PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?

[bumper[_4_]]

While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
aircraft as being displayed as a threat. I'm not entirely sure how PF
really deals with this, but it did prompt the idea of turning the
glider's transponder to standby during the tow. And how best to
accomplish this while minimizing the risk of the glider pilot
forgetting to switch the transponder back to ALT after release?

It’s accepted practice to turn off all but one transponder when
formation flying with power aircraft. This to prevent each transponder
from replying to ATC or TCAS at the same time and each stepping on the
other so the receive end gets interference. This probably has not been
much of a problem with a tow plane and glider because traditionally
few tow planes have had transponders.

At Minden, NV, near a busy terminal area and near approach paths into
Reno, all of the tow planes have transponders, and most of the gliders
do as well. Yet we have not adopted a policy of leaving the glider
transponder in standby mode until tow release so as to prevent the
multiple transponder proximity conflict.

Perhaps a change in our normal tug to glider “radio check” prior to
launch: Tug says “transponder on standby” to glider prior to launch,
glider responds, “on standby”. At tow release, glider uses the term,
“transponder on” instead of the “off tow” or “thanks for the tow” used
currently. If glider does not use that phraseology, tow plane
responds, “check transponder on”.

Comments and suggestions . . .

bumper
zz
Minden, NV

[bumper[_4_]]

On Feb 21, 9:14*am, Tim Newport-Peace ]> wrote:
>
>
> Not sure about PowerFlarm, but on EU Flarm the is an option to suppress
> visual and audible warnings, but still Tx data.
>
> Are you operating in 'Nearest' or 'Collision' mode?
>
> Perhaps the answer is RTFM


No, PowerFlarm doesn't have a "collision" mode that is manually
switched. It does use logic to suppress non-collision likely gliders
that are sharing a thermal, but this is an automatic function. Also,
we are not yet dealing with PowerFlarm vs. PowerFlarm, and I've only
done ground tests with two portable units on a collision course in
golf carts :c) as in the US we are just starting to equip and there
are very few airborne PF's, except at contests.

My use of PF so far, is using only the PCAS functions (where the PF
displays only range and altitude of a Mode-C equipped threat
aircraft).

BTW, I did RTFM . . . several times, honest.

bumper

[Mark Zivley[_2_]]

If the PowerFlarm had an option to surpress 1202 transponder codes in
the US that might help. You eliminate the false alarms from gliders
with the hope that those same gliders adopt powerflarm. Knowing the
adoption rate of PowerFlarm at your gliderport of those gliders with
transponders would allow an informed/calculated decision which would
eliminate false alarms and therefore preserve the value of the PCAS
warnings.


On Feb 21, 11:38*am, bumper > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 9:14*am, Tim Newport-Peace ]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Not sure about PowerFlarm, but on EU Flarm the is an option to suppress
> > visual and audible warnings, but still Tx data.
>
> > Are you operating in 'Nearest' or 'Collision' mode?
>
> > Perhaps the answer is RTFM
>
> No, PowerFlarm doesn't have a "collision" mode that is manually
> switched. It does use logic to suppress non-collision likely gliders
> that are sharing a thermal, but this is an automatic function. Also,
> we are not yet dealing with PowerFlarm vs. PowerFlarm, and I've only
> done ground tests with two portable units on a collision course in
> golf carts :c) as in the US we are just starting to equip and there
> are very few airborne PF's, except at contests.
>
> My use of PF so far, is using only the PCAS functions (where the PF
> displays only range and altitude of a Mode-C equipped threat
> aircraft).
>
> BTW, I did RTFM . . . several times, honest.
>
> bumper

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

I suggest a second sticker on the vario.

My first sticker says “gear”. I stick it on the vario when launching.
If it still there when I come off tow and start thermalling etc., it
impedes my view of the vario and reminds me to raise the
undercarriage. When I have done the latter, I move the sticker to the
airbrake/spoiler handle. If it is still there when I approach for
landing, I have forgotten to lower the gear. When I do lower the gear,
I move the sticker back to the vario as I don’t need it for approach
and landing.

For the USA transponder/PowerFlarm, I would have a second sticker on
the vario saying transponder/PowerFlarm. If still there when looking
for lift, it would mean I forgot to switch them on after pulling off
tow.

Cheap, fairly foolproof, and the only time it let me down (or rather I
goofed) was when I forgot to put the sticker on the vario in the first
place, and ended up landing without lowering the gear.

Chris N.

[Dan Marotta]

But, but, but... A glider on tow is not on a collision course with the tug.
So why is PowerFlar alerting on the glider trailing behind? Why wouldn't it
alwo alert on a glider behind you in a thermal?

I'm still not convinced...


"Chris Nicholas" > wrote in message
...
I suggest a second sticker on the vario.

My first sticker says “gear”. I stick it on the vario when launching.
If it still there when I come off tow and start thermalling etc., it
impedes my view of the vario and reminds me to raise the
undercarriage. When I have done the latter, I move the sticker to the
airbrake/spoiler handle. If it is still there when I approach for
landing, I have forgotten to lower the gear. When I do lower the gear,
I move the sticker back to the vario as I don’t need it for approach
and landing.

For the USA transponder/PowerFlarm, I would have a second sticker on
the vario saying transponder/PowerFlarm. If still there when looking
for lift, it would mean I forgot to switch them on after pulling off
tow.

Cheap, fairly foolproof, and the only time it let me down (or rather I
goofed) was when I forgot to put the sticker on the vario in the first
place, and ended up landing without lowering the gear.

Chris N.

[Ramy]

On Feb 21, 4:19*pm, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> But, but, but... *A glider on tow is not on a collision course with the tug.
> So why is PowerFlar alerting on the glider trailing behind? *Why wouldn't it
> alwo alert on a glider behind you in a thermal?
>
> I'm still not convinced...
>
> "Chris Nicholas" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> I suggest a second sticker on the vario.
>
> My first sticker says “gear”. I stick it on the vario when launching.
> If it still there when I come off tow and start thermalling etc., it
> impedes my view of the vario and reminds me to raise the
> undercarriage. When I have done the latter, I move the sticker to the
> airbrake/spoiler handle. If it is still there when I approach for
> landing, I have forgotten to lower the gear. When I do lower the gear,
> I move the sticker back to the vario as I don’t need it for approach
> and landing.
>
> For the USA transponder/PowerFlarm, I would have a second sticker on
> the vario saying transponder/PowerFlarm. If still there when looking
> for lift, it would mean I forgot to switch them on after pulling off
> tow.
>
> Cheap, fairly foolproof, and the only time it let me down (or rather I
> goofed) was when I forgot to put the sticker on the vario in the first
> place, and ended up landing without lowering the gear.
>
> Chris N.

To clarify, Bumper is only talking about the mode C alert, NOT flarm
alert. Mode C only alerts you of the nearest transponder equipped
aircraft (the glider in this case), not of a collision alert. Would
have been great if it was capable of displaying more than one threat,
than there wouldn't be an issue.

Ramy

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

As Ramy says. Also, if both have PowerFlarm and Transponder, the
glider PF will only show the tug transponder as the nearest and will
not alert to a possible approaching transponder.

As the combination is one entity in air law (I assume it is in the USA
as it is in the UK) it is logical to leave all unambiguous alerts to
the tug pilot. Once separated, the glider needs its own alerts, and
the tug will soon be away.

(Because I have separate PCAS and Flarm in my glider, and no
transponder, I don’t have the problem.)

Not that you can’t still have collisions – I know of at least one UK
fatal collision between a tug and the glider it had not long since
towed up. Be careful out there.

Chris N.

[bumper[_4_]]

A possible solution would be to have the PF ignore a constant close-
in, almost same altitude threat (i.e.the glider) after a reasonable
period of time, say a couple of minutes. After staging, this would
have the tow plane PF start to ignore the glider's Mode-C either on
the take off roll or early in the climb. Additionally a software fix
might be tied in to the aircraft type and function only if the "tow
plane" option is menu selected.

I've contacted PowerFlarmUS re. this and some other suggestions and
they are responsive. I wasn't meaning to do an end run, but rather
wanted input from others to confirm if what I'm experiencing is indeed
a problem needing addressing. The seperate issue of tug and glider
transponders interfering with one another while on tow has no fix, I'm
aware of, other than leaving one transponder in standby for the
duration of the tow.

bumper

[bumper[_4_]]

At SoaringNV's staff meeting yesterday, we discussed the PowerFlarm
and transponder issue. It was quickly decided that having the glider
transponder on STBY until release would not be workable due to the
fact we often have non-pilots sitting behind the main instrument
panel.

So, yesterday we tried having the tow plane squawk standby until tow
release, then switch to ALT. This works fine in terms of not having
the transponders interfere with each other . . . but does nothing to
resolve the PF beng in constant alarm due to the collision it thinks
might occur at any time between tug and glider.

But, this thread brought elicited a private response reminding me what
I already knew, and that is that the FARs require a transponder be on
at all times if its installed, except as directed by ATC etc. ATC will
almost always direct that all but the "lead" aircraft squawk standby
when formation flying, something that we do often while towing.

To try and resolve this I called Reno Approach who quickly shuffled me
off to NorCal Approach. Talked with a front line manager there who
advised us to do exactly what I suggested. i.e. Leave the tug
transponder squawking STBY until tow release and then don't forget to
switch to ALT. Now he did say that even if we left both on ALT, they
would probably still be able to see us*. But then added that the data
displayed would be confused and would potentially cause conflict
alarms as well.

*A secondary concern is that TCAS equipped aircraft will get good data
from our transponder/s.

bumper
zz
Minden

[Dan Marotta]

Not to sound like a smartass, but have you considered leaving the PowerFlarm
off until release? Is the collision potential so great over your usual tow
route/altitude that you don't feel safe without it?


"bumper" > wrote in message
...
> At SoaringNV's staff meeting yesterday, we discussed the PowerFlarm
> and transponder issue. It was quickly decided that having the glider
> transponder on STBY until release would not be workable due to the
> fact we often have non-pilots sitting behind the main instrument
> panel.
>
> So, yesterday we tried having the tow plane squawk standby until tow
> release, then switch to ALT. This works fine in terms of not having
> the transponders interfere with each other . . . but does nothing to
> resolve the PF beng in constant alarm due to the collision it thinks
> might occur at any time between tug and glider.
>
> But, this thread brought elicited a private response reminding me what
> I already knew, and that is that the FARs require a transponder be on
> at all times if its installed, except as directed by ATC etc. ATC will
> almost always direct that all but the "lead" aircraft squawk standby
> when formation flying, something that we do often while towing.
>
> To try and resolve this I called Reno Approach who quickly shuffled me
> off to NorCal Approach. Talked with a front line manager there who
> advised us to do exactly what I suggested. i.e. Leave the tug
> transponder squawking STBY until tow release and then don't forget to
> switch to ALT. Now he did say that even if we left both on ALT, they
> would probably still be able to see us*. But then added that the data
> displayed would be confused and would potentially cause conflict
> alarms as well.
>
> *A secondary concern is that TCAS equipped aircraft will get good data
> from our transponder/s.
>
> bumper
> zz
> Minden

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Feb 23, 5:47*pm, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> Not to sound like a smartass, but have you considered leaving the PowerFlarm
> off until release? *Is the collision potential so great over your usual tow
> route/altitude that you don't feel safe without it?

I've seen quite a few incidents in which the glider pilot picked up
the collision threat before the tow pilot.
This sounds like a pretty straightforward issue for flarm to solve --
writing software to know "this is the towplane, you're on tow, ignore
it" doesn't sound like rocket science.
John Cochrane

[bumper[_4_]]

On Feb 23, 3:47*pm, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> Not to sound like a smartass, but have you considered leaving the PowerFlarm
> off until release? *Is the collision potential so great over your usual tow
> route/altitude that you don't feel safe without it?
>

That's kind of like saying I know my street and neighborhood really
well, so I won't bother to fasten my seat belt until I get a few miles
down the road. It's not so much a matter of not feeling safe without
the PowerFlarm, but rather of being safer with it. Statistically, at
least for power planes, most mid-airs occur within a few miles of
airports, just like most car accidents occur within 5 miles of home.

bumper

[Andrzej Kobus]

> While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
> PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
> glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
> prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
> aircraft as being displayed as a threat.

Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?

Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.

[Dan Marotta]

Agreed, software is simple for those who know how. It's just getting all
the wishes implemented.

BTW, I was referring to the tow plane's flarm. The glider could warn the
tug of any conflicts, couldn't he? Then I remember the incident in Boulder
a few years back...


"John Cochrane" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 23, 5:47 pm, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> Not to sound like a smartass, but have you considered leaving the
> PowerFlarm
> off until release? Is the collision potential so great over your usual tow
> route/altitude that you don't feel safe without it?

I've seen quite a few incidents in which the glider pilot picked up
the collision threat before the tow pilot.
This sounds like a pretty straightforward issue for flarm to solve --
writing software to know "this is the towplane, you're on tow, ignore
it" doesn't sound like rocket science.
John Cochrane

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Feb 24, 7:05*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> > While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
> > PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
> > glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
> > prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
> > aircraft as being displayed as a threat.
>
> Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
> significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
> PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
> comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?
>
> Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
> gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
> PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
> Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
> only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
> will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
> transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.

Can anyone using PF comment on my question? Can you see more than one
transponder equipped aircraft at a time? I found this in the manual:

"The nearest aircraft not equipped with ADSB-OUT or FLARM devices, but
is indicated as
a light green circle, in the example, that
target is 2400 ft below. The circle radius
gives a distance estimation based on signal
strength.
The green circle turns red when close. In the
example, the target is 200 ft above"

From the wording it looks like PF can only track one Transponder
equipped aircraft, which is pretty bad!

[Dan[_4_]]

On Feb 25, 7:10*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 7:05*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
> > > PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
> > > glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
> > > prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
> > > aircraft as being displayed as a threat.
>
> > Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
> > significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
> > PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
> > comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?
>
> > Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
> > gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
> > PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
> > Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
> > only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
> > will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
> > transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.
>
> Can anyone using PF comment on my question? Can you see more than one
> transponder equipped aircraft at a time? *I found this in the manual:
>
> "The nearest aircraft not equipped with ADSB-OUT or FLARM devices, but
> is indicated as
> a light green circle, in the example, that
> target is 2400 ft below. The circle radius
> gives a distance estimation based on signal
> strength.
> The green circle turns red when close. In the
> example, the target is 200 ft above"
>
> From the wording it looks like PF can only track one Transponder
> equipped aircraft, which is pretty bad!

If you don't have any capability to track one Transponder, and now PF
gives you the capability to track the closest transponder equipped
aircraft, and tell you if he is higher/lower than you (and by how
much), and closing or opening, how can that possibly be a bad thing?

In addition, it does flarm/flarm collision warning, and eventually,
igc-format logging and logger approval (summerish according to the
PowerFLARM talk at the SSA Reno Convention). I expect that the
capability to see others' climb rates on some PDAs will make
recreational cross-country a lot less stressful too...

One man's opinion.

Dan

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Feb 25, 9:26*am, Dan > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 7:10*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 7:05*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > > > While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
> > > > PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
> > > > glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
> > > > prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
> > > > aircraft as being displayed as a threat.
>
> > > Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
> > > significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
> > > PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
> > > comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?
>
> > > Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
> > > gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
> > > PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
> > > Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
> > > only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
> > > will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
> > > transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.
>
> > Can anyone using PF comment on my question? Can you see more than one
> > transponder equipped aircraft at a time? *I found this in the manual:
>
> > "The nearest aircraft not equipped with ADSB-OUT or FLARM devices, but
> > is indicated as
> > a light green circle, in the example, that
> > target is 2400 ft below. The circle radius
> > gives a distance estimation based on signal
> > strength.
> > The green circle turns red when close. In the
> > example, the target is 200 ft above"
>
> > From the wording it looks like PF can only track one Transponder
> > equipped aircraft, which is pretty bad!
>
> If you don't have any capability to track one Transponder, and now PF
> gives you the capability to track the closest transponder equipped
> aircraft, and tell you if he is higher/lower than you (and by how
> much), and closing or opening, how can that possibly be a bad thing?
>
> In addition, it does flarm/flarm collision warning, and eventually,
> igc-format logging and logger approval (summerish according to the
> PowerFLARM talk at the SSA Reno Convention). I expect that the
> capability to see others' climb rates on some PDAs will make
> recreational cross-country a lot less stressful too...
>
> One man's opinion.
>
> Dan

It is bad because my PCAS can track many transponder equipped aircraft
at the same time and give me this information for each one.

I am not talking about Flarm I am all for Flarm but the PCAS
implementation is not good if the PF can only track one transponder
equipped aircraft at a time.

[Morgan[_2_]]

Your assessment is correct. You only ever see an indication for the
closest transponder only target. Since I haven't used a pcas system
before, I don't know how it displays multiple targets, but I think the
flarm implementation is pretty good since it filters out all but the
most relevant threat. That said, we are in a lightly populated area
for traffic, so I haven't been in a situation where there were
multiple targets within say, 4 miles.

So far with 3 flights under my belt with the powerflarm, I've only
managed to find one unknown transponder target. Range and height
variation were very good, but 3-4 miles and 2000ft below is pretty
hard to spot a small power plane. I have yet to be relatively close
to any power traffic. One flight I was getting a transponder beacon
from a friend in a glider and the estimated range was quite good.

The issue with the towplane transponder and glider masking other
threats is a good problem to solve though. Our towplane doesn't have
a transponder so we can't test that at our little club.

Morgan

On Feb 25, 7:43*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 9:26*am, Dan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 7:10*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 7:05*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > > > > While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
> > > > > PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
> > > > > glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
> > > > > prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
> > > > > aircraft as being displayed as a threat.
>
> > > > Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
> > > > significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
> > > > PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
> > > > comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?
>
> > > > Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
> > > > gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
> > > > PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
> > > > Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
> > > > only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
> > > > will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
> > > > transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.
>
> > > Can anyone using PF comment on my question? Can you see more than one
> > > transponder equipped aircraft at a time? *I found this in the manual:
>
> > > "The nearest aircraft not equipped with ADSB-OUT or FLARM devices, but
> > > is indicated as
> > > a light green circle, in the example, that
> > > target is 2400 ft below. The circle radius
> > > gives a distance estimation based on signal
> > > strength.
> > > The green circle turns red when close. In the
> > > example, the target is 200 ft above"
>
> > > From the wording it looks like PF can only track one Transponder
> > > equipped aircraft, which is pretty bad!
>
> > If you don't have any capability to track one Transponder, and now PF
> > gives you the capability to track the closest transponder equipped
> > aircraft, and tell you if he is higher/lower than you (and by how
> > much), and closing or opening, how can that possibly be a bad thing?
>
> > In addition, it does flarm/flarm collision warning, and eventually,
> > igc-format logging and logger approval (summerish according to the
> > PowerFLARM talk at the SSA Reno Convention). I expect that the
> > capability to see others' climb rates on some PDAs will make
> > recreational cross-country a lot less stressful too...
>
> > One man's opinion.
>
> > Dan
>
> It is bad because my PCAS can track many transponder equipped aircraft
> at the same time and give me this information for each one.
>
> I am not talking about Flarm I am all for Flarm but the PCAS
> implementation is not good if the PF can only track one transponder
> equipped aircraft at a time.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Feb 25, 11:20*am, Morgan > wrote:
> Your assessment is correct. *You only ever see an indication for the
> closest transponder only target. *Since I haven't used a pcas system
> before, I don't know how it displays multiple targets, but I think the
> flarm implementation is pretty good since it filters out all but the
> most relevant threat. That said, we are in a lightly populated area
> for traffic, so I haven't been in a situation where there were
> multiple targets within say, 4 miles.
>
> So far with 3 flights under my belt with the powerflarm, I've only
> managed to find one unknown transponder target. *Range and height
> variation were very good, but 3-4 miles and 2000ft below is pretty
> hard to spot a small power plane. *I have yet to be relatively close
> to any power traffic. *One flight I was getting a transponder beacon
> from a friend in a glider and the estimated range was quite good.
>
> The issue with the towplane transponder and glider masking other
> threats is a good problem to solve though. *Our towplane doesn't have
> a transponder so we can't test that at our little club.
>
> Morgan
>
> On Feb 25, 7:43*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 9:26*am, Dan > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 7:10*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 24, 7:05*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > > > > > While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
> > > > > > PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
> > > > > > glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
> > > > > > prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
> > > > > > aircraft as being displayed as a threat.
>
> > > > > Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
> > > > > significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
> > > > > PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
> > > > > comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?
>
> > > > > Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
> > > > > gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
> > > > > PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
> > > > > Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
> > > > > only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
> > > > > will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
> > > > > transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.
>
> > > > Can anyone using PF comment on my question? Can you see more than one
> > > > transponder equipped aircraft at a time? *I found this in the manual:
>
> > > > "The nearest aircraft not equipped with ADSB-OUT or FLARM devices, but
> > > > is indicated as
> > > > a light green circle, in the example, that
> > > > target is 2400 ft below. The circle radius
> > > > gives a distance estimation based on signal
> > > > strength.
> > > > The green circle turns red when close. In the
> > > > example, the target is 200 ft above"
>
> > > > From the wording it looks like PF can only track one Transponder
> > > > equipped aircraft, which is pretty bad!
>
> > > If you don't have any capability to track one Transponder, and now PF
> > > gives you the capability to track the closest transponder equipped
> > > aircraft, and tell you if he is higher/lower than you (and by how
> > > much), and closing or opening, how can that possibly be a bad thing?
>
> > > In addition, it does flarm/flarm collision warning, and eventually,
> > > igc-format logging and logger approval (summerish according to the
> > > PowerFLARM talk at the SSA Reno Convention). I expect that the
> > > capability to see others' climb rates on some PDAs will make
> > > recreational cross-country a lot less stressful too...
>
> > > One man's opinion.
>
> > > Dan
>
> > It is bad because my PCAS can track many transponder equipped aircraft
> > at the same time and give me this information for each one.
>
> > I am not talking about Flarm I am all for Flarm but the PCAS
> > implementation is not good if the PF can only track one transponder
> > equipped aircraft at a time.

I am surprised that such a poor solution that does not even handle a
tow plane/glider combo was released. I am also surprised that the PF
will only track on transponder. What about a situation where you have
one aircraft below and one above and they are both close. You will be
looking for one above while the other is about to hit you form the
bottom (say high wing Cessna). Every day I see more power traffic than
I see gliders on XC flights especially being within 30 miles of two
major airports Boston and Manchester (plus a few smaller airports). I
had many too close encounters with power traffic and that is why I put
in a transponder and bought a PCAS. Now it seems if I buy a PF I can
not remove my PCAS because the one in PF leaves me blind to all but
one power plane. Not a good combination. The PCAS part of PF is just
not good and it needs to be fixed. It seems this is one big experiment
(talking about PCAS in PF).

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/25/2012 10:56 AM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> had many too close encounters with power traffic and that is why I put
> in a transponder and bought a PCAS. Now it seems if I buy a PF I can
> not remove my PCAS because the one in PF leaves me blind to all but
> one power plane. Not a good combination. The PCAS part of PF is just
> not good and it needs to be fixed. It seems this is one big experiment
> (talking about PCAS in PF).

What are you using for a PCAS now?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[bumper[_4_]]

Eric,

I'd guess he is using the Proxalert R-5. I've got one and like it. It
tracks several and displays the 3 most significant treats along with
their squawk code (so you can tell if their are talking to ATC or
not). But, the R-5 is much larger than the tiny Zaon MRX - - I had one
of those too, and it displays only the most significant single threat
like the PF. The additonal functionality of the R-5 is nice, but the
MRX gets the job done. I figure I can only dodge one at a time
anyway. If there's two coming at me at once, the plan is to wait 'till
the last moment, duck, then turn and watch the confusion.

I tested the R-5 alongside the PF in the Husky - - about 3 inches
apart. Half way through the flight, realized the R-5 was interfering
with the PF, so had to toggle power on and off to test and compare
PCAS function in both. The PF PCAS works as well as the R-5. In
addition, the PF displays discreet info on ADS-B out aircraft, and way
out at 32 nm.

bumper




>
> What are you using for a PCAS now?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/25/2012 7:52 PM, bumper wrote:
> Eric,
>
> I'd guess he is using the Proxalert R-5. I've got one and like it. It
> tracks several and displays the 3 most significant treats along with
> their squawk code (so you can tell if their are talking to ATC or
> not). But, the R-5 is much larger than the tiny Zaon MRX - - I had one
> of those too, and it displays only the most significant single threat
> like the PF. The additonal functionality of the R-5 is nice, but the
> MRX gets the job done. I figure I can only dodge one at a time
> anyway. If there's two coming at me at once, the plan is to wait 'till
> the last moment, duck, then turn and watch the confusion.
>
> I tested the R-5 alongside the PF in the Husky - - about 3 inches
> apart. Half way through the flight, realized the R-5 was interfering
> with the PF, so had to toggle power on and off to test and compare
> PCAS function in both. The PF PCAS works as well as the R-5. In
> addition, the PF displays discreet info on ADS-B out aircraft, and way
> out at 32 nm.

My understanding is the MRX will track more than one target, but only
display the greatest threat. Not quite as informative as the R-5, but
perhaps better than it appears from just the display.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)