
>>>> sell (to the glider market) to me.
>>>
>>>> Darryl
>>>
>>> From what I see on the Navworx web site, the ADS600-B is NOT TSO'd,
>>> even though it is FCC approved. I'm don't claim to be an expert on FAA
>>> issues regarding installation of equipment in aircraft, so I have no
>>> idea what that means.
>>>
>>> I suspect that the current non TSO'd Navworx box will not meet the 2020
>>> ADS-B rule. I suspect that you could install it in a certified glider
>>> as a portable device, like you would a Garmin 496, without any trouble
>>> (FAA trouble that is). However, the unit obviously doesn't look like it
>>> was designed for this. I don't know what the ramifications are of a
>>> permanent install.
>>
>> Oh right the NavWorx ADS600-B is not TSO'ed just "designed to be" well
>> they better get cracking on that if they expect the FAA to let it be
>> installed in any certified aircraft under the current "need a STC"
>> requirement. I don't believe the FAA will grant a STC for a ADS-B data-
>> out device that is not already TSO'ed. The FAA is obviously being
>> paranoid/covering their ass on all ADS-B data-out compliance stuff. So
>> the market for the ADS600-B appears to be experimental aircraft only
>> until they develop TSO and STC approvals. Presuming a small company
>> can afford to do all that, maybe they just focus on experimental. They
>> have FreeFlight coming with competitive products - based on the Mitre
>> prototype (but be ready for the sticker shock, especially if it is an
>> install in a certified glider that looks like it requires an STC/
>> TSO'ed product) and FreeFlight is certainly pursuing full TSO approval
>> and differentiates their TSO and non TSO products for the experiential
>> and cerrified markets. No talk from FreeFlight of "portable" installs.
>> And FreeFlight has experience with STC approvals for their (expensive)
>> TSO'ed GPS units so presumably that likely helps them push ahead on
>> TSO approval for their ADS-B products. I'll drop them an email and get
>> their take on the TSO and STC approval situation of their and the
>> NavWorx products.
>>
>> How the hell do you connect an ADS-B transceiver requiring a
>> connection to the aircraft's static line and call it a portable
>> install? It would be interesting to have the FAAs take on that. The
>> ADS600-B was clearly designed for fixed install. It needs antennas and
>> a external power etc. How does all that get packaged for a portable
>> install? And some of those issues are what the SSA was supposed to be
>> working on. Where is that research project at? The portable installs
>> that NavWorx talk about are likely their portable ADS-B *receiver*
>> products that come with a stub antenna and no need to connect to ships
>> static designed to stick on the top of an aircraft's glareshield (but
>> no ADS-B data-out no reliable TIS-B/ADS-R, ....). I expect the market
>> now for those receivers is as FIS-B (e.g. weather, TFR) receivers.
>>
>>> You are certainly correct that installation of this kind of equipment in
>>> a glider (or any aircraft), at this stage of the product / regulatory
>>> life cycle should be treated as a research project. The same applies to
>>> PowerFlarm when it initially starts shipping.
>>
>> No the regulatory quagmire that I'm pointing out does not apply *at
>> all* to the PowerFLARM. The whole point of not doing an ADS-B data-out
>> device was to avoid this mess. An approach that some other ADS-B
>> companies like SkyRadar is also taking.
>>
>> PowerFLARM was developed for our market, Flarm have thousands and
>> thousands of existing units in the market and that company already has
>> done the research (real academic R&D not just software/hardware
>> development) to build the products to meets our technical market needs
>> I've talked about before. I suspect most pilots who want PowerFLARM
>> today share my views on this - which is I want it for the Flarm and
>> PCAS capability, and ADS-B data-in is icing on the cake for now and I
>> don't have high expectations for ADS-B overall since it is still in
>> its early days and there is very little data-out equipage. There will
>> be enough hairy bits around ADS-B that any ADS-B product is going to
>> need to be improved over time. I want to make sure the company to do
>> that will still be around to do so and has any technical and financial
>> interest in meeting the technical needs of the glider market.
>> So to try to summarize the situation with the NavWorx ADS600-B I'll
>> state the following and anybody can coorectly with factual data...
>>
>> No TSO, No STC so no install in any certified glider
>> No known work to establish an STC for certified glider installs
>> Pesky things like> 1 amp power consumption for a systems install
>> No threat/processing display system intended for glider applications
>> (e.g. suitable false alarm reduction, compatibility with popular
>> flight computers/soaring software, no contest/stealth mode, no IGC
>> flight recorder, ...)
>> No vendor or third party company developing a threat/processing
>> display system intended for glider applications
>> No vendor experience or any vendor commitment for developing products
>> for the glider market
>> No installs in any gliders (let me know if there are...)
>> No purchase himself of a ADS600-B by Mike Schumann
>>
>> Glad this is the "simple" and "available now" solution we all
>> apparently need. BTW I have a bridge for sale if anybody is
>> interested.
>>
>> Darryl
>
> There you go again jumping to conclusions. Whoever said that the
> Navworx transceiver was designed for portable installations? Their web
> site doesn't say that, nor did I ever suggest that. My only comment was
> that one possible way to install this type of device in a certified
> glider was as a portable device, with the kaviat that the Navworx box
> did not appear to be designed with that in mind.
>
> Just for the record, I am not buying an ADS600-B for a variety of
> reasons, some of which have been discussed at length in this thread.
> It's a little bit frustrating that I am being vilified by a number of
> people for suggesting that the soaring community should be putting the
> heat on the FAA to solve the ADS-B mess so that we can move ahead and
> get products that are affordable and meet the GA / Soaring communities
> needs to market. Instead, what we have is a bunch of people who's view
> is that the PowerFLARM savior has come and that their 50% solution is
> good enough, so everything is going to be OK.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Andy[_10_]

October 26th 10, 02:51 AM

On Oct 25, 12:28*pm, brianDG303 > wrote:
> Dear Mike,
> if you are really interested in why there is a reaction to your posts,
> you might want to read back through them. They do border on the
> offensive at times, And perhaps it is you who are doing the jumping:
> your comment "what we have is a bunch of people who's view is that the
> PowerFLARM savior has come and that their 50% solution is good enough"
> is a pretty good leap. What we have is a bunch of people who think
> that IF powerflarm is available by next season and IF enough people
> get them, we stand a very good chance of one or two or three fewer
> dead glider pilots.
>
> Anyway, I personally think there was value in the discussion, even if
> it went on a little long. It is an important topic and your comments
> certainly pointed out all the possible downsides of PowerFlarm vs ADS-
> B. In my mind immediate large scale adoption of Powerflarm (assuming
> the product becomes available) followed by the development a practical
> ADS-B option in the future is a best-case scenario. I think where you
> are ending up at odds with pretty much everyone is the idea that
> powerflarm will push ADS-B aside. Perhaps Powerflarm will just be a
> step to ADS-B. In any case, the real issue is glider pilots dying. In
> Europe Flarm seems to be helping glider pilots live, and that is the
> fact that has gotten our attention.
>
> see you up there, fly safe,
>
> Brian
>

It's a classic case of someone with an engineering background debating
someone with a legal background - one is an analyst the other is an
advocate. One is deductive, the other is inductive (e.g. facts ->
analysis -> answer vs. answer -> supporting facts and analysis). Both
have their place in the world. You just have to decide which thought
process makes the most sense in any given situation because they
aren't equally valid in every case.

I do agree that this is an important safety issue so direct debate on
the details of such a complex topic are entirely appropriate, even if
it gets a bit heated. I'm thankful we have people in the community
who are willing to drill into all the butt-numbing details and explain
it to the rest of us.

It's important.

9B

ray conlon

October 26th 10, 03:28 AM

On Oct 25, 9:51*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Oct 25, 12:28*pm, brianDG303 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Mike,
> > if you are really interested in why there is a reaction to your posts,
> > you might want to read back through them. They do border on the
> > offensive at times, And perhaps it is you who are doing the jumping:
> > your comment "what we have is a bunch of people who's view is that the
> > PowerFLARM savior has come and that their 50% solution is good enough"
> > is a pretty good leap. What we have is a bunch of people who think
> > that IF powerflarm is available by next season and IF enough people
> > get them, we stand a very good chance of one or two or three fewer
> > dead glider pilots.
>
> > Anyway, I personally think there was value in the discussion, even if
> > it went on a little long. It is an important topic and your comments
> > certainly pointed out all the possible downsides of PowerFlarm vs ADS-
> > B. In my mind immediate large scale adoption of Powerflarm (assuming
> > the product becomes available) followed by the development a practical
> > ADS-B option in the future is a best-case scenario. I think where you
> > are ending up at odds with pretty much everyone is the idea that
> > powerflarm will push ADS-B aside. Perhaps Powerflarm will just be a
> > step to ADS-B. In any case, the real issue is glider pilots dying. In
> > Europe Flarm seems to be helping glider pilots live, and that is the
> > fact that has gotten our attention.
>
> > see you up there, fly safe,
>
> > Brian
>
> It's a classic case of someone with an engineering background debating
> someone with a legal background - one is an analyst the other is an
> advocate. One is deductive, the other is inductive (e.g. facts ->
> analysis -> answer vs. answer -> supporting facts and analysis). Both
> have their place in the world. You just have to decide which thought
> process makes the most sense in any given situation because they
> aren't equally valid in every case.
>
> I do agree that this is an important safety issue so direct debate on
> the details of such a complex topic are entirely appropriate, even if
> it gets a bit heated. *I'm thankful we have people in the community
> who are willing to drill into all the butt-numbing details and explain
> it to the rest of us.
>
> It's important.
>
> 9B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No vendor can engineer,build a prototype, submit it to the FAA and
FCC, get it certified, and produce itn and get libility insurance
coverage for the certain lawsuits that will follow,for a limited
market, (there are what maybe, 5000 gliders in the USA) assuming 1/2
of them would by the ADS-B system for gliders, and market it at a
"resonable" or "cheap" ...cost...only the FAA can take 1935 fuel
induction and magneto system from a 1935 John Deere tractor and stamp
'aircraft' on them and raise the cost of them to thousands of
dollars...check your tow plane....