Powerflarm results @Seniors

[Robert Fidler[_2_]]

Anyone who flew at Seniors contest care to comment about impression of
system?

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Mar 21, 6:31*am, Robert Fidler > wrote:
> Anyone who flew at Seniors contest care to comment about impression of
> system?

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/03/march-17-day-6-at-the-seniors/

T8

[John Carlyle]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:09:12 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
> On Mar 21, 6:31*am, Robert Fidler > wrote:
> > Anyone who flew at Seniors contest care to comment about impression of
> > system?
>
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/03/march-17-day-6-at-the-seniors/
>
> T8

Interesting! The insensitivity in those 30 units could be due to either installation problems, or to hardware/software problems. Given the success of the Flarm in Europe, I sure it will be resolved sooner or later.

But I think Frank is correct - the solution to the problem needs to addressed publicly to achieve maximum confidence in the PowerFlarm. Unfortunately, the PowerFlarm team hasn't shown a willingness to share in public, as evidenced by the relatively few postings on how they were working to address the long delays in the introduction of the portable, and now the brick, version of the unit.

-John

[Tony[_5_]]

On Mar 21, 1:38*pm, John Carlyle > wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:09:12 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 6:31*am, Robert Fidler > wrote:
> > > Anyone who flew at Seniors contest care to comment about impression of
> > > system?
>
> >http://soaringcafe.com/2012/03/march-17-day-6-at-the-seniors/
>
> > T8
>
> Interesting! The insensitivity in those 30 units could be due to either installation problems, or to hardware/software problems. Given the success of the Flarm in Europe, I sure it will be resolved sooner or later.
>
> But I think Frank is correct - the solution to the problem needs to addressed publicly to achieve maximum confidence in the PowerFlarm. Unfortunately, the PowerFlarm team hasn't shown a willingness to share in public, as evidenced by the relatively few postings on how they were working to address the long delays in the introduction of the portable, and now the brick, version of the unit.
>
> -John

I wonder what changed. I don't recall hearing anything about this with
the portable units at Uvalde last year and I know that I'm pretty sure
Frank and I were able to see each other at a longer range than that at
Region 10.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Mar 21, 2:38*pm, John Carlyle > wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:09:12 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 6:31*am, Robert Fidler > wrote:
> > > Anyone who flew at Seniors contest care to comment about impression of
> > > system?
>
> >http://soaringcafe.com/2012/03/march-17-day-6-at-the-seniors/
>
> > T8
>
> Interesting! The insensitivity in those 30 units could be due to either installation problems, or to hardware/software problems. Given the success of the Flarm in Europe, I sure it will be resolved sooner or later.
>
> But I think Frank is correct - the solution to the problem needs to addressed publicly to achieve maximum confidence in the PowerFlarm. Unfortunately, the PowerFlarm team hasn't shown a willingness to share in public, as evidenced by the relatively few postings on how they were working to address the long delays in the introduction of the portable, and now the brick, version of the unit.
>
> -John

I doubt that so many units had installation issue. Besides this thing
is so big you don't have many choices where to put it in so either it
works or it doesn't.

One can ask what happened here. Well, there was a change and not
enough testing after the change. Typical outcome when quality controls
are not in place. In regards to a tow plane sailplane issue reported a
month or two ago nor response from PowerFlarm either.

I hope this time around PowerFlarm is going to make a statement
preferably starting with apology to their trusting clients.

[bumper[_4_]]

I going to "guess" a bit:

I understand the FCC restricted the transmitted power output of the
PowerFlarm over what PF would have liked. They also refused approval
unless PF took steps to prevent someone from installing a high gain
antenna in order to improve output power. This resulted in sub-optimal
transmitted range, though I thought it was still supposed to be 2 to 4
miles or so. PF did include a "panel" Flarm receive antenna that is
"optional" to install. Using that antenna will increase the effective
range of the PF by displaying threat aircraft at a more distant range.
If the threat aircraft doesn't also use the "panel" antenna, then
you'll probably see him before he sees you.

Were these additional receive antennas used at the contests or left in
the box?

In my flight testing with PF in two power aircraft, effective range
was about .5 to 2 nm, without using the panel antenna, and seemed
dependant on aircraft orientation as one would expect as sometime
there was aircraft structure in the way. I'm using the panel antenna
in my glider, but so far have not found anothe PF equipped glider to
play with.

The "ADS-B in" works flawlessly all the way out to 32 nm. The PCAS
function seems reliable to at least 8 nm, however the altitude
displayed will sometimes show a minus instead of a plus when clearly
the threat aircraft is above.

bumper

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

In our club we have "Academy" training evenings during winter
season. Few weeks ago I was telling about FLARM units, and this
week one our member who works for accident investigation was
telling about safety issues in competitions. Safety is an issue here,
since within 12 months lifes of 4 Finnish glider pilot were lost. 2 in
midair with an eagle (!!), one because of motorized take-off spoilers
open, and one because of midair with other competitor.

The conclusion of the last incident, midair between two competing
planes, both equipped with FLARM units, flying 10 minutes very
close to each others, was really scary. FLARM seems to be
something that might warn you if someone is approaching under the
same cloudstreet, but in competition where you have several planes
near to you all the time, you still might loose situation awareness.

FLARM antenna installation is really a problem. PowerFlarm seems
to have two antennas, I have no idea how that works. I have
installed several FLARMs into our club gliders, and I have used "RF
Range Analysis" tool provided by FLARM.
http://flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
This should tell you if your antenna installation has problems - and
there often are problems. I would like to see this analysis extended
into 3 dimensional graphic.

Everyone who installs FLARM in a plane should use this analysis
tool.

[Ramy]

On Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:38:43 AM UTC-7, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:
> In our club we have "Academy" training evenings during winter
> season. Few weeks ago I was telling about FLARM units, and this
> week one our member who works for accident investigation was
> telling about safety issues in competitions. Safety is an issue here,
> since within 12 months lifes of 4 Finnish glider pilot were lost. 2 in
> midair with an eagle (!!), one because of motorized take-off spoilers
> open, and one because of midair with other competitor.
>
> The conclusion of the last incident, midair between two competing
> planes, both equipped with FLARM units, flying 10 minutes very
> close to each others, was really scary. FLARM seems to be
> something that might warn you if someone is approaching under the
> same cloudstreet, but in competition where you have several planes
> near to you all the time, you still might loose situation awareness.
>
> FLARM antenna installation is really a problem. PowerFlarm seems
> to have two antennas, I have no idea how that works. I have
> installed several FLARMs into our club gliders, and I have used "RF
> Range Analysis" tool provided by FLARM.
> http://flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
> This should tell you if your antenna installation has problems - and
> there often are problems. I would like to see this analysis extended
> into 3 dimensional graphic.
>
> Everyone who installs FLARM in a plane should use this analysis
> tool.

Kimmo, thank for sharing and very sorry to hear about the fatalities, especially giving that 3 life were lost in midairs in one year alone. Can you share some more details so we can all learn? This is the first time I am hearing of a fatal midair collision with an eagle. One more thing to worry about now...

Ramy

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

At 08:12 22 March 2012, Ramy wrote:
>On Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:38:43 AM UTC-7, Kimmo
Hytoenen wrote:
>> In our club we have "Academy" training evenings during
winter=20
>> season. Few weeks ago I was telling about FLARM units, and
this=20
>> week one our member who works for accident investigation
was=20
>> telling about safety issues in competitions. Safety is an issue
here,=20
>> since within 12 months lifes of 4 Finnish glider pilot were lost.
2 in=20
>> midair with an eagle (!!), one because of motorized take-off
spoilers=20
>> open, and one because of midair with other competitor.
>>=20
>> The conclusion of the last incident, midair between two
competing=20
>> planes, both equipped with FLARM units, flying 10 minutes
very=20
>> close to each others, was really scary. FLARM seems to
be=20
>> something that might warn you if someone is approaching
under the=20
>> same cloudstreet, but in competition where you have several
planes=20
>> near to you all the time, you still might loose situation
awareness.
>>=20
>> FLARM antenna installation is really a problem. PowerFlarm
seems=20
>> to have two antennas, I have no idea how that works. I
have=20
>> installed several FLARMs into our club gliders, and I have
used "RF=20
>> Range Analysis" tool provided by FLARM.
>> http://flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
>> This should tell you if your antenna installation has problems
- and=20
>> there often are problems. I would like to see this analysis
extended=20
>> into 3 dimensional graphic.
>>=20
>> Everyone who installs FLARM in a plane should use this
analysis=20
>> tool.
>
>Kimmo, thank for sharing and very sorry to hear about the
fatalities,
>espec=
>ially giving that 3 life were lost in midairs in one year alone.
Can you
>sh=
>are some more details so we can all learn? This is the first time
I am
>hear=
>ing of a fatal midair collision with an eagle. One more thing to
worry
>abou=
>t now...
>
>Ramy
>

The accident took place last autumn in Jaca, northern Spain,
where Finnish gliding academy was having training camp. A
large bird collided with the upper part of the vertical stabilizer,
the connection point with horizontal stabilizer. The impact has
been severe, since the horizontal stabilized was cut half,
horizontal stabilized lost completely, and the glider become
uncontrollable.

Both pilots jumped, but altitude was only about 200 m (just
passing mountain top) and chutes did not have time to open.

Glider was duo discus, Finnish call-sign OH-1000. Couple months
before I was flying the same plane in the same place.

This is the official preliminary report in Finnish.
http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi//Etusivu/Ajankohtaista/Muuttie
dotteet/1302674026783

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

Crickets....

No other contest user reports?

T8

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 23, 2012 8:53:21 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
> Crickets....
>
> No other contest user reports?
>
> T8

My impression of the rental powerflarms units was very much the same as TA reported.
First let me go on record as saying that I want very much for the powerflarm concept to work. I plan to install a "brick" in my glider - when available and when they work.
I had three near misses in thermals. The powerflarm alarm would sound and a second or two later the near miss would occur. The range was unacceptably poor...
Other issues I had with the portable units were: The display was very hard to read in the cockpit with my sunglasses on. The warning "beeps" could have been louder so as to be heard above the radio and audio vario. The display of transponder equiped aircraft with no directional information did me very little good.
I look forward to trying powerflarm again, after they have had a chance to make it work better.

Don (DK)

[bumper[_4_]]

On Mar 23, 7:30*am, wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2012 8:53:21 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
The powerflarm alarm would sound and a second or two later the near
miss would occur. The range was unacceptably poor...

> Don (DK)

Don,

Were you using the "optional" small panel antenna? This is the flat
black, about 1" X 4" receive antenna that should be mounted vertically
and a couple of feet away from the PowerFlarm. This is intended to
increase the PF effective range and is included with the portable.

thanks,

bumper

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 23, 2012 10:17:30 AM UTC-5, bumper wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:30*am, wrote:
> > On Friday, March 23, 2012 8:53:21 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
> The powerflarm alarm would sound and a second or two later the near
> miss would occur. The range was unacceptably poor...
>
> > Don (DK)
>
> Don,
>
> Were you using the "optional" small panel antenna? This is the flat
> black, about 1" X 4" receive antenna that should be mounted vertically
> and a couple of feet away from the PowerFlarm. This is intended to
> increase the PF effective range and is included with the portable.
>
> thanks,
>
> bumper

No. I was using the antennas mounted to the rear of the portable unit. It is not easy to find a spot a couple of feet away from the panel which will not have some kind of carbon fiber blockage of the antenna.

Don

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 3/23/2012 7:30 AM, wrote:
> I had three near misses in thermals. The powerflarm alarm would sound
> and a second or two later the near miss would occur. The range was
> unacceptably poor...

Was this due to poor range; i.e., PowerFlarm did not receive the signal
from the other glider until it got too close to give a quicker warning?

I would guess that if you are thermalling with another glider that might
become a threat, that would be well within receiving range, and the
short warning time was due to poor threat determination, rather than
poor signal detection.

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

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 23, 2012 11:20:41 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 7:30 AM, dfkroesch wrote:
> > I had three near misses in thermals. The powerflarm alarm would sound
> > and a second or two later the near miss would occur. The range was
> > unacceptably poor...
>
> Was this due to poor range; i.e., PowerFlarm did not receive the signal
> from the other glider until it got too close to give a quicker warning?
>
> I would guess that if you are thermalling with another glider that might
> become a threat, that would be well within receiving range, and the
> short warning time was due to poor threat determination, rather than
> poor signal detection.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

My three "near misses" were thermal entering problems. Twice the other guy - once my fault. I am aware that the other guys might be keeping score in a different way.....

From what I saw, the portable PowerFlarm range was clearly less than 1/4 mile - perhaps more like 1/8 mile. One or two seconds warning is not enough.

Don

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

At 17:29 23 March 2012, wrote:
>On Friday, March 23, 2012 11:20:41 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell
wrote:
>> On 3/23/2012 7:30 AM, dfkroesch wrote:
>> > I had three near misses in thermals. The powerflarm
alarm would sound
>> > and a second or two later the near miss would occur. The
range was
>> > unacceptably poor...
>>
>> Was this due to poor range; i.e., PowerFlarm did not receive
the signal
>> from the other glider until it got too close to give a quicker
warning?
>>
>> I would guess that if you are thermalling with another glider
that might
>> become a threat, that would be well within receiving range,
and the
>> short warning time was due to poor threat determination,
rather than
>> poor signal detection.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to
".us" to
>> email me)
>
>My three "near misses" were thermal entering problems. Twice
the other guy
>- once my fault. I am aware that the other guys might be
keeping score in a
>different way.....
>
>From what I saw, the portable PowerFlarm range was clearly
less than 1/4
>mile - perhaps more like 1/8 mile. One or two seconds warning
is not
>enough.
>
>Don
>

Don,
Did the FLARM unit you tested have a logger, and do you have
the logger file? If you have, I propose you run the range
analysis http://www.flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
-kh

[Don Kroesch (DK)]

> Don,
> Did the FLARM unit you tested have a logger, and do you have
> the logger file? If you have, I propose you run the range
> analysis http://www.flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
> -kh

Kimmo

The Powerflarm that I was using was part of the US rental program. It shipped back right after the contest. I saw nothing in the manual about a logger.

Don

[RN]

RN used a rental FLARM at the Seniors.

My experience was similar to DK and TA. I used the attached antennas
and mounted the unit on the top of the glare shield in the back seat
of the DG1000.

The effective range to see other FLARM gliders was something in the
neighborhood of 100 yards. Far too late to be useful.

We were told (correctly or incorrectly?) that the logger function had
not yet been activated on the rental units. No attempt was made to log
a flight based on this information.

I also strongly favor the "FLARM" concept of traffic alerting, and
appreciated the opportunity to try one using the rental program. My
plan was to buy a "brick" as soon as they become available, but from
what I have seen, my plans are definitely on hold.

It is somewhat frustrating that there seems to be no feedback on the
concerns being expressed other than from other pilots.

John

[Luke[_4_]]

On 03/23/2012 2:27 PM, Don Kroesch (DK) wrote:
>
>> Don,
>> Did the FLARM unit you tested have a logger, and do you have
>> the logger file? If you have, I propose you run the range
>> analysis http://www.flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
>> -kh
>
> Kimmo
>
> The Powerflarm that I was using was part of the US rental program. It shipped back right after the contest. I saw nothing in the manual about a logger.
>
> Don
>
>

Unfortunately the Flight Data Recorders are not enabled in PowerFlarm as
of yet. There is an option to download a diagnostic file to an SD card
but this is not in IGC format, it is only a small file that contains
sample data that is not human readable - it is only useful to the folks
at PowerFlarm.


Luke

[Derek Mackie]

On Mar 23, 2:36*pm, Luke > wrote:
> On 03/23/2012 2:27 PM, Don Kroesch (DK) wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Don,
> >> Did the FLARM unit you tested have a logger, and do you have
> >> the logger file? If you have, I propose you run the range
> >> analysishttp://www.flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
> >> -kh
>
> > Kimmo
>


Interesting - the example on the link Kimmo sent shows that ~2 km is
the minimum range that should be achieved up to 200 km/h and shows
"normal" ranges out to ~6 km or so. In Uvalde I only ever saw one or
two other contacts at all and it was at much less than 1/2 km. My
unit went back to the factory for all the updates/repairs and so far,
in limited testing, that has improved to ~3/4 km. I will be bringing
it to Perry with hopes to see better. I'm sure they're working hard
on this, but the silence from the factory and North American sales is
deafening. I sincerely hope that my "Portable" isn't actually a
"brick" (i.e in the sense of being suitable for a doorstop or
paperweight...).

Derek

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

I have installed several FLARM units. Most installations have been
successful, i.e. the detection range is larger that the green area
indicated in the FLARM range analysis. However in one LS-7 I have
not been able to locate antenna right yet. It looks like the compass
of that plane, located on top of the instrument panel, is blocking the
field into 11 clock direction.

My opinion is, that FLARM is a good tool when the antennas are
correctly positioned. It might give you that critical 10 seconds time
to react. However. antenna positioning remains largely unsolved
problem. I await with interest the development of two antenna
systems for PowerFLARM.

We use LED based simple FLARM displays which show the nearest
airplane, green when no danger, and red/alarm in danger.
Additionally we are building connections to devices like Winpilot or
XCSoar to show all nearby traffic detected by FLARM. That is also
great when you are flying with other people - you know where they
are, and what they are doing. Each FLARM unit has it's own code,
and you can nickname them. You might like to know if it's the local
von Richthofen approaching from sun's direction, or someone more
friendly.

At least I know couple pilots who - uh - need more clearance, I
think...

[cfinn]

Kimmo, you didn't say where you are located. However, I think you are
outside the US. The Power Flarm being pushed in the US is a different
device then the Flarm units being used successfully in Europe and
other areas.

Also, I think those that are pushing Power Flarm use in the US are
doing a disservice to pilots. The US is mandated to use ADS-B in most
aircraft by 2020. The UAT version of ADS-B was developed specifically
as a lower cost system for general aviation. In addition to traffic
alerts, it also provides ID to ATC, and other services such as weather
and TFR's. It's true that ADS-B in it's raw form doesn't provide the
same alert suppression that Flarm does for gliders. However, it would
not be difficult to add those routines to soaring software in a PDA,
etc. After all, the processor in the Flarm is fairly low power.

Think of what the Power Flarm is trying to do verses what the standard
European Butterfly Flarm. In Europe, the only consideration is Flarm
to Flarm information, including air to air and ground hazards.
PowerFlarm is trying to add transponder and ADS-B information. Now we
require more receivers, more antennas and more processing power. The
software becomes more complicated because of the need to integrate
three entirely different systems. With ADS-B, you have one receiver,
one antenna, etc., and only need to process the ADS-B protocol. I did
neglect to say, both also have a GPS receiver.

I'm not about to become involved in a big discussion (read bitch
session) about why ADS-B won't work for gliders. Some people have
vested interests in pushing Flarm.

Charlie

On Mar 23, 6:57*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> I have installed several FLARM units. Most installations have been
> successful, i.e. the detection range is larger that the green area
> indicated in the FLARM range analysis. However in one LS-7 I have
> not been able to locate antenna right yet. It looks like the compass
> of that plane, located on top of the instrument panel, is blocking the
> field into 11 clock direction.
>
> My opinion is, that FLARM is a good tool when the antennas are
> correctly positioned. It might give you that critical 10 seconds time
> to react. However. antenna positioning remains largely unsolved
> problem. I await with interest the development of two antenna
> systems for PowerFLARM.
>
> We use LED based simple FLARM displays which show the nearest
> airplane, green when no danger, and red/alarm in danger.
> Additionally we are building connections to devices like Winpilot or
> XCSoar to show all nearby traffic detected by FLARM. That is also
> great when you are flying with other people - you know where they
> are, and what they are doing. Each FLARM unit has it's own code,
> and you can nickname them. You might like to know if it's the local
> von Richthofen approaching from sun's direction, or someone more
> friendly.
>
> At least I know couple pilots who - uh - need more clearance, I
> think...

[bumper[_4_]]

On Mar 23, 9:06*am, wrote:

>
> No. I was using the antennas mounted to the rear of the portable unit. It is not easy to find a spot a couple of feet away from the panel which will not have some kind of carbon fiber blockage of the antenna.
>
> Don

I simply ran the wire for mine off to the left side of the glare
shield, then back along the canopy frame and mounted the antenna on
the Plexiglas just aft of the sliding window (ASH-26E) using a bit of
Velcro. Should work reasonably well there I'd think, especially
towards the front.

bumper

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Mar 24, 12:37*am, bumper > wrote:
> On Mar 23, 9:06*am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > No. I was using the antennas mounted to the rear of the portable unit. It is not easy to find a spot a couple of feet away from the panel which will not have some kind of carbon fiber blockage of the antenna.
>
> > Don
>
> I simply ran the wire for mine off to the left side of the glare
> shield, then back along the canopy frame and mounted the antenna on
> the Plexiglas just aft of the sliding window (ASH-26E) using a bit of
> Velcro. Should work reasonably well there I'd think, especially
> towards the front.
>
> bumper

My understanding is that the second antenna is designed for
installation in the tow hook or landing gear area -- areas that do not
have carbon -- to allow flarm to see below the glider. Conventional
flarm can't see down, because there is a big carbon fiber fuselage
blocking downward signals. This is obviously not going to happen in
rental units. The purpose was not as a range booster.

John Cochrane

[bumper[_4_]]

On Mar 24, 12:05*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Mar 24, 12:37*am, bumper > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 9:06*am, wrote:
>
> > > No. I was using the antennas mounted to the rear of the portable unit.. It is not easy to find a spot a couple of feet away from the panel which will not have some kind of carbon fiber blockage of the antenna.
>
> > > Don
>
> > I simply ran the wire for mine off to the left side of the glare
> > shield, then back along the canopy frame and mounted the antenna on
> > the Plexiglas just aft of the sliding window (ASH-26E) using a bit of
> > Velcro. Should work reasonably well there I'd think, especially
> > towards the front.
>
> > bumper
>
> My understanding is that the second antenna is designed for
> installation in the tow hook or landing gear area -- areas that do not
> have carbon -- to allow flarm to see below the glider. Conventional
> flarm can't see down, because there is a big carbon fiber fuselage
> blocking downward signals. This is obviously not going to happen in
> rental units. The purpose was not as a range booster.
>
> John Cochrane

John,

I was told different by the folks manning the PF booth at the SSA
convention. I specifically asked them how the flat antenna should be
installed (its orientation, as this isn't discussed in the manual) and
it's purpose. After they explained the reason for the antenna, and
that was to improve Flarm receive range, I then asked how badly range
would suffer without it. The answer to the last question was somewhat
vague and iffy - - but my recollection was they said it would work
okay without it, and still have a range of at least a couple of miles,
and better with it. I did leave the booth thinking that the flat
antenna was optional, as it states in the manual, and that range would
at least adequate if I chose not to install it.

From the other posters and my own limited experience, I'm not
confident the range is adequate, or at least not so without the flat
antenna.

The manual states the flat antenna should be located a minimum of 1.2
meters or 4 feet from the PF. The included coax isn't much longer than
that, and will only reach to the back of the canopy in my ship.
Nowhere near long enough to reach the wheel well without an extension.
The wheel well wouldn't be a good location on my 26E anyway, as the
fuselage is CF and there is no practical way to mount it vertically
there with any hope of a clear view RF-wise.

bumper

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

Charlie,
I am located in Finland, Northern Europe.
Idea of FLARM is good, and when correctly installed (in both
planes approaching) it is a very good system. We have invested
a lot of money into these equipment, and trying to get best use
of those. It is not easy in all planes.
What I would like to see is a streamlined antenna housing, which
is installed into the nose of a glider plane, with build-in dipole
antenna, or half dipole.. Something looking like
http://www.pharad.com/uhf-to-c-band-uav-antenna.html
It should not be to difficult to make those out of class-fiber, or
special plastic. Dipole antenna design is well known.
Possibly we should start another noncommercial project
developing those. Metal foil/PCB antenna in middle or some-kind
composite, streamlined plate. Mounting trough two 5 mm holes.
This should not be rocket-science, and cost should be less than
astronomical (I did ask prices from Pharad... ;)
-kimmo


At 23:58 23 March 2012, cfinn wrote:
>Kimmo, you didn't say where you are located. However, I think
you are
>outside the US. The Power Flarm being pushed in the US is a
different
>device then the Flarm units being used successfully in Europe
and
>other areas.
>
>Also, I think those that are pushing Power Flarm use in the US
are
>doing a disservice to pilots. The US is mandated to use ADS-B
in most
>aircraft by 2020. The UAT version of ADS-B was developed
specifically
>as a lower cost system for general aviation. In addition to
traffic
>alerts, it also provides ID to ATC, and other services such as
weather
>and TFR's. It's true that ADS-B in it's raw form doesn't provide
the
>same alert suppression that Flarm does for gliders. However, it
would
>not be difficult to add those routines to soaring software in a
PDA,
>etc. After all, the processor in the Flarm is fairly low power.
>
>Think of what the Power Flarm is trying to do verses what the
standard
>European Butterfly Flarm. In Europe, the only consideration is
Flarm
>to Flarm information, including air to air and ground hazards.
>PowerFlarm is trying to add transponder and ADS-B
information. Now we
>require more receivers, more antennas and more processing
power. The
>software becomes more complicated because of the need to
integrate
>three entirely different systems. With ADS-B, you have one
receiver,
>one antenna, etc., and only need to process the ADS-B
protocol. I did
>neglect to say, both also have a GPS receiver.
>
>I'm not about to become involved in a big discussion (read
bitch
>session) about why ADS-B won't work for gliders. Some people
have
>vested interests in pushing Flarm.
>
>Charlie
>
>On Mar 23, 6:57=A0pm, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:
>> I have installed several FLARM units. Most installations have
been
>> successful, i.e. the detection range is larger that the green
area
>> indicated in the FLARM range analysis. However in one LS-7
I have
>> not been able to locate antenna right yet. It looks like the
compass
>> of that plane, located on top of the instrument panel, is
blocking the
>> field into 11 clock direction.
>>
>> My opinion is, that FLARM is a good tool when the antennas
are
>> correctly positioned. It might give you that critical 10
seconds time
>> to react. However. antenna positioning remains largely
unsolved
>> problem. I await with interest the development of two
antenna
>> systems for PowerFLARM.
>>
>> We use LED based simple FLARM displays which show the
nearest
>> airplane, green when no danger, and red/alarm in danger.
>> Additionally we are building connections to devices like
Winpilot or
>> XCSoar to show all nearby traffic detected by FLARM. That is
also
>> great when you are flying with other people - you know
where they
>> are, and what they are doing. Each FLARM unit has it's own
code,
>> and you can nickname them. You might like to know if it's
the local
>> von Richthofen approaching from sun's direction, or
someone more
>> friendly.
>>
>> At least I know couple pilots who - uh - need more
clearance, I
>> think...
>
>

[Auxvache]

Very disappointed to hear of these range issues at the recent Seniors.
I ordered my portable PowerFlarm in August 2010.
Received at Uvalde PreWorlds August 2011 and found it quite
satisfactory during that contest.
(Except for the day I failed to recognize that my profile had changed
from glider to power plane after a battery swap. FP and "59" may never
forgive me.)

I don't expect a magic bullet for collision avoidance, but my Uvalde
experience was as-advertised, and I've been singing its praises since.

At dealer's request and with some misgivings, I shipped my unit back
for the "upgrade" over the winter.
(BTW, I paid shipping each way--was this everyone's experience?)

As the lone PF user so far in our club, I hadn't tried it since the
upgrade.
Loaned it to a friend for this year's Seniors, and am now hearing that
my previously awesome PF now has a range well under a mile.

My faith tested, I sincerely hope all involved recognize this critical
moment for what it is, and act accordingly.

[cfinn]

Kimmo, I thought you may be in Europe. I think you may be correct
about developing a dipole antenna. I've had an amateur radio license
for over 50 years, and have made several antennas over that time. The
dipole is a simple design and does not require a ground plane. Flarm
in the US uses a different frequency and the antenna would be to be
cut to a different length.

I have no arguement with Flarm in other areas of the world, were it
has been widely implemented. However, because of the late start for
Flarm in the US, I think it is doing a disservice to pilots here. The
range problem should be resolved in the future. Even if it had 10 km
range, it's the wrong product for US airspace.

Charlie

On Mar 24, 8:07*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> Charlie,
> I am located in Finland, Northern Europe.
> Idea of FLARM is good, and when correctly installed (in both
> planes approaching) it is a very good system. We have invested
> a lot of money into these equipment, and trying to get best use
> of those. It is not easy in all planes.
> What I would like to see is a streamlined antenna housing, which
> is installed into the nose of a glider plane, with build-in dipole
> antenna, or half dipole.. Something looking likehttp://www.pharad.com/uhf-to-c-band-uav-antenna.html
> It should not be to difficult to make those out of class-fiber, or
> special plastic. Dipole antenna design is well known.
> Possibly we should start another noncommercial project
> developing those. Metal foil/PCB antenna in middle or some-kind
> composite, streamlined plate. Mounting trough two 5 mm holes.
> This should not be rocket-science, and cost should be less than
> astronomical (I did ask prices from Pharad... ;)
> -kimmo
>
> At 23:58 23 March 2012, cfinn wrote:
>
>
>
> >Kimmo, you didn't say where you are located. However, I think
> you are
> >outside the US. *The Power Flarm being pushed in the US is a
> different
> >device then the Flarm units being used successfully in Europe
> and
> >other areas.
>
> >Also, I think those that are pushing Power Flarm use in the US
> are
> >doing a disservice to pilots. The US is mandated to use ADS-B
> in most
> >aircraft by 2020. The UAT version of ADS-B was developed
> specifically
> >as a lower cost system for general aviation. In addition to
> traffic
> >alerts, it also provides ID to ATC, and other services such as
> weather
> >and TFR's. It's true that ADS-B in it's raw form doesn't provide
> the
> >same alert suppression that Flarm does for gliders. However, it
> would
> >not be difficult to add those routines to soaring software in a
> PDA,
> >etc. After all, the processor in the Flarm is fairly low power.
>
> >Think of what the Power Flarm is trying to do verses what the
> standard
> >European Butterfly Flarm. In Europe, the only consideration is
> Flarm
> >to Flarm information, including air to air and ground hazards.
> >PowerFlarm is trying to add transponder and ADS-B
>
> information. Now we
>
>
>
> >require more receivers, more antennas and more processing
> power. The
> >software becomes more complicated because of the need to
> integrate
> >three entirely different systems. With ADS-B, you have one
> receiver,
> >one antenna, etc., and only need to process the ADS-B
> protocol. I did
> >neglect to say, both also have a GPS receiver.
>
> >I'm not about to become involved in a big discussion (read
> bitch
> >session) about why ADS-B won't work for gliders. Some people
> have
> >vested interests in pushing Flarm.
>
> >Charlie
>
> >On Mar 23, 6:57=A0pm, Kimmo Hytoenen *wrote:
> >> I have installed several FLARM units. Most installations have
> been
> >> successful, i.e. the detection range is larger that the green
> area
> >> indicated in the FLARM range analysis. However in one LS-7
> I have
> >> not been able to locate antenna right yet. It looks like the
> compass
> >> of that plane, located on top of the instrument panel, is
> blocking the
> >> field into 11 clock direction.
>
> >> My opinion is, that FLARM is a good tool when the antennas
> are
> >> correctly positioned. It might give you that critical 10
> seconds time
> >> to react. However. antenna positioning remains largely
> unsolved
> >> problem. I await with interest the development of two
> antenna
> >> systems for PowerFLARM.
>
> >> We use LED based simple FLARM displays which show the
> nearest
> >> airplane, green when no danger, and red/alarm in danger.
> >> Additionally we are building connections to devices like
> Winpilot or
> >> XCSoar to show all nearby traffic detected by FLARM. That is
> also
> >> great when you are flying with other people - you know
> where they
> >> are, and what they are doing. Each FLARM unit has it's own
> code,
> >> and you can nickname them. You might like to know if it's
> the local
> >> von Richthofen approaching from sun's direction, or
> someone more
> >> friendly.
>
> >> At least I know couple pilots who - uh - need more
> clearance, I
> >> think...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Tom Bjork]

I've been flying with PF w/3 antennas in my ASW27 for a couple months
around Minden. I have not had all the problems mentioned- it seems to work
as expected. Of course, we're not in the thermal part of the year. Still,
I've tracked other PF-equipped gliders from miles away with enough clarity
to help me pick them up visually. As more planes are fully equipped and we
start to fly in thermals, we'll know more.

Tom

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 3/24/2012 7:51 PM, Tom Bjork wrote:
> I've been flying with PF w/3 antennas in my ASW27 for a couple months
> around Minden. I have not had all the problems mentioned- it seems to work
> as expected. Of course, we're not in the thermal part of the year. Still,
> I've tracked other PF-equipped gliders from miles away with enough clarity
> to help me pick them up visually. As more planes are fully equipped and we
> start to fly in thermals, we'll know more.

Did you try it without the third antenna? What was the range then? Where
is your 3rd antenna mounted?

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

[ursus]

We have received the reports of the insufficient range at the
‘Seniors’ in Florida and would like to apologize for the problems.
Current status:
- For now, we cannot reproduce the problem with identical hardware;
not in the lab and not on European frequencies.
- The rental units that are being returned to Rex contain some
recorded data which is being analyzed.
- We have additional (very fancy and expensive) RF measurement
equipment on order which will arrive this week.

It is, without a doubt, our #1 priority to resolve this unfortunate
situation as soon as possible.

Urs
FLARM

[Andy Gough[_2_]]

At the recent Seniors I took delivery of a Power flarm and I had no
time to position it in a way to be able to see the screen or to link
it to my Dell Streak running XCSoar. I velcro'd it on top of my main
battery that sits behind my head at the front of the turtle deck of my
LS8 affording me audio only warning capability but enabling other
flarm equipped aircraft to see me. I set vertical Height at 1,000 ft
and horizontal clearance to two miles. I don't know if the flarm
missed any threats but if it did they subsequently were never
realized. Whenever I became aware of a potential conflict the flarm
chirped up, particularly in some tight gaggle situations, when the
flarm reinforced the need to keep your head on a swivel is the most
important action to avoid and steer clear of a conflict.

I received two warnings about aircaft whose position I was not aware,
one from the side when I was looking the opposite way but picked up at
the same time the flarm beeped and the other from behind and below.
Neither situation was a near miss category because at least one of the
pilots was aware of the other's position but without the awareness of
either one of the parties the flarm warning would have proved more
than useful.

Without a screen I was unaware of the reported technical short
comings. If the units are not producing optimum technical performance
to advertised standards then this certainly needs to be addressed and
as evidenced in the post above by Ursus an investigation is already
underway. In my limited experience using Power flarm, it did the job.

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

Charlie,

FLARM is quite new device also here, and I hope it will become
standard device also in US. In cloudstreet flying it's a lifesaver.
The standard LX FLARM antennas are dipoles - I am after something
that would allow me to install the antenna outside of the plane hull,
either behind or front of the canopy. I believe that streamlined
antenna housing would not cause much loss or energy, but would greatly
improve the radio range.

-kh

[cfinn]

I know this is dangerous, but I've been thinking. What about using the
TE probe for mounting? The tail style TE probe extends 12 to 18 inches
from the crabon fiber tail. It could be secured a few inches behind
the probe pressure openings, so it wouldn't interfer with air flow
over the sensors. Of course you would need to install a connector, so
it could be removed.

On Mar 25, 11:56*am, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> Charlie,
>
> FLARM is quite new device also here, and I hope it will become
> standard device also in US. In cloudstreet flying it's a lifesaver.
> The standard LX FLARM antennas are dipoles - I am after something
> that would allow me to install the antenna outside of the plane hull,
> either behind or front of the canopy. I believe that streamlined
> antenna housing would not cause much loss or energy, but would greatly
> improve the radio range.
>
> -kh

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:50:24 -0700, cfinn wrote:

> I know this is dangerous, but I've been thinking. What about using the
> TE probe for mounting? The tail style TE probe extends 12 to 18 inches
> from the crabon fiber tail. It could be secured a few inches behind the
> probe pressure openings, so it wouldn't interfer with air flow over the
> sensors. Of course you would need to install a connector, so it could be
> removed.
>
Dolba & Dolba make and sell a variety of FLARM antennae for Europe: foil
stick-ons, flat plate and rod antennae. It might be worthwhile asking if
they can supply them for the PF using the US frequency. I was put onto
them by Glasfaser when I was looking for FLARM antennae for my Libelle.

Here's a URL: http://www.dolba.de/index.html



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

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Friday, March 23, 2012 7:58:29 PM UTC-4, cfinn wrote:
> Kimmo, you didn't say where you are located. However, I think you are
> outside the US. The Power Flarm being pushed in the US is a different
> device then the Flarm units being used successfully in Europe and
> other areas.
>
> Also, I think those that are pushing Power Flarm use in the US are
> doing a disservice to pilots. The US is mandated to use ADS-B in most
> aircraft by 2020. The UAT version of ADS-B was developed specifically
> as a lower cost system for general aviation. In addition to traffic
> alerts, it also provides ID to ATC, and other services such as weather
> and TFR's. It's true that ADS-B in it's raw form doesn't provide the
> same alert suppression that Flarm does for gliders. However, it would
> not be difficult to add those routines to soaring software in a PDA,
> etc. After all, the processor in the Flarm is fairly low power.
>
> Think of what the Power Flarm is trying to do verses what the standard
> European Butterfly Flarm. In Europe, the only consideration is Flarm
> to Flarm information, including air to air and ground hazards.
> PowerFlarm is trying to add transponder and ADS-B information. Now we
> require more receivers, more antennas and more processing power. The
> software becomes more complicated because of the need to integrate
> three entirely different systems. With ADS-B, you have one receiver,
> one antenna, etc., and only need to process the ADS-B protocol. I did
> neglect to say, both also have a GPS receiver.
>
> I'm not about to become involved in a big discussion (read bitch
> session) about why ADS-B won't work for gliders. Some people have
> vested interests in pushing Flarm.
>
> Charlie
>
> On Mar 23, 6:57*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> > I have installed several FLARM units. Most installations have been
> > successful, i.e. the detection range is larger that the green area
> > indicated in the FLARM range analysis. However in one LS-7 I have
> > not been able to locate antenna right yet. It looks like the compass
> > of that plane, located on top of the instrument panel, is blocking the
> > field into 11 clock direction.
> >
> > My opinion is, that FLARM is a good tool when the antennas are
> > correctly positioned. It might give you that critical 10 seconds time
> > to react. However. antenna positioning remains largely unsolved
> > problem. I await with interest the development of two antenna
> > systems for PowerFLARM.
> >
> > We use LED based simple FLARM displays which show the nearest
> > airplane, green when no danger, and red/alarm in danger.
> > Additionally we are building connections to devices like Winpilot or
> > XCSoar to show all nearby traffic detected by FLARM. That is also
> > great when you are flying with other people - you know where they
> > are, and what they are doing. Each FLARM unit has it's own code,
> > and you can nickname them. You might like to know if it's the local
> > von Richthofen approaching from sun's direction, or someone more
> > friendly.
> >
> > At least I know couple pilots who - uh - need more clearance, I
> > think...

The other HUGE advantage of ADS-B is that if you are flying within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will see all Mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft in your area that are visible to ATC.

Over 1/2 of the ADS-B ground station network is currently installed. If you fly near a major metropolitan area, chances are you are currently within range of a ground station.

If you have a Trig 21 transponder, all you need to broadcast an ADS-B out signal is a GPS source, some cables, and overcoming some FAA BS. ADS-B IN receivers are widely available for ~$300 (see http://www.gns-gmbh.com/index.php?id=219&L=1). Couple this with a PDA or an iPhone and a clever app, and you could have a collision avoidance system that has 10X the capability of the TCAS systems that the airlines are currently using.

Mike Schumann

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

At 17:51 25 March 2012, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:50:24 -0700, cfinn wrote:
>
>> I know this is dangerous, but I've been thinking. What about
using the
>> TE probe for mounting? The tail style TE probe extends 12 to
18 inches
>> from the crabon fiber tail. It could be secured a few inches
behind the
>> probe pressure openings, so it wouldn't interfer with air flow
over the
>> sensors. Of course you would need to install a connector, so
it could be
>> removed.
>>
>Dolba & Dolba make and sell a variety of FLARM antennae for
Europe: foil
>stick-ons, flat plate and rod antennae. It might be worthwhile
asking if
>they can supply them for the PF using the US frequency. I was
put onto
>them by Glasfaser when I was looking for FLARM antennae for
my Libelle.
>
>Here's a URL: http://www.dolba.de/index.html
>
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

Martin,
I am afraid, that antenna is not the problem, it's the positioning
of it. You can install yagi -type antenna, that has high gain in
one direction, but then you are not visible in other directions.
Also, if antenna has high gain, it typically has low overall efficiency.
Same stands for receiving.
Dipole if efficient and near optimal antenna in this application,
IMHO.
-kh

[Dan[_4_]]

On Mar 25, 2:45*pm, Mike Schumann > wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2012 7:58:29 PM UTC-4, cfinn wrote:
> > Kimmo, you didn't say where you are located. However, I think you are
> > outside the US. *The Power Flarm being pushed in the US is a different
> > device then the Flarm units being used successfully in Europe and
> > other areas.
>
> > Also, I think those that are pushing Power Flarm use in the US are
> > doing a disservice to pilots. The US is mandated to use ADS-B in most
> > aircraft by 2020. The UAT version of ADS-B was developed specifically
> > as a lower cost system for general aviation. In addition to traffic
> > alerts, it also provides ID to ATC, and other services such as weather
> > and TFR's. It's true that ADS-B in it's raw form doesn't provide the
> > same alert suppression that Flarm does for gliders. However, it would
> > not be difficult to add those routines to soaring software in a PDA,
> > etc. After all, the processor in the Flarm is fairly low power.
>
> > Think of what the Power Flarm is trying to do verses what the standard
> > European Butterfly Flarm. In Europe, the only consideration is Flarm
> > to Flarm information, including air to air and ground hazards.
> > PowerFlarm is trying to add transponder and ADS-B information. Now we
> > require more receivers, more antennas and more processing power. The
> > software becomes more complicated because of the need to integrate
> > three entirely different systems. With ADS-B, you have one receiver,
> > one antenna, etc., and only need to process the ADS-B protocol. I did
> > neglect to say, both also have a GPS receiver.
>
> > I'm not about to become involved in a big discussion (read bitch
> > session) about why ADS-B won't work for gliders. Some people have
> > vested interests in pushing Flarm.
>
> > Charlie
>
> > On Mar 23, 6:57*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> > > I have installed several FLARM units. Most installations have been
> > > successful, i.e. the detection range is larger that the green area
> > > indicated in the FLARM range analysis. However in one LS-7 I have
> > > not been able to locate antenna right yet. It looks like the compass
> > > of that plane, located on top of the instrument panel, is blocking the
> > > field into 11 clock direction.
>
> > > My opinion is, that FLARM is a good tool when the antennas are
> > > correctly positioned. It might give you that critical 10 seconds time
> > > to react. However. antenna positioning remains largely unsolved
> > > problem. I await with interest the development of two antenna
> > > systems for PowerFLARM.
>
> > > We use LED based simple FLARM displays which show the nearest
> > > airplane, green when no danger, and red/alarm in danger.
> > > Additionally we are building connections to devices like Winpilot or
> > > XCSoar to show all nearby traffic detected by FLARM. That is also
> > > great when you are flying with other people - you know where they
> > > are, and what they are doing. Each FLARM unit has it's own code,
> > > and you can nickname them. You might like to know if it's the local
> > > von Richthofen approaching from sun's direction, or someone more
> > > friendly.
>
> > > At least I know couple pilots who - uh - need more clearance, I
> > > think...
>
> The other HUGE advantage of ADS-B is that if you are flying within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will see all Mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft in your area that are visible to ATC.
>
> Over 1/2 of the ADS-B ground station network is currently installed. *If you fly near a major metropolitan area, chances are you are currently within range of a ground station.
>
> If you have a Trig 21 transponder, all you need to broadcast an ADS-B out signal is a GPS source, some cables, and overcoming some FAA BS. *ADS-B IN receivers are widely available for ~$300 (seehttp://www.gns-gmbh.com/index.php?id=219&L=1). *Couple this with a PDA or an iPhone and a clever app, and you could have a collision avoidance system that has 10X the capability of the TCAS systems that the airlines are currently using.
>
> Mike Schumann

Hi Mike - true in the USA, but in Canada, ADS-B coverage is currently
planned only for the areas of the country that there is no radar
coverage of (sorry for the dangling participle) - the Arctic, and
areas off the East Coast. There is no plan for southern (to us, N of
49) airspace to have ADS-B. For us, PowerFLARM's PCAS and glider/
glider system makes a lot of sense. For those around Class B or C
airspace, adding transponders also make sense. For Canadians who go
south to compete (or fly the Ridge, or the Whites), the case for
PowerFLARM is compelling.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:06:45 +0000, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:

> I am afraid, that antenna is not the problem, it's the positioning of
> it.
>
I'm not arguing with that: I know that problem first hand from fitting a
RedBox in my Libelle. The solution I chose, following discussions with a
Danish Libelle pilot, was to fit a dipole half-way between the front of
the instrument tray and the rudder pedals. This works well, though its
exact position id fairly critical: see

http://www.gregorie.org/gliding/libelle/FLARM_dipole_mount.html


> You can install yagi -type antenna, that has high gain in one
> direction, but then you are not visible in other directions.
>
Yes, I wondered about that, but they always seem to recommend using the
Yagi in conjunction with a splitter and an omnidirectional antenna.

> Same stands for receiving.
>
Quite.

> Dipole if efficient and near optimal antenna in this application,
> IMHO.
>
....but difficult to install on a carbon airframe without adding drag. I
just wanted to highlight a source of a variety of antennae that can be
mounted remotely from the PF.

Disclaimer: I am not connected in any way with Dolba.


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

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Sunday, March 25, 2012 5:12:13 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:45*pm, Mike Schumann > wrote:
> > On Friday, March 23, 2012 7:58:29 PM UTC-4, cfinn wrote:
> > > Kimmo, you didn't say where you are located. However, I think you are
> > > outside the US. *The Power Flarm being pushed in the US is a different
> > > device then the Flarm units being used successfully in Europe and
> > > other areas.
> >
> > > Also, I think those that are pushing Power Flarm use in the US are
> > > doing a disservice to pilots. The US is mandated to use ADS-B in most
> > > aircraft by 2020. The UAT version of ADS-B was developed specifically
> > > as a lower cost system for general aviation. In addition to traffic
> > > alerts, it also provides ID to ATC, and other services such as weather
> > > and TFR's. It's true that ADS-B in it's raw form doesn't provide the
> > > same alert suppression that Flarm does for gliders. However, it would
> > > not be difficult to add those routines to soaring software in a PDA,
> > > etc. After all, the processor in the Flarm is fairly low power.
> >
> > > Think of what the Power Flarm is trying to do verses what the standard
> > > European Butterfly Flarm. In Europe, the only consideration is Flarm
> > > to Flarm information, including air to air and ground hazards.
> > > PowerFlarm is trying to add transponder and ADS-B information. Now we
> > > require more receivers, more antennas and more processing power. The
> > > software becomes more complicated because of the need to integrate
> > > three entirely different systems. With ADS-B, you have one receiver,
> > > one antenna, etc., and only need to process the ADS-B protocol. I did
> > > neglect to say, both also have a GPS receiver.
> >
> > > I'm not about to become involved in a big discussion (read bitch
> > > session) about why ADS-B won't work for gliders. Some people have
> > > vested interests in pushing Flarm.
> >
> > > Charlie
> >
> > > On Mar 23, 6:57*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> > > > I have installed several FLARM units. Most installations have been
> > > > successful, i.e. the detection range is larger that the green area
> > > > indicated in the FLARM range analysis. However in one LS-7 I have
> > > > not been able to locate antenna right yet. It looks like the compass
> > > > of that plane, located on top of the instrument panel, is blocking the
> > > > field into 11 clock direction.
> >
> > > > My opinion is, that FLARM is a good tool when the antennas are
> > > > correctly positioned. It might give you that critical 10 seconds time
> > > > to react. However. antenna positioning remains largely unsolved
> > > > problem. I await with interest the development of two antenna
> > > > systems for PowerFLARM.
> >
> > > > We use LED based simple FLARM displays which show the nearest
> > > > airplane, green when no danger, and red/alarm in danger.
> > > > Additionally we are building connections to devices like Winpilot or
> > > > XCSoar to show all nearby traffic detected by FLARM. That is also
> > > > great when you are flying with other people - you know where they
> > > > are, and what they are doing. Each FLARM unit has it's own code,
> > > > and you can nickname them. You might like to know if it's the local
> > > > von Richthofen approaching from sun's direction, or someone more
> > > > friendly.
> >
> > > > At least I know couple pilots who - uh - need more clearance, I
> > > > think...
> >
> > The other HUGE advantage of ADS-B is that if you are flying within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will see all Mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft in your area that are visible to ATC.
> >
> > Over 1/2 of the ADS-B ground station network is currently installed. *If you fly near a major metropolitan area, chances are you are currently within range of a ground station.
> >
> > If you have a Trig 21 transponder, all you need to broadcast an ADS-B out signal is a GPS source, some cables, and overcoming some FAA BS. *ADS-B IN receivers are widely available for ~$300 (seehttp://www.gns-gmbh.com/index.php?id=219&L=1). *Couple this with a PDA or an iPhone and a clever app, and you could have a collision avoidance system that has 10X the capability of the TCAS systems that the airlines are currently using.
> >
> > Mike Schumann
>
> Hi Mike - true in the USA, but in Canada, ADS-B coverage is currently
> planned only for the areas of the country that there is no radar
> coverage of (sorry for the dangling participle) - the Arctic, and
> areas off the East Coast. There is no plan for southern (to us, N of
> 49) airspace to have ADS-B. For us, PowerFLARM's PCAS and glider/
> glider system makes a lot of sense. For those around Class B or C
> airspace, adding transponders also make sense. For Canadians who go
> south to compete (or fly the Ridge, or the Whites), the case for
> PowerFLARM is compelling.

Assuming that PowerFLARM gets their ADS-B IN capability working (including TIS-B support), that will be a good solution as long as you couple it with a Trig 21 that is transmitting an ADS-B Out signal. For those of us who don't participate in competitions, the biggest collision threat are GA power aircraft, which are usually Mode C transponder equipped, and will probably never install FLARM. Those are the guys that show up on ADS-B via a ground station.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:45:46 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2012 7:58:29 PM UTC-4, cfinn wrote:
> > Kimmo, you didn't say where you are located. However, I think you are
> > outside the US. The Power Flarm being pushed in the US is a different
> > device then the Flarm units being used successfully in Europe and
> > other areas.
> >
> > Also, I think those that are pushing Power Flarm use in the US are
> > doing a disservice to pilots. The US is mandated to use ADS-B in most
> > aircraft by 2020. The UAT version of ADS-B was developed specifically
> > as a lower cost system for general aviation. In addition to traffic
> > alerts, it also provides ID to ATC, and other services such as weather
> > and TFR's. It's true that ADS-B in it's raw form doesn't provide the
> > same alert suppression that Flarm does for gliders. However, it would
> > not be difficult to add those routines to soaring software in a PDA,
> > etc. After all, the processor in the Flarm is fairly low power.
> >
> > Think of what the Power Flarm is trying to do verses what the standard
> > European Butterfly Flarm. In Europe, the only consideration is Flarm
> > to Flarm information, including air to air and ground hazards.
> > PowerFlarm is trying to add transponder and ADS-B information. Now we
> > require more receivers, more antennas and more processing power. The
> > software becomes more complicated because of the need to integrate
> > three entirely different systems. With ADS-B, you have one receiver,
> > one antenna, etc., and only need to process the ADS-B protocol. I did
> > neglect to say, both also have a GPS receiver.
> >
> > I'm not about to become involved in a big discussion (read bitch
> > session) about why ADS-B won't work for gliders. Some people have
> > vested interests in pushing Flarm.
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> > On Mar 23, 6:57*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> > > I have installed several FLARM units. Most installations have been
> > > successful, i.e. the detection range is larger that the green area
> > > indicated in the FLARM range analysis. However in one LS-7 I have
> > > not been able to locate antenna right yet. It looks like the compass
> > > of that plane, located on top of the instrument panel, is blocking the
> > > field into 11 clock direction.
> > >
> > > My opinion is, that FLARM is a good tool when the antennas are
> > > correctly positioned. It might give you that critical 10 seconds time
> > > to react. However. antenna positioning remains largely unsolved
> > > problem. I await with interest the development of two antenna
> > > systems for PowerFLARM.
> > >
> > > We use LED based simple FLARM displays which show the nearest
> > > airplane, green when no danger, and red/alarm in danger.
> > > Additionally we are building connections to devices like Winpilot or
> > > XCSoar to show all nearby traffic detected by FLARM. That is also
> > > great when you are flying with other people - you know where they
> > > are, and what they are doing. Each FLARM unit has it's own code,
> > > and you can nickname them. You might like to know if it's the local
> > > von Richthofen approaching from sun's direction, or someone more
> > > friendly.
> > >
> > > At least I know couple pilots who - uh - need more clearance, I
> > > think...
>
> The other HUGE advantage of ADS-B is that if you are flying within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will see all Mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft in your area that are visible to ATC.
>
> Over 1/2 of the ADS-B ground station network is currently installed. If you fly near a major metropolitan area, chances are you are currently within range of a ground station.
>
> If you have a Trig 21 transponder, all you need to broadcast an ADS-B out signal is a GPS source, some cables, and overcoming some FAA BS. ADS-B IN receivers are widely available for ~$300 (see http://www.gns-gmbh.com/index.php?id=219&L=1). Couple this with a PDA or an iPhone and a clever app, and you could have a collision avoidance system that has 10X the capability of the TCAS systems that the airlines are currently using.
>
> Mike Schumann

More hyperbole and empty hand waving. A system that is not available, not installed or used in practice is always going to be better, cheaper, more wonderful (for all definition of wonderful)...

Maybe you could describe exactly the parts of that system (e.g. what PDA software) and compare its traffic warning issued to a TCAS TA or explain how this system that cannot issue a RA (resolution advisory) could have "10X the capability" of a TCAS II system that provides traffic display, and TA and RA warnings.

Mis-positioning of ADS-B as being superior to TCAS II is just completely wrong. There is no system out there based on ADS-B, FLARM or any other technology that comes close to the actual collision avoidance of TCAS II... the only system that actually issues an RA (resolution advisory) to avoid a collision. And the Flarm developers are very careful to point out there system is just never designed or intend to do this. TCAS might evolve in future to include ADS-B position data but currently there are no standards and therefore no way for equipment manufactures, airlines or others to implement this. TCAS II and ADS-B will likely live "side-by-side" for many years.

ADS-B data-out installation today is really only practical in experiential gliders, certified gliders cannot have ADS-B data-out installed without an STC, and don't hold your breath for somebody to develop an STC. Even if you could find somebody to develop an STC for ADS-B data-out in a certified glider this would likely require an expensive IFR certified GPS-system to drive the Trig transponder. If you install a 'home-brewed' ADS-B data-out system with an experiential glider how exactly that will work with the ADS-B ground stations and services like ADS-R and TIS-B is not necessarily clear (and sometime to verify/experiment with if you do try this).

Darryl

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Monday, March 26, 2012 1:17:01 AM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:45:46 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > On Friday, March 23, 2012 7:58:29 PM UTC-4, cfinn wrote:
> > > Kimmo, you didn't say where you are located. However, I think you are
> > > outside the US. The Power Flarm being pushed in the US is a different
> > > device then the Flarm units being used successfully in Europe and
> > > other areas.
> > >
> > > Also, I think those that are pushing Power Flarm use in the US are
> > > doing a disservice to pilots. The US is mandated to use ADS-B in most
> > > aircraft by 2020. The UAT version of ADS-B was developed specifically
> > > as a lower cost system for general aviation. In addition to traffic
> > > alerts, it also provides ID to ATC, and other services such as weather
> > > and TFR's. It's true that ADS-B in it's raw form doesn't provide the
> > > same alert suppression that Flarm does for gliders. However, it would
> > > not be difficult to add those routines to soaring software in a PDA,
> > > etc. After all, the processor in the Flarm is fairly low power.
> > >
> > > Think of what the Power Flarm is trying to do verses what the standard
> > > European Butterfly Flarm. In Europe, the only consideration is Flarm
> > > to Flarm information, including air to air and ground hazards.
> > > PowerFlarm is trying to add transponder and ADS-B information. Now we
> > > require more receivers, more antennas and more processing power. The
> > > software becomes more complicated because of the need to integrate
> > > three entirely different systems. With ADS-B, you have one receiver,
> > > one antenna, etc., and only need to process the ADS-B protocol. I did
> > > neglect to say, both also have a GPS receiver.
> > >
> > > I'm not about to become involved in a big discussion (read bitch
> > > session) about why ADS-B won't work for gliders. Some people have
> > > vested interests in pushing Flarm.
> > >
> > > Charlie
> > >
> > > On Mar 23, 6:57*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> > > > I have installed several FLARM units. Most installations have been
> > > > successful, i.e. the detection range is larger that the green area
> > > > indicated in the FLARM range analysis. However in one LS-7 I have
> > > > not been able to locate antenna right yet. It looks like the compass
> > > > of that plane, located on top of the instrument panel, is blocking the
> > > > field into 11 clock direction.
> > > >
> > > > My opinion is, that FLARM is a good tool when the antennas are
> > > > correctly positioned. It might give you that critical 10 seconds time
> > > > to react. However. antenna positioning remains largely unsolved
> > > > problem. I await with interest the development of two antenna
> > > > systems for PowerFLARM.
> > > >
> > > > We use LED based simple FLARM displays which show the nearest
> > > > airplane, green when no danger, and red/alarm in danger.
> > > > Additionally we are building connections to devices like Winpilot or
> > > > XCSoar to show all nearby traffic detected by FLARM. That is also
> > > > great when you are flying with other people - you know where they
> > > > are, and what they are doing. Each FLARM unit has it's own code,
> > > > and you can nickname them. You might like to know if it's the local
> > > > von Richthofen approaching from sun's direction, or someone more
> > > > friendly.
> > > >
> > > > At least I know couple pilots who - uh - need more clearance, I
> > > > think...
> >
> > The other HUGE advantage of ADS-B is that if you are flying within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will see all Mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft in your area that are visible to ATC.
> >
> > Over 1/2 of the ADS-B ground station network is currently installed. If you fly near a major metropolitan area, chances are you are currently within range of a ground station.
> >
> > If you have a Trig 21 transponder, all you need to broadcast an ADS-B out signal is a GPS source, some cables, and overcoming some FAA BS. ADS-B IN receivers are widely available for ~$300 (see http://www.gns-gmbh.com/index.php?id=219&L=1). Couple this with a PDA or an iPhone and a clever app, and you could have a collision avoidance system that has 10X the capability of the TCAS systems that the airlines are currently using.
> >
> > Mike Schumann
>
> More hyperbole and empty hand waving. A system that is not available, not installed or used in practice is always going to be better, cheaper, more wonderful (for all definition of wonderful)...
>
> Maybe you could describe exactly the parts of that system (e.g. what PDA software) and compare its traffic warning issued to a TCAS TA or explain how this system that cannot issue a RA (resolution advisory) could have "10X the capability" of a TCAS II system that provides traffic display, and TA and RA warnings.
>
> Mis-positioning of ADS-B as being superior to TCAS II is just completely wrong. There is no system out there based on ADS-B, FLARM or any other technology that comes close to the actual collision avoidance of TCAS II... the only system that actually issues an RA (resolution advisory) to avoid a collision. And the Flarm developers are very careful to point out there system is just never designed or intend to do this. TCAS might evolve in future to include ADS-B position data but currently there are no standards and therefore no way for equipment manufactures, airlines or others to implement this. TCAS II and ADS-B will likely live "side-by-side" for many years.
>
> ADS-B data-out installation today is really only practical in experiential gliders, certified gliders cannot have ADS-B data-out installed without an STC, and don't hold your breath for somebody to develop an STC. Even if you could find somebody to develop an STC for ADS-B data-out in a certified glider this would likely require an expensive IFR certified GPS-system to drive the Trig transponder. If you install a 'home-brewed' ADS-B data-out system with an experiential glider how exactly that will work with the ADS-B ground stations and services like ADS-R and TIS-B is not necessarily clear (and sometime to verify/experiment with if you do try this).
>
> Darryl

Why the hostility to any suggestion of using ADS-B as a collision avoidance technology? There are already numerous applications available that can take ADS-B IN data and display traffic on a moving map display. It is clearly possible to extend the functionality of these applications to intelligently provide warnings of potential collision threats. This is what FLARM does. It is also what TCAS does. Neither of these systems have a monopoly on this functionality.

The reality is that with the ADS-B OUT capabilities of the Trig 21 transponder and the advertised ADS-B IN capabilities of PowerFLARM, the glider and GA communities have a potential for an affordable hardware platform for an ADS-B based collision avoidance system. The major open question is what obstacles the FAA will place on enabling the ADS-B OUT capability of the Trig 21 for use in VFR applications.

My suggestion is that we take this technology and put the pieces together and see if we can get it working. If we have to start with experimental gliders, so be it. Once we can demonstrate the technology using these off the shelf components, then we can work with the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to figure out the necessary permits, waivers, or regulatory reforms so that everyone can take advantage of this technology in VFR applications.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Mar 27, 12:04*am, Mike Schumann > wrote:
> On Monday, March 26, 2012 1:17:01 AM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:45:46 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 23, 2012 7:58:29 PM UTC-4, cfinn wrote:
> > > > Kimmo, you didn't say where you are located. However, I think you are
> > > > outside the US. *The Power Flarm being pushed in the US is a different
> > > > device then the Flarm units being used successfully in Europe and
> > > > other areas.
>
> > > > Also, I think those that are pushing Power Flarm use in the US are
> > > > doing a disservice to pilots. The US is mandated to use ADS-B in most
> > > > aircraft by 2020. The UAT version of ADS-B was developed specifically
> > > > as a lower cost system for general aviation. In addition to traffic
> > > > alerts, it also provides ID to ATC, and other services such as weather
> > > > and TFR's. It's true that ADS-B in it's raw form doesn't provide the
> > > > same alert suppression that Flarm does for gliders. However, it would
> > > > not be difficult to add those routines to soaring software in a PDA,
> > > > etc. After all, the processor in the Flarm is fairly low power.
>
> > > > Think of what the Power Flarm is trying to do verses what the standard
> > > > European Butterfly Flarm. In Europe, the only consideration is Flarm
> > > > to Flarm information, including air to air and ground hazards.
> > > > PowerFlarm is trying to add transponder and ADS-B information. Now we
> > > > require more receivers, more antennas and more processing power. The
> > > > software becomes more complicated because of the need to integrate
> > > > three entirely different systems. With ADS-B, you have one receiver,
> > > > one antenna, etc., and only need to process the ADS-B protocol. I did
> > > > neglect to say, both also have a GPS receiver.
>
> > > > I'm not about to become involved in a big discussion (read bitch
> > > > session) about why ADS-B won't work for gliders. Some people have
> > > > vested interests in pushing Flarm.
>
> > > > Charlie
>
> > > > On Mar 23, 6:57*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> > > > > I have installed several FLARM units. Most installations have been
> > > > > successful, i.e. the detection range is larger that the green area
> > > > > indicated in the FLARM range analysis. However in one LS-7 I have
> > > > > not been able to locate antenna right yet. It looks like the compass
> > > > > of that plane, located on top of the instrument panel, is blocking the
> > > > > field into 11 clock direction.
>
> > > > > My opinion is, that FLARM is a good tool when the antennas are
> > > > > correctly positioned. It might give you that critical 10 seconds time
> > > > > to react. However. antenna positioning remains largely unsolved
> > > > > problem. I await with interest the development of two antenna
> > > > > systems for PowerFLARM.
>
> > > > > We use LED based simple FLARM displays which show the nearest
> > > > > airplane, green when no danger, and red/alarm in danger.
> > > > > Additionally we are building connections to devices like Winpilot or
> > > > > XCSoar to show all nearby traffic detected by FLARM. That is also
> > > > > great when you are flying with other people - you know where they
> > > > > are, and what they are doing. Each FLARM unit has it's own code,
> > > > > and you can nickname them. You might like to know if it's the local
> > > > > von Richthofen approaching from sun's direction, or someone more
> > > > > friendly.
>
> > > > > At least I know couple pilots who - uh - need more clearance, I
> > > > > think...
>
> > > The other HUGE advantage of ADS-B is that if you are flying within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will see all Mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft in your area that are visible to ATC.
>
> > > Over 1/2 of the ADS-B ground station network is currently installed. *If you fly near a major metropolitan area, chances are you are currently within range of a ground station.
>
> > > If you have a Trig 21 transponder, all you need to broadcast an ADS-B out signal is a GPS source, some cables, and overcoming some FAA BS. *ADS-B IN receivers are widely available for ~$300 (seehttp://www.gns-gmbh.com/index.php?id=219&L=1). *Couple this with a PDA or an iPhone and a clever app, and you could have a collision avoidance system that has 10X the capability of the TCAS systems that the airlines are currently using.
>
> > > Mike Schumann
>
> > More hyperbole and empty hand waving. A system that is not available, not installed or used in practice is always going to be better, cheaper, more wonderful (for all definition of wonderful)...
>
> > Maybe you could describe exactly the parts of that system (e.g. what PDA software) and compare its traffic warning issued to a TCAS TA or explain how this system that cannot issue a RA (resolution advisory) could have "10X the capability" of a TCAS II system that provides traffic display, and TA and RA warnings.
>
> > Mis-positioning of ADS-B as being superior to TCAS II is just completely wrong. There is no system out there based on ADS-B, FLARM or any other technology that comes close to the actual collision avoidance of TCAS II... the only system that actually issues an RA (resolution advisory) to avoid a collision. And the Flarm developers are very careful to point out there system is just never designed or intend to do this. TCAS might evolve in future to include ADS-B position data but currently there are no standards and therefore no way for equipment manufactures, airlines or others to implement this. TCAS II and ADS-B will likely live "side-by-side" for many years.
>
> > ADS-B data-out installation today is really only practical in experiential gliders, certified gliders cannot have ADS-B data-out installed without an STC, and don't hold your breath for somebody to develop an STC. Even if you could find somebody to develop an STC for ADS-B data-out in a certified glider this would likely require an expensive IFR certified *GPS-system to drive the Trig transponder. If you install a 'home-brewed' ADS-B data-out system with an experiential glider how exactly that will work with the ADS-B ground stations and services like ADS-R and TIS-B is not necessarily clear (and sometime to verify/experiment with if you do try this).
>
> > Darryl
>
> Why the hostility to any suggestion of using ADS-B as a collision avoidance technology? *There are already numerous applications available that can take ADS-B IN data and display traffic on a moving map display. *It is clearly possible to extend the functionality of these applications to intelligently provide warnings of potential collision threats. *This is what FLARM does. *It is also what TCAS does. *Neither of these systems have a monopoly on this functionality.
>
> The reality is that with the ADS-B OUT capabilities of the Trig 21 transponder and the advertised ADS-B IN capabilities of PowerFLARM, the glider and GA communities have a potential for an affordable hardware platform for an ADS-B based collision avoidance system. *The major open question is what obstacles the FAA will place on enabling the ADS-B OUT capability of the Trig 21 for use in VFR applications.
>
> My suggestion is that we take this technology and put the pieces together and see if we can get it working. *If we have to start with experimental gliders, so be it. *Once we can demonstrate the technology using these off the shelf components, then we can work with the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to figure out the necessary permits, waivers, or regulatory reforms so that everyone can take advantage of this technology in VFR applications.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Mar 27, 12:04*am, Mike Schumann > wrote:
> On Monday, March 26, 2012 1:17:01 AM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:45:46 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 23, 2012 7:58:29 PM UTC-4, cfinn wrote:
> > > > Kimmo, you didn't say where you are located. However, I think you are
> > > > outside the US. *The Power Flarm being pushed in the US is a different
> > > > device then the Flarm units being used successfully in Europe and
> > > > other areas.
>
> > > > Also, I think those that are pushing Power Flarm use in the US are
> > > > doing a disservice to pilots. The US is mandated to use ADS-B in most
> > > > aircraft by 2020. The UAT version of ADS-B was developed specifically
> > > > as a lower cost system for general aviation. In addition to traffic
> > > > alerts, it also provides ID to ATC, and other services such as weather
> > > > and TFR's. It's true that ADS-B in it's raw form doesn't provide the
> > > > same alert suppression that Flarm does for gliders. However, it would
> > > > not be difficult to add those routines to soaring software in a PDA,
> > > > etc. After all, the processor in the Flarm is fairly low power.
>
> > > > Think of what the Power Flarm is trying to do verses what the standard
> > > > European Butterfly Flarm. In Europe, the only consideration is Flarm
> > > > to Flarm information, including air to air and ground hazards.
> > > > PowerFlarm is trying to add transponder and ADS-B information. Now we
> > > > require more receivers, more antennas and more processing power. The
> > > > software becomes more complicated because of the need to integrate
> > > > three entirely different systems. With ADS-B, you have one receiver,
> > > > one antenna, etc., and only need to process the ADS-B protocol. I did
> > > > neglect to say, both also have a GPS receiver.
>
> > > > I'm not about to become involved in a big discussion (read bitch
> > > > session) about why ADS-B won't work for gliders. Some people have
> > > > vested interests in pushing Flarm.
>
> > > > Charlie
>
> > > > On Mar 23, 6:57*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> > > > > I have installed several FLARM units. Most installations have been
> > > > > successful, i.e. the detection range is larger that the green area
> > > > > indicated in the FLARM range analysis. However in one LS-7 I have
> > > > > not been able to locate antenna right yet. It looks like the compass
> > > > > of that plane, located on top of the instrument panel, is blocking the
> > > > > field into 11 clock direction.
>
> > > > > My opinion is, that FLARM is a good tool when the antennas are
> > > > > correctly positioned. It might give you that critical 10 seconds time
> > > > > to react. However. antenna positioning remains largely unsolved
> > > > > problem. I await with interest the development of two antenna
> > > > > systems for PowerFLARM.
>
> > > > > We use LED based simple FLARM displays which show the nearest
> > > > > airplane, green when no danger, and red/alarm in danger.
> > > > > Additionally we are building connections to devices like Winpilot or
> > > > > XCSoar to show all nearby traffic detected by FLARM. That is also
> > > > > great when you are flying with other people - you know where they
> > > > > are, and what they are doing. Each FLARM unit has it's own code,
> > > > > and you can nickname them. You might like to know if it's the local
> > > > > von Richthofen approaching from sun's direction, or someone more
> > > > > friendly.
>
> > > > > At least I know couple pilots who - uh - need more clearance, I
> > > > > think...
>
> > > The other HUGE advantage of ADS-B is that if you are flying within range of an ADS-B ground station, you will see all Mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft in your area that are visible to ATC.
>
> > > Over 1/2 of the ADS-B ground station network is currently installed. *If you fly near a major metropolitan area, chances are you are currently within range of a ground station.
>
> > > If you have a Trig 21 transponder, all you need to broadcast an ADS-B out signal is a GPS source, some cables, and overcoming some FAA BS. *ADS-B IN receivers are widely available for ~$300 (seehttp://www.gns-gmbh.com/index.php?id=219&L=1). *Couple this with a PDA or an iPhone and a clever app, and you could have a collision avoidance system that has 10X the capability of the TCAS systems that the airlines are currently using.
>
> > > Mike Schumann
>
> > More hyperbole and empty hand waving. A system that is not available, not installed or used in practice is always going to be better, cheaper, more wonderful (for all definition of wonderful)...
>
> > Maybe you could describe exactly the parts of that system (e.g. what PDA software) and compare its traffic warning issued to a TCAS TA or explain how this system that cannot issue a RA (resolution advisory) could have "10X the capability" of a TCAS II system that provides traffic display, and TA and RA warnings.
>
> > Mis-positioning of ADS-B as being superior to TCAS II is just completely wrong. There is no system out there based on ADS-B, FLARM or any other technology that comes close to the actual collision avoidance of TCAS II... the only system that actually issues an RA (resolution advisory) to avoid a collision. And the Flarm developers are very careful to point out there system is just never designed or intend to do this. TCAS might evolve in future to include ADS-B position data but currently there are no standards and therefore no way for equipment manufactures, airlines or others to implement this. TCAS II and ADS-B will likely live "side-by-side" for many years.
>
> > ADS-B data-out installation today is really only practical in experiential gliders, certified gliders cannot have ADS-B data-out installed without an STC, and don't hold your breath for somebody to develop an STC. Even if you could find somebody to develop an STC for ADS-B data-out in a certified glider this would likely require an expensive IFR certified *GPS-system to drive the Trig transponder. If you install a 'home-brewed' ADS-B data-out system with an experiential glider how exactly that will work with the ADS-B ground stations and services like ADS-R and TIS-B is not necessarily clear (and sometime to verify/experiment with if you do try this).
>
> > Darryl
>
> Why the hostility to any suggestion of using ADS-B as a collision avoidance technology? *There are already numerous applications available that can take ADS-B IN data and display traffic on a moving map display. *It is clearly possible to extend the functionality of these applications to intelligently provide warnings of potential collision threats. *This is what FLARM does. *It is also what TCAS does. *Neither of these systems have a monopoly on this functionality.
>
> The reality is that with the ADS-B OUT capabilities of the Trig 21 transponder and the advertised ADS-B IN capabilities of PowerFLARM, the glider and GA communities have a potential for an affordable hardware platform for an ADS-B based collision avoidance system. *The major open question is what obstacles the FAA will place on enabling the ADS-B OUT capability of the Trig 21 for use in VFR applications.
>
> My suggestion is that we take this technology and put the pieces together and see if we can get it working. *If we have to start with experimental gliders, so be it. *Once we can demonstrate the technology using these off the shelf components, then we can work with the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to figure out the necessary permits, waivers, or regulatory reforms so that everyone can take advantage of this technology in VFR applications.

This approach would at least solve the problem of signal strength.

[Dave Nadler]

On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:04:13 AM UTC-4, Mike Schumann wrote:
> Why the hostility to any suggestion of using ADS-B as a collision avoidance technology? ... It is clearly possible to extend the functionality of these applications to intelligently provide warnings of potential collision threats. This is what FLARM does. It is also what TCAS does. Neither of these systems have a monopoly on this functionality.

You're missing some important points:

(1) ADS-B messages, whether via UAT or 1090, contain
only a current position and velocity vector. This is
quite different from FLARM, which broadcasts the expected
position over the next 20 seconds, taking into account
type of aircraft and recent history.

Why do we care ? Because if you have the detailed
info (for example, think about a glider circling),
you can be more precise about when there is really
a collision hazard. Without this info, you need to
use a big bubble, and you'll get lots of false
alarms for gliders maneuvering close together.

Works great for powered aircraft that don't want
to be close together, and generally fly straight.
Not helpful for gliders !

(2-27) Reread Darryl's posts carefully ;-)

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave