PowerFlarm BRICK range issues - are we alone????

[Mark]

Three members at my club (self included) have installed PowerFlarm bricks recently. We carefully read and have complied with the antenna separation requirements in the manual. As is stands currently, the maximum xperienced communication range (Flarm to Flarm) is about 2.2 miles and it frequently drops out around 1.3-1.5 miles. Regarding PCAS operation, the only alert I have received using the PowerFlarm Brick has been the towplane at a distance of about 1000-1500 feet lateraly, same altitude. At the same time my Zaon PCAS alerted to the same towplane at a range of 2+ miles and 1000 feet below.

The three gliders are a Ventus 1, Discus 2, and a PIK. All three seem to be experiencing the same issues with very poor range. Emails to FLARM have seemed to fall on deaf ears. We're curious if we're the only ones or if others are also seeing the same issues with BRICKS. We've heard plenty from portable users who are reporting 6+ miles Flarm to Flarm and PCAS alerts approaching 5 miles. If changes to the installation will fix this, great! We just need to know what to change. The US dealer has seen pics of our installation and says the antenna installations look good. They are all on the top of the glare shields so should be excellent visibility. We'd like this to work, but if there is no option to improve the performance then sending the stuff back is certainly on the table. More testing this weekend, but at the moment it's not looking good.

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

Mark,

If the aerial is well installed, so that the "visibility" is equal in all
directions, I believe that 2-3 miles range is good. If someone
can see another glider from distance of 6 miles, then AFAIK the
antenna gain is strong into that direction, but weak in other
directions. In you make a directional antenna, you lost the
performance in all other directions. The antennas delivered with
FLARM are omni-directional, so the range analysis is spherical in
optimum case.

Have you used
http://www.flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
to analyze the range?

-kh

At 15:56 01 October 2012, Mark wrote:
>Three members at my club (self included) have installed
PowerFlarm bricks
>r=
>ecently. We carefully read and have complied with the
antenna separation
>r=
>equirements in the manual. As is stands currently, the
maximum xperienced
>=
>communication range (Flarm to Flarm) is about 2.2 miles and it
frequently
>d=
>rops out around 1.3-1.5 miles. Regarding PCAS operation, the
only alert I
>=
>have received using the PowerFlarm Brick has been the
towplane at a
>distanc=
>e of about 1000-1500 feet lateraly, same altitude. At the same
time my
>Zao=
>n PCAS alerted to the same towplane at a range of 2+ miles
and 1000 feet
>be=
>low.
>
>The three gliders are a Ventus 1, Discus 2, and a PIK. All
three seem to
>b=
>e experiencing the same issues with very poor range. Emails
to FLARM have
>=
>seemed to fall on deaf ears. We're curious if we're the only
ones or if
>ot=
>hers are also seeing the same issues with BRICKS. We've
heard plenty from
>=
>portable users who are reporting 6+ miles Flarm to Flarm and
PCAS alerts
>ap=
>proaching 5 miles. If changes to the installation will fix this,
great!
>W=
>e just need to know what to change. The US dealer has seen
pics of our
>ins=
>tallation and says the antenna installations look good. They
are all on
>th=
>e top of the glare shields so should be excellent visibility. We'd
like
>th=
>is to work, but if there is no option to improve the performance
then
>sendi=
>ng the stuff back is certainly on the table. More testing this
weekend,
>bu=
>t at the moment it's not looking good.
>

[Luke Szczepaniak]

PowerFlarm users are not able to use this tool as our units do not
produce an IGC file at this point. I have a PowerFlarm brick installed
in an ASW27 and my range seems to be 4KM which is plenty for collision
avoidance, pcas and adsb ranges are definitely reduced as compared to
the portable unit that I had previously.

Luke Szczepaniak



On 10/01/2012 12:24 PM, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:
> Mark,
>
> If the aerial is well installed, so that the "visibility" is equal in all
> directions, I believe that 2-3 miles range is good. If someone
> can see another glider from distance of 6 miles, then AFAIK the
> antenna gain is strong into that direction, but weak in other
> directions. In you make a directional antenna, you lost the
> performance in all other directions. The antennas delivered with
> FLARM are omni-directional, so the range analysis is spherical in
> optimum case.
>
> Have you used
> http://www.flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
> to analyze the range?
>
> -kh
>
> At 15:56 01 October 2012, Mark wrote:
>> Three members at my club (self included) have installed
> PowerFlarm bricks
>> r=
>> ecently. We carefully read and have complied with the
> antenna separation
>> r=
>> equirements in the manual. As is stands currently, the
> maximum xperienced
>> =
>> communication range (Flarm to Flarm) is about 2.2 miles and it
> frequently
>> d=
>> rops out around 1.3-1.5 miles. Regarding PCAS operation, the
> only alert I
>> =
>> have received using the PowerFlarm Brick has been the
> towplane at a
>> distanc=
>> e of about 1000-1500 feet lateraly, same altitude. At the same
> time my
>> Zao=
>> n PCAS alerted to the same towplane at a range of 2+ miles
> and 1000 feet
>> be=
>> low.
>>
>> The three gliders are a Ventus 1, Discus 2, and a PIK. All
> three seem to
>> b=
>> e experiencing the same issues with very poor range. Emails
> to FLARM have
>> =
>> seemed to fall on deaf ears. We're curious if we're the only
> ones or if
>> ot=
>> hers are also seeing the same issues with BRICKS. We've
> heard plenty from
>> =
>> portable users who are reporting 6+ miles Flarm to Flarm and
> PCAS alerts
>> ap=
>> proaching 5 miles. If changes to the installation will fix this,
> great!
>> W=
>> e just need to know what to change. The US dealer has seen
> pics of our
>> ins=
>> tallation and says the antenna installations look good. They
> are all on
>> th=
>> e top of the glare shields so should be excellent visibility. We'd
> like
>> th=
>> is to work, but if there is no option to improve the performance
> then
>> sendi=
>> ng the stuff back is certainly on the table. More testing this
> weekend,
>> bu=
>> t at the moment it's not looking good.
>>
>

[kirk.stant]

Mark, how is your config file setup?

Kirk

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 1, 9:30*am, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> The antennas delivered with
> FLARM are omni-directional, so the range analysis is spherical in
> optimum case.
>

A dipole is not omni-directional. The pattern of an ideal dipole in
free space is not sherical. Why do you believe that the antennas
delivered with FLARM are omni-directional?


Andy

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:56:14 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
> Three members at my club (self included) have installed PowerFlarm bricks recently. We carefully read and have complied with the antenna separation requirements in the manual. As is stands currently, the maximum xperienced communication range (Flarm to Flarm) is about 2.2 miles and it frequently drops out around 1.3-1.5 miles. Regarding PCAS operation, the only alert I have received using the PowerFlarm Brick has been the towplane at a distance of about 1000-1500 feet lateraly, same altitude. At the same time my Zaon PCAS alerted to the same towplane at a range of 2+ miles and 1000 feet below. The three gliders are a Ventus 1, Discus 2, and a PIK. All three seem to be experiencing the same issues with very poor range. Emails to FLARM have seemed to fall on deaf ears. We're curious if we're the only ones or if others are also seeing the same issues with BRICKS. We've heard plenty from portable users who are reporting 6+ miles Flarm to Flarm and PCAS alerts approaching 5 miles. If changes to the installation will fix this, great! We just need to know what to change. The US dealer has seen pics of our installation and says the antenna installations look good. They are all on the top of the glare shields so should be excellent visibility. We'd like this to work, but if there is no option to improve the performance then sending the stuff back is certainly on the table. More testing this weekend, but at the moment it's not looking good.

It would seem that the range you are getting is good enough to provide the anti-collision properties that this device is intended to provide, at least glider to glider. Seeing other gliders for tactical purposes is what you get beyond the range that you are reporting. Nice to have, but not getting this would not seem to be a reason to pull the plug on the use of it in your glider.
I use a single element Flarm antenna on my glare shield in my '27 and see gliders to about 4 miles or so. I don't have any feedback on PCAS function.
FWIW
UH

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

Andy, you are right, the antenna is not necessary the dipole
version.
I think that dipole antenna is omnidirectional, since it radiates
equally in all directions in plane. The radiation pattern should be
donut shape.
If antenna is 1/4 wave stick on ground plate, isn't the pattern a half
sphere?

At 18:00 01 October 2012, Andy wrote:
>On Oct 1, 9:30=A0am, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:
>> The antennas delivered with
>> FLARM are omni-directional, so the range analysis is spherical in
>> optimum case.
>>
>
>A dipole is not omni-directional. The pattern of an ideal dipole in
>free space is not sherical. Why do you believe that the antennas
>delivered with FLARM are omni-directional?
>
>
>Andy
>
>

[Ramy]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:36:26 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:56:14 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
>
> > Three members at my club (self included) have installed PowerFlarm bricks recently. We carefully read and have complied with the antenna separation requirements in the manual. As is stands currently, the maximum xperienced communication range (Flarm to Flarm) is about 2.2 miles and it frequently drops out around 1.3-1.5 miles. Regarding PCAS operation, the only alert I have received using the PowerFlarm Brick has been the towplane at a distance of about 1000-1500 feet lateraly, same altitude. At the same time my Zaon PCAS alerted to the same towplane at a range of 2+ miles and 1000 feet below. The three gliders are a Ventus 1, Discus 2, and a PIK. All three seem to be experiencing the same issues with very poor range. Emails to FLARM have seemed to fall on deaf ears. We're curious if we're the only ones or if others are also seeing the same issues with BRICKS. We've heard plenty from portable users who are reporting 6+ miles Flarm to Flarm and PCAS alerts approaching 5 miles. If changes to the installation will fix this, great! We just need to know what to change. The US dealer has seen pics of our installation and says the antenna installations look good. They are all on the top of the glare shields so should be excellent visibility. We'd like this to work, but if there is no option to improve the performance then sending the stuff back is certainly on the table. More testing this weekend, but at the moment it's not looking good.
>
>
>
> It would seem that the range you are getting is good enough to provide the anti-collision properties that this device is intended to provide, at least glider to glider. Seeing other gliders for tactical purposes is what you get beyond the range that you are reporting. Nice to have, but not getting this would not seem to be a reason to pull the plug on the use of it in your glider.
>
> I use a single element Flarm antenna on my glare shield in my '27 and see gliders to about 4 miles or so. I don't have any feedback on PCAS function..
>
> FWIW
>
> UH

I think there is a consensus on 3 issues:
1 - Poor PCAS performance.
2 - Poor flarm performance in portables, but not bricks. Most bricks I know of getting 2-3 miles which is plenty enough for collision avoidance if you pay attention immediately.
3 - The support and manuals sucks.

None of the above should be a reason to delay purchase or return the unit. I am confident they will all get addressed in the near future.

Ramy

[Richard[_9_]]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:56:14 AM UTC-7, Mark wrote:
> Three members at my club (self included) have installed PowerFlarm bricks recently. We carefully read and have complied with the antenna separation requirements in the manual. As is stands currently, the maximum xperienced communication range (Flarm to Flarm) is about 2.2 miles and it frequently drops out around 1.3-1.5 miles. Regarding PCAS operation, the only alert I have received using the PowerFlarm Brick has been the towplane at a distance of about 1000-1500 feet lateraly, same altitude. At the same time my Zaon PCAS alerted to the same towplane at a range of 2+ miles and 1000 feet below. The three gliders are a Ventus 1, Discus 2, and a PIK. All three seem to be experiencing the same issues with very poor range. Emails to FLARM have seemed to fall on deaf ears. We're curious if we're the only ones or if others are also seeing the same issues with BRICKS. We've heard plenty from portable users who are reporting 6+ miles Flarm to Flarm and PCAS alerts approaching 5 miles. If changes to the installation will fix this, great! We just need to know what to change. The US dealer has seen pics of our installation and says the antenna installations look good. They are all on the top of the glare shields so should be excellent visibility. We'd like this to work, but if there is no option to improve the performance then sending the stuff back is certainly on the table. More testing this weekend, but at the moment it's not looking good.

I am getting 4 to 6 nm with the brick. Other gliders also have the brick.
I am not using the Butterfly displays, PowerFlarm to LX Navigation 1606 - Craggy Aero Ultimate Le,

I have a 1/2 wave Flarm A antenna and the dipole Flarm B antenna. Ventus b 1/2 wave on the inst panel cover and dipole in the nose.

You can see the antenna on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i0IVkHUnWU

Antennas:

http://www.craggyaero.com/cables_&_antennas.htm

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:49:32 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> Mark, how is your config file setup?
>
>
>
> Kirk

Kirk,

For lateral range initially I had no values in my config so the assumption is default should be maximum. Next time out I have a new config file which I've chosen 9000 meters for the lateral range for the PCAS function which equates to 5 miles. That's equivalent to the Zaon. I'd like to hope that this will help. The absolute silence from the manufacturer makes me more and more suspicious that there is yet another hardware issue going on here.

[Ramy]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 4:23:38 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:49:32 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > Mark, how is your config file setup?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Kirk
>
>
>
> Kirk,
>
>
>
> For lateral range initially I had no values in my config so the assumption is default should be maximum. Next time out I have a new config file which I've chosen 9000 meters for the lateral range for the PCAS function which equates to 5 miles. That's equivalent to the Zaon. I'd like to hope that this will help. The absolute silence from the manufacturer makes me more and more suspicious that there is yet another hardware issue going on here..

I tried that. It did not make any difference...
I heard second hand that Powerflarm USA confirmed the PCAS issue is a software problem which they are going to address.

Ramy

[Craig R.]

Discus 2b owner here. I have the brick installed with the supplied dipole antennas on the glare shield in "other than an optimal placement" and I have no issues seeing gliders out to 6nm. At times, they do drop out, but are reacquired relatively quickly. Circling tilted carbon fiber tends to block the signal at times. Also, as far as I can tell, performance has not changed with the new firmware update. I have flown with Richard (Craggy Aero) and he sees me without issue as I see him. The only ADSB contact I remember was an airliner flying overhead at altitude. As far as I can tell, the units are performing as advertised. If you have range issues, I'm guessing it's not the electronic architecture. Now if they could just get the .IGC file going.....

[WaltWX[_2_]]

Regarding PCAS performance on the PF Brick, my suspicions are that it is not alerting soon enough. Also, the Butterfly display speaker is too feeble to get my attention at times.

Last Sun 09/30/2012 while flying a 500km OLC flight out of Cal City I was in a near mid-air with a Mooney at 8500msl. I was cruising WSW bound and the Mooney was NW bound. First saw the aircraft approximately 5-10 seconds before a potential collision. At the same time, I heard a weak chirp from the PF Bufferfly and a circle on the screen at plus/minus 100feet. It passed by me 500feet horizontally.

My impression is that the PCAS sensitivity for an audible alarm needs to be increased. A louder speaker is a necessity. Perhaps one could set two sensitivity levels for audible alertss.

The unit was upgraded to fw 2.40 on 09/29. Here's the antenna installation:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/463771/MyGliderCockpit_Gaisford/PFlarm_Discus2A_Antenna_SideView.JPG

Forward dipole is the ADS-B; rear one is FLARM

Regarding FLARM range... I haven't flown with any other FLARM equipped glider yet. Phil Gaisford flew my Discus 2A "WX" at the NATS in Montague and he reported that the range and detection was ok.

Walt Rogers, WX

[Ramy]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 10:52:54 PM UTC-7, WaltWX wrote:
> Regarding PCAS performance on the PF Brick, my suspicions are that it is not alerting soon enough. Also, the Butterfly display speaker is too feeble to get my attention at times.
>
>
>
> Last Sun 09/30/2012 while flying a 500km OLC flight out of Cal City I was in a near mid-air with a Mooney at 8500msl. I was cruising WSW bound and the Mooney was NW bound. First saw the aircraft approximately 5-10 seconds before a potential collision. At the same time, I heard a weak chirp from the PF Bufferfly and a circle on the screen at plus/minus 100feet. It passed by me 500feet horizontally.
>
>
>
> My impression is that the PCAS sensitivity for an audible alarm needs to be increased. A louder speaker is a necessity. Perhaps one could set two sensitivity levels for audible alertss.
>
>
>
> The unit was upgraded to fw 2.40 on 09/29. Here's the antenna installation:
>
>
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/463771/MyGliderCockpit_Gaisford/PFlarm_Discus2A_Antenna_SideView.JPG
>
>
>
> Forward dipole is the ADS-B; rear one is FLARM
>
>
>
> Regarding FLARM range... I haven't flown with any other FLARM equipped glider yet. Phil Gaisford flew my Discus 2A "WX" at the NATS in Montague and he reported that the range and detection was ok.
>
>
>
> Walt Rogers, WX

The butterfly panel display is noticeably louder than the rectangular display.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the reply. This is exactly what I was looking for. There are some people that are getting 6nm range on their units. That's a lot better than 1.5nm if you're trying to catch up with a buddy. The question is how do I get to that kind of range?

Separately it seems I'm not alone with the PCAS range. Others are also reporting PCAS range of well under 1 mile. The product which they are delivering is not meeting a reasonable expectation of performance (particularly in PCAS) for which they and their dealers are advertising. Sub 1 mile PCAS range is basically worthless.

My antenna installation is very similar to the one someone else posted and you can see a pic here...

http://thezivleys.com/gliderstuff/flarmantennas.gif




> Discus 2b owner here. I have the brick installed with the supplied dipole antennas on the glare shield in "other than an optimal placement" and I have no issues seeing gliders out to 6nm.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 8:17:31 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. This is exactly what I was looking for. There are some people that are getting 6nm range on their units. That's a lot better than 1.5nm if you're trying to catch up with a buddy. The question is how do I get to that kind of range? Separately it seems I'm not alone with the PCAS range. Others are also reporting PCAS range of well under 1 mile. The product which they are delivering is not meeting a reasonable expectation of performance (particularly in PCAS) for which they and their dealers are advertising. Sub 1 mile PCAS range is basically worthless. My antenna installation is very similar to the one someone else posted and you can see a pic here... http://thezivleys.com/gliderstuff/flarmantennas.gif > Discus 2b owner here. I have the brick installed with the supplied dipole antennas on the glare shield in "other than an optimal placement" and I have no issues seeing gliders out to 6nm.

Unless it has a plastic case, you compass is not helping the situation. PF wants NO metal above the plane antennas are mounted on.
UH

[[email protected]]

While I doubt that the compass is causing issues, I'm actually going to remove it next flight to test that theory.

Further, if you look at pages 3 and 5 of the antenna mounting guide

http://powerflarm.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PowerFLARM_Application_Note_ANTENNAS1.pdf

I draw your attention to the two pictures with the big Green circle with the check mark in them. In both, they have a compass not far from the Flarm antenna in very much the same configuration. Further, there is no specific mention of compass separation in the manual.

I'm going to test without the compass, but I really doubt this will be an issue. One other pilot in our group already flew without a compass and no better luck on his end either.

Mark


> Unless it has a plastic case, you compass is not helping the situation. PF wants NO metal above the plane antennas are mounted on.
>
> UH

[FLARM]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:43:20 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> I think there is a consensus on 3 issues:
>
> 1 - Poor PCAS performance.

Will be fixed with firmware update.

> 2 - Poor flarm performance in portables, but not bricks.
> Most bricks I know of getting 2-3 miles which is plenty enough
> for collision avoidance if you pay attention immediately.

US portables will be recalled to make FLARM hardware equivalent to Bricks (which have more than sufficient range for collision avoidance)

> 3 - The support and manuals sucks.
Point taken.

Expect to see action on all three points before the end of November.
FLARM

[bumper[_4_]]

No expert, but the Navy gave us enough antenna design/installation info so we usually wouldn't sink ships. That said:

The pictures show the center fed dipole with the coax feed coming from the front. Would be better with it coming from aft so the coax will have less of an effect on the radiation pattern. Also, better if the coax remained perpendicular for a bit more distance, maybe 3-4 inches, before heading down.

Given that the forward hemisphere is of most concern, then tandem mounting looks to be least desirable as one antenna interfers with the other. A side-by-side arrangement is better, assuming there is room to still keep them separated by roughly 6 or more inches.

Assume the black brackets shown in one picture are non-metalic and not filled with lots of carbon black for color?

Some improvement may be had by shortening the excess coax lead. The antenna base will disassemle and with requisite soldering skill the leads can be shortened instead of folded up behind the panel.

I borrowed Rex's idea, as used on 3U and shown here: http://www.valleysoaring.net/?page_id=1487

Makes for a cleaner install than with antennas over the glareshield. It will also allow for some experimentation with moving the antennas fore and aft changing there separation to see how that effects range.

bumper

[Brad[_2_]]

> US portables will be recalled to make FLARM hardware equivalent to Bricks (which have more than sufficient range for collision avoidance)

when and where will units be sent?

anticipated turn-around time?

would like to have my PF back in time for U.S. 2013 spring season.

Brad

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 12:15:24 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 10:52:54 PM UTC-7, WaltWX wrote:
>
> > Regarding PCAS performance on the PF Brick, my suspicions are that it is not alerting soon enough. Also, the Butterfly display speaker is too feeble to get my attention at times.

> > My impression is that the PCAS sensitivity for an audible alarm needs to be increased. A louder speaker is a necessity. Perhaps one could set two sensitivity levels for audible alertss.

>
> > The unit was upgraded to fw 2.40 on 09/29. Here's the antenna installation:
>
> > Regarding FLARM range... I haven't flown with any other FLARM equipped glider yet. Phil Gaisford flew my Discus 2A "WX" at the NATS in Montague and he reported that the range and detection was ok.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Walt Rogers, WX
>
>
>
> The butterfly panel display is noticeably louder than the rectangular display.
>
>
>
> Ramy

Ref "WX"... I'm using the Butterfly rectangular display. Speaker is not loud enough.

Walt Rogers

[noel.wade]

On Oct 2, 5:17*am, wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. *This is exactly what I was looking for. *There are some people that are getting 6nm range on their units. *That's a lot better than 1.5nm if you're trying to catch up with a buddy. *The question is how do I get to that kind of range?

OK, the scenario you are explaining is almost the worst possible, for
range. If your FLARM antenna is in the nose of your ship (and you
don't have a DG with a long canopy like mine), your antenna is
probably partially obstructed in the forward direction. Your buddy's
FLARM antenna is probably in his nose, too. So when he's directly in
front of you his body, his wing-center-section (including all those
control-rods & pins), and his tailcone are all blocking the signal to
the rear. 1.5 to 3nm range is not bad, in that scenario.

I can usually see head-on and traffic converging from my 9-o'clock
through 3-o'clock at 6 to 8 nm out. I see traffic from my 4-o'clock
to 8-o'clock at a range of about 4-6nm. I find that I lose lock on
circling gliders when they're beyond about 3-4nm, especially if
they're above me (regardless of their position relative to my
glider). I think this has more to do with interference from the other
glider's antenna placement and equipment (between their FLARM and
mine) as they circle.

In all cases, I see traffic from more than enough range to provide
collision alerting and do a bit of leeching/catchup. I have the
rectangular display on a gooseneck in front of my panel (along with my
moving-map PDA/PNA), and find the volume to be more than loud enough.

I have the dipole antenna 8" in front of my compass, at or above the
glareshield level, with the coax running out of the antenna to the
rear and the vertically down the all-plastic (*not metal*) support
that the antenna is mounted on. You can see my (MacGyver'ed) mount
here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/noel_wade/8048620724/in/photostream

--Noel
P.S. I like the product; but I *do* think the manuals could stand
some improvement. And a simple GUI tool for setting up a good config
file should be easy to make, and avoid a lot of people's configuration
problems/bugs.

[[email protected]]

Noel,

I think you interpreted my "catch up" comment a bit too literally. Perhaps "meet up" would be a better term though. If I had even sporadic range to the tune of 4-6nm as some people are getting then it would be a lot easier to head in the right direction to meet up before starting a task. 2 weekends ago I was able to see the other glider thermalling out in front of me before it showed up on the display.

I'm going to do more testing, but 1.5 miles range nominally is pretty disappointing when the unit has a 6nm range screen.

Mark

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 2, 10:10*am, FLARM > wrote:
>
> > 2 - Poor flarm performance in portables, but not bricks.
> > * * Most bricks I know of getting 2-3 miles which is plenty enough
> > * * for collision avoidance if you pay attention immediately.
>
> US portables will be recalled to make FLARM hardware equivalent to Bricks (which have more than sufficient range for collision avoidance)

My recollection is that all Portables were intended to be modified by
the addiition of rf filtering that reduced out of band interference.
After that modification the portables were claimed to have good range
performance. We were also told that this modification had been made
in all fielded portables.

Now we are being told that, although there are multiple reports of
inadequate range for the brick, that the portable will be modifed to
have hardware equivalent to the brick.

I am the only one that finds this somewhat inconsistent?

Would FLARM please explain how the units are different in term of RF
design and performance. Would FLARM also please clarify whether the
recall is intended to increase the performance of the portable, or to
degrade it to that of the brick.


GY

[Robert Fidler[_2_]]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:56:14 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
> Three members at my club (self included) have installed PowerFlarm bricks recently. We carefully read and have complied with the antenna separation requirements in the manual. As is stands currently, the maximum xperienced communication range (Flarm to Flarm) is about 2.2 miles and it frequently drops out around 1.3-1.5 miles. Regarding PCAS operation, the only alert I have received using the PowerFlarm Brick has been the towplane at a distance of about 1000-1500 feet lateraly, same altitude. At the same time my Zaon PCAS alerted to the same towplane at a range of 2+ miles and 1000 feet below.
>
>
>
> The three gliders are a Ventus 1, Discus 2, and a PIK. All three seem to be experiencing the same issues with very poor range. Emails to FLARM have seemed to fall on deaf ears. We're curious if we're the only ones or if others are also seeing the same issues with BRICKS. We've heard plenty from portable users who are reporting 6+ miles Flarm to Flarm and PCAS alerts approaching 5 miles. If changes to the installation will fix this, great! We just need to know what to change. The US dealer has seen pics of our installation and says the antenna installations look good. They are all on the top of the glare shields so should be excellent visibility. We'd like this to work, but if there is no option to improve the performance then sending the stuff back is certainly on the table. More testing this weekend, but at the moment it's not looking good.

I am not buying the Flarm until all these issues are resolved. I refused shipment of my ordered unit because all of these issues are not resolved. I think if people refused to purchase the unit until these issues are resolved, the factory would have the issues resolved. All I hear is the factory saying yeah we have fixed the problems and the customers coming back and stating, no, all of the problems are not fixed. Rest my case.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:49:32 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> Mark, how is your config file setup?
>
>
>
> Kirk

Kirk,

The new config file which I intend to load before flying this coming weekend includes the following. I believe this would give me a 5 mile lateral range and a 3000 foot vertical range for transponder and ADSB. Take a look. Are there any settings for Flarm to Flarm range in the config options????

# Set vertical ADS-B range in meters.
# For gliders, a vertical range of +-1000m is recommended
$pflac,s,adsbvrange,1000
$PFLAC,S,ADSBRANGE,9000
#
# Transponder Range Variables in meters horz above vert
$PFLAC,S,PCASRANGE,9000
$PFLAC,S,PCASVRANGE,1000

Mark

[FLARM]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 4:41:53 PM UTC-7, Andy wrote:
> > US portables will be recalled to make FLARM hardware equivalent to Bricks (which have more than sufficient range for collision avoidance)
>
>
> My recollection is that all Portables were intended to be modified by
> the addiition of rf filtering that reduced out of band interference.
> After that modification the portables were claimed to have good range
> performance. We were also told that this modification had been made
> in all fielded portables.
>
> Now we are being told that, although there are multiple reports of
> inadequate range for the brick, that the portable will be modifed to
> have hardware equivalent to the brick.
>
> I am the only one that finds this somewhat inconsistent?

There are two completely independent circuits in PowerFLARM:

FLARM RF transceiver:
'Bricks' have a bandpass filter to reduce 'out of band' signals.
All 'Bricks' report a more than adequate range for FLARM signals.

'Portables' do not have that filter and will be recalled to add it.
They will then have a FLARM RF circuit equivalent to the one on the 'Bricks'


PCAS/ADS-B receiver:
Both 'Portable' and 'Brick' seem to show a reduced range in some installations.
This is not a circuit issue as the same circuit is capable of receiving ADS-B signals from 20+ miles away, even in the installations that currently show PCAS range issues.
Processing PCAS (especially Mode C transponder signals) is pretty tricky. You will find many threads about this on R.A.S and elsewhere (not by us).
We will continue to improve PCAS performance and this can and will be done in software. These performance updates are, of course, free.

FLARM

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:11:50 AM UTC-4, FLARM wrote:
>
> PCAS/ADS-B receiver:
>
> Both 'Portable' and 'Brick' seem to show a reduced range in some installations.
>
> This is not a circuit issue as the same circuit is capable of receiving ADS-B signals from 20+ miles away, even in the installations that currently show PCAS range issues.
>
> Processing PCAS (especially Mode C transponder signals) is pretty tricky. You will find many threads about this on R.A.S and elsewhere (not by us).
>
> We will continue to improve PCAS performance and this can and will be done in software. These performance updates are, of course, free.
>

Nice to see you here...

The other thing that has really got to be addressed is the PCAS display. I use the 57mm Butterfly. The flarm collision alert screen/audio is acceptable. The PCAS display/audio is terrible. I can't read the differential altitude (too small) and the circle is hard to interpret. While I do not have the display at center/top of my panel (which would help), that's where my ASI and vario go and that's where they stay. I'd rather have estimated range as a number (NM, SM, KM selectable), but whatever it is, it needs to be *much* easier to read.

Thanks for reading...

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Brian[_1_]]

>
> The other thing that has really got to be addressed is the PCAS display. I use the 57mm Butterfly. The flarm collision alert screen/audio is acceptable. The PCAS display/audio is terrible. I can't read the differential altitude (too small) and the circle is hard to interpret. While I do not have the display at center/top of my panel (which would help), that's where my ASI and vario go and that's where they stay. I'd rather have estimated range as a number (NM, SM, KM selectable), but whatever it is, it needs to be *much* easier to read.
>
>
>
> Thanks for reading...
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

I Agree with the above, Also would like to see it display the transponder code that is being transmitted as well so I can tell if it the other glider squawking 1202, or a VFR aircraft squawking 1200 or and airliner squawking 0214 that I am seeing on the display. Otherwise I might assume I am seeing the other glider that I know where he is instead of the Airline passing through.

Brian

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:29:26 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:11:50 AM UTC-4, FLARM wrote: > > PCAS/ADS-B receiver: > > Both 'Portable' and 'Brick' seem to show a reduced range in some installations. > > This is not a circuit issue as the same circuit is capable of receiving ADS-B signals from 20+ miles away, even in the installations that currently show PCAS range issues. > > Processing PCAS (especially Mode C transponder signals) is pretty tricky. You will find many threads about this on R.A.S and elsewhere (not by us). > > We will continue to improve PCAS performance and this can and will be done in software. These performance updates are, of course, free. > Nice to see you here... The other thing that has really got to be addressed is the PCAS display. I use the 57mm Butterfly. The flarm collision alert screen/audio is acceptable. The PCAS display/audio is terrible. I can't read the differential altitude (too small) and the circle is hard to interpret. While I do not have the display at center/top of my panel (which would help), that's where my ASI and vario go and that's where they stay. I'd rather have estimated range as a number (NM, SM, KM selectable), but whatever it is, it needs to be *much* easier to read. Thanks for reading... Evan Ludeman / T8

I guess I'll gang up here a bit. I removed the 57mm display abd out it on the shelf because the information numerically displayed is too small for my 60+ year old eyes. The display on ClearNav of this information is much more usable to me.
Another voice heard from.
UH

[noel.wade]

On Oct 3, 3:47*am, Robert Fidler > wrote:
> I am not buying the Flarm until all these issues are resolved. I refused shipment of my ordered unit because all of these issues are not resolved. I think if people refused to purchase the unit until these issues are resolved, the factory would have the issues resolved. All I hear is the factory saying yeah we have fixed the problems and the customers coming back and stating, no, all of the problems are not fixed. Rest my case.

Come on now, this is a ridiculous attitude to have. How do you go
through life? Do you refuse to buy a car model if *any* one ever sold
has broken down? Do you refuse to buy *any* computer or software, if
it has ever had a single bug? Do you refuse to go into *any*
restaurant that's ever had even one bad review or complaint online?

The PowerFLARM system isn't perfect, and I (like many) are still
waiting for the IGC logging capability and some of the other tweaks).
But the system works perfectly fine as it is right now! Here are some
things to keep in mind:

1) FLARM is based on two-way radio signals. So the range and
performance is strongly affected by both _your_ installation _and_
your buddies' installation. In this thread here, we've heard some
details about one person's installation, but we haven't gotten
complete details on the people he's been flying with. His
installation could be _great_ but if his buddies haven't done a good
job then they'll all have "poor" performance.

Making judgements about the PowerFLARM when you only know details of
one unit/installation is like complaining about someone driving past
you at double your speed, while failing to mention that you're driving
a 3-cylinder Yugo at 45mph on a 70mph freeway. You're making
judgements while leaving out key parts of the context of the
situation!

2) FLARM IS ***NOT*** A RADAR SYSTEM. IT IS AN __ANTI-COLLISION__
SYSTEM. Sorry for shouting, but I think people's expectations here
have gotten wayyyy out of whack. You need to remember that first and
foremost, the mission of a FLARM is to protect you against a midair.
If it is performing well-enough to prevent a midair, then it is doing
its job. Yes, I'll admit that its really cool when you _can_ see
every piece of traffic at 6-8nm and make tactical decisions or find
your friends from a long ways off. But that is *not* the device's
intended function - that is a "bonus".

Now, what is acceptable mid-air collision avoidance? Your opinion may
be different from mine, but let's run the numbers on the "bad" 1.5nm
range. Let's take a worst-case-scenario of two gliders approaching
each other head-on just under cloudbase (so its realllly hard to
visually spot the other glider, and closing speed is maximized).
Let's say they're bombing along under a cloudstreet at 100mph, so the
closing-speed is 200mph. 200mph is 1 mile every 18 seconds. So at
1.5nm range you have over 25 seconds to react to a threat. STOP
reading this right now, stare at a wall, and count out 25 seconds.
I'll wait. Wow, when you count it out that's a pretty good chunk of
time, isn't it? Even IF you spend the first 5-10 seconds looking
around for the oncoming glider before you make a decision to change
your course, you'd still have enough time to make that evasive
maneuver.

Since most people are seeing traffic at least twice that distance
(~3-4nm), I'd argue the system is working acceptably and DOING ITS
JOB.

If you visually pick up on a glider before the FLARM does,
congratulations on your visual scan! This does not mean the FLARM has
failed you. FLARM is there to protect you against the gliders you
*don't* see - not the ones you do. Accident records show us that
gliders come close to one another a lot, without either pilot seeing
the other aircraft. THAT is the fundamental safety issue that FLARM
addresses.

And lastly: Not to be critical of the original poster, but why do you
need FLARM to tell you where your buddies are? Can't you call them on
the radio and ask them to report their location & altitude? Glider
pilots have been doing that for decades! Again, I'm not trying to
give the original poster a hard time; but for those who see this as a
"failure" of the FLARM system, I want to point out the fallacy of that
line of thinking.

FLARM *can* do some pretty cool things. But don't judge the system by
its "bonus" capabilities, judge it by its core mission and whether it
is succeeding at that. And from everything I've seen (including the
Standard Class Nationals that I flew in this year), it is delivering
on the promise of collision detection and alerting.

--Noel

[bumper[_4_]]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:16:11 AM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:
> On Oct 3, 3:47*am, Robert Fidler > wrote:



(clip of important stuff) . . . And from everything I've seen (including the
>
> Standard Class Nationals that I flew in this year), it is delivering
>
> on the promise of collision detection and alerting.
>
>
>
> --Noel

That pretty much says it. Good post.

In deciding whether to buy a PF, I asked myself how much my butt is worth. (I tend to consistently place an exhorbitantly high value on my butt - - valuing it much more than others might.) I bought two PF's, glider and Husky.

bumper

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

I agree with Noel. FLARM is collision warning system, and there
is no alternative for it at the moment.

When you connect FLARM with a PNA or smartphone running a
nice tactical flight computer, you can get a lot features utilizing
FLARM traffic information. What I like a lot is a possibility to
name other FLARM users. You know, some people, uh, need
mode airspace between him and me than some others ;^)
Our European FLARM systems only have one FLARM antenna.
You have two, another for additional FLARM receiver. That can
improve collision avoidance significantly, when two gliders are
flying near each others, and fuselage blocks the radio signal.

I am sure, that FLARM engineers are working full time improving
this product. This product is result of their vision, innovations
and guts to start a new business. I think what they have done is
respectable.

Before the FLARM range analysis works for you, it is difficult to
judge the real performance. One possibility might be, that you
use XCSoar and log the incoming NMEA stream from FLARM. You
can then simulate your flight to see what happened. You can
also filter the FLARM traffic signals from this text file, and see
what have been the distances when traffic has been detected.



>FLARM *can* do some pretty cool things. But don't judge the
system by
>its "bonus" capabilities, judge it by its core mission and
whether it
>is succeeding at that. And from everything I've seen (including
the
>Standard Class Nationals that I flew in this year), it is
delivering
>on the promise of collision detection and alerting.
>
>--Noel
>
>

[Brad[_2_]]

On Oct 3, 11:45*am, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> I agree with Noel. FLARM is collision warning system, and there
> is no alternative for it at the moment.
>
> When you connect FLARM with a PNA or smartphone running a
> nice tactical flight computer, you can get a lot features utilizing
> FLARM traffic information. What I like a lot is a possibility to
> name other FLARM users. You know, some people, uh, need
> mode airspace between him and me than some others ;^)
> Our European FLARM systems only have one FLARM antenna.
> You have two, another for additional FLARM receiver. That can
> improve collision avoidance significantly, when two gliders are
> flying near each others, and fuselage blocks the radio signal.
>
> I am sure, that FLARM engineers are working full time improving
> this product. This product is result of their vision, innovations
> and guts to start a new business. I think what they have done is
> respectable.
>
> Before the FLARM range analysis works for you, it is difficult to
> judge the real performance. One possibility might be, that you
> use XCSoar and log the incoming NMEA stream from FLARM. You
> can then simulate your flight to see what happened. You can
> also filter the FLARM traffic signals from this text file, and see
> what have been the distances when traffic has been detected.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >FLARM *can* do some pretty cool things. *But don't judge the
> system by
> >its "bonus" capabilities, judge it by its core mission and
> whether it
> >is succeeding at that. *And from everything I've seen (including
> the
> >Standard Class Nationals that I flew in this year), it is
> delivering
> >on the promise of collision detection and alerting.
>
> >--Noel

A few weeks ago my buddy and I planned on doing some PF-TO-PF in
flight testing. He has the brick with the butterfly display and I the
stand-alone unit. Well, the soaring was not to be, after he towed to a
nearby ridge I had him locked on my PNA running LK8000 and watched his
progress as he struggled in weak lift almost 8 miles away while I
waited on the ground. I thought that was pretty cool, it also was an
interesting heads up on the conditions he was working, as we could
track his progress via PF and corroborate it using our radios.

Brad

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:07:10 PM UTC-4, Brad wrote:
> On Oct 3, 11:45*am, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
>
> > I agree with Noel. FLARM is collision warning system, and there
>
> > is no alternative for it at the moment.
>
> >
>
> > When you connect FLARM with a PNA or smartphone running a
>
> > nice tactical flight computer, you can get a lot features utilizing
>
> > FLARM traffic information. What I like a lot is a possibility to
>
> > name other FLARM users. You know, some people, uh, need
>
> > mode airspace between him and me than some others ;^)
>
> > Our European FLARM systems only have one FLARM antenna.
>
> > You have two, another for additional FLARM receiver. That can
>
> > improve collision avoidance significantly, when two gliders are
>
> > flying near each others, and fuselage blocks the radio signal.
>
> >
>
> > I am sure, that FLARM engineers are working full time improving
>
> > this product. This product is result of their vision, innovations
>
> > and guts to start a new business. I think what they have done is
>
> > respectable.
>
> >
>
> > Before the FLARM range analysis works for you, it is difficult to
>
> > judge the real performance. One possibility might be, that you
>
> > use XCSoar and log the incoming NMEA stream from FLARM. You
>
> > can then simulate your flight to see what happened. You can
>
> > also filter the FLARM traffic signals from this text file, and see
>
> > what have been the distances when traffic has been detected.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >FLARM *can* do some pretty cool things. *But don't judge the
>
> > system by
>
> > >its "bonus" capabilities, judge it by its core mission and
>
> > whether it
>
> > >is succeeding at that. *And from everything I've seen (including
>
> > the
>
> > >Standard Class Nationals that I flew in this year), it is
>
> > delivering
>
> > >on the promise of collision detection and alerting.
>
> >
>
> > >--Noel
>
>
>
> A few weeks ago my buddy and I planned on doing some PF-TO-PF in
>
> flight testing. He has the brick with the butterfly display and I the
>
> stand-alone unit. Well, the soaring was not to be, after he towed to a
>
> nearby ridge I had him locked on my PNA running LK8000 and watched his
>
> progress as he struggled in weak lift almost 8 miles away while I
>
> waited on the ground. I thought that was pretty cool, it also was an
>
> interesting heads up on the conditions he was working, as we could
>
> track his progress via PF and corroborate it using our radios.
>
>
>
> Brad

Like Bumper, I also place an extraordinarily high value on my personal rear-end. I have had a PF portable and now have a brick, and have lived through the entire 'range issue' from the start. Even *with* the range issue, I estimate that PF has "saved" my ornery hide at least a half-dozen times so far, where "saved" means that it alerted me to an undetected imminent collision threat. The last time was two weeks ago at New Castle where I was approaching a gaggle, and concentrating on the gliders in the gaggle. Unbeknownst to me, another glider was approaching almost head-on at the same altitude. PF (with a Butterfly rectangular display) did its thing and allowed me to take evasive action (the other glider never saw me, or at least never took evasive action).

Bottom line: PF *works*! It isn't perfect, and will require improvements/refinements in due time, but it is certainly a heck of a lot better than what we had (nothing) in the past. Chris O'Callahan would almost certainly be alive today if we had gotten FLARM to the U.S. a year sooner.

For my money, FLARM should be required equipment for all nationals in 2013, and for all SSA sanctioned contests from 2014 on. Normally new rules/requirements are tried out at regionals before being adopted for nationals, but I think this is a case where it should go the other way. Attending a nationals usually denotes a higher level of commitment, and theoretically at least, more willingness to fork out he dough required to get there (not to mention the fact that nationals-level pilots have probably already had their fair share of close calls and don't want to put up with pilots who don't think their butts are worth $1,500).

TA

[[email protected]]

Brad,

Any chance you could post some details on your friend's installation. If we assume that the brick itself has identical performance (I'm not sure this assumption is correct at this point) then I'd be curious to know what type of glider and how the antennas are arranged. The other 1/2 of the equation is that perhaps the transmit from the brick reaches out to 8 miles and there is something on the brick reception that's an issue....

Thanks,

Mark

[[email protected]]

"Do you refuse to buy a car model if *any* one ever sold
has broken down? Do you refuse to buy *any* computer or software, if
it has ever had a single bug?"

No, but I wouldn't buy a Windows OS until it hit at least SP1 nor would I buy a Lotus whose model name was accompanied by the designator "S1"!

By the way, if anyone's willing to take $1500 from me and, in return, have a proper, legal installation of a PF Brick performed on my ship, I would take them up on the offer in an instant. $1500 would be a hell of a bargain.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Oct 3, 4:59*pm, wrote:
> Brad,
>
> Any chance you could post some details on your friend's installation. *If we assume that the brick itself has identical performance (I'm not sure this assumption is correct at this point) then I'd be curious to know what type of glider and how the antennas are arranged. *The other 1/2 of the equation is that perhaps the transmit from the brick reaches out to 8 miles and there is something on the brick reception that's an issue....
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark

Mark,

My friend flies an LS-8. I'm not sure where his antennas are, I will
ask him and post. There were a lot of wires and tubes used to make
this installation. It looks really good and he is happy with it. The
Butterfly added a bunch more work due to the ISU and required tubing
but the display is very nice.

Brad

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 3, 9:16*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> *Let's take a worst-case-scenario of two gliders approaching
> each other head-on just under cloudbase (so its realllly hard to
> visually spot the other glider, and closing speed is maximized).
> Let's say they're bombing along under a cloudstreet at 100mph, so the
> closing-speed is 200mph. *200mph is 1 mile every 18 seconds. *So at
> 1.5nm range you have over 25 seconds to react to a threat. *STOP
> reading this right now, stare at a wall, and count out 25 seconds.
> I'll wait. Wow, when you count it out that's a pretty good chunk of
> time, isn't it? *Even IF you spend the first 5-10 seconds looking
> around for the oncoming glider before you make a decision to change
> your course, you'd still have enough time to make that evasive
> maneuver.

That's nothing like a worse case scenario.

Try using 120kts (knots not mph) and TAS (TAS not IAS) and do the
calculation for 17,000ft.

GY

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 3, 4:55*pm, wrote:

>PF (with a Butterfly rectangular display) did its thing and allowed
me to take evasive action (the other glider never saw me, or at >least
never took evasive action).

How do explain that scenario? If you received a flarm warning for the
other glider then he must have been flarm equipped. Are you
suggesting that his system didn't show you as a threat, or perhaps
that he chose to ignore the threat?

GY

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Oct 4, 12:25*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Oct 3, 4:55*pm, wrote:
>
> *>PF (with a Butterfly rectangular display) did its thing and allowed
> me to take evasive action (the other glider never saw me, or at >least
> never took evasive action).
>
> How do explain that scenario? If you received a flarm warning for the
> other glider then he must have been flarm equipped. *Are you
> suggesting that his system didn't show you as a threat, or perhaps
> that he chose to ignore the threat?
>
> GY

A couple of possibilities suggest themselves: a) conflict pilot had TA
in view, judged no evasive action was necessary, b) conflict pilot
wasn't able to correctly interpret whatever warning was given. There
were a few guys flying with PF for the first time. Flarm display/
audio doesn't work out real well for 65 yo eyes and ears in some
cases. I heard words to the effect of "Are you $%^&ing KIDDING me?" a
number of times. Being of the bifocal generation now myself, I have
to agree: the power flarm displays aren't what they need to be. Some
of the less important characters on that screen I cannot read without
a magnifier while on the *ground* and my vision is corrected to 20/20
near and far.

T8

[Mike the Strike]

The PowerFlarm brick has an audio alarm? Not in my range of hearing!

Mike

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 10/04/2012 1:41 PM, Mike the Strike wrote:
> The PowerFlarm brick has an audio alarm?


It does when coupled with either the rectangle or the 58mm round
display. Some have reported volume issues with their units - i don't
have a problem with mine (rectangle display) but my ears are only 33
years old and the canopy is sealed well.

Luke

[Mike the Strike]

Irony alert from deaf 68-year-old!

The audio on the rectangular display is completely useless for me.

Mike

[[email protected]]

noel,

How does the math work for the case of a hawker jet and a ASW 27 at 16000 feet with a PCAS range of 1 nm?

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20060906X01297&key=2

[noel.wade]

On Oct 4, 9:25*am, Andy > wrote:
> perhaps
> that he chose to ignore the threat?
>
> GY

I have seen other pilots (I know to be FLARM equipped) not take
evasive action when I know they are getting alert. My guess is that
they've been able to visually identify me and decide that we won't
actually collide. But I personally don't trust anyone else's
judgement and always make at least a small deviation.

--Noel

[noel.wade]

On Oct 4, 9:19*am, Andy > wrote:

> Try using 120kts (knots not mph) *and TAS (TAS not IAS) and do the
> calculation for 17,000ft.
>
> GY

OK, 120kts IAS at 17000' (assuming standard day temps & pressure,
since you didn't specify) works out to about 155kts TAS. A combined
closing speed of 310 knots or ~357MPH. That's 0.099 miles per second
(just shy of 1 tenth of a mile per second).

So with a range of 1.5nm in my original scenario (which is actually
1.726 statute miles), you have 17.4 seconds to avoid a collision. I'd
argue that's still acceptable.

--Noel

[noel.wade]

On Oct 4, 10:41*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> The PowerFlarm brick has an audio alarm? *Not in my range of hearing!
>
> Mike

No, the brick does NOT have audio. But the display (either rectangular
or 57mm hole) does.

--Noel, who's being pedantic tonight...

[noel.wade]

On Oct 4, 6:44*pm, wrote:
> noel,
>
> How does the math work for the case of a hawker jet and a ASW 27 at 16000 feet with a PCAS range of 1 nm?
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20060906X01297&key=2

Depends on the speed of the jet at the time. If you want to try to
find a corner-case to give you an excuse not to buy a FLARM unit, no
amount of my arguing or providing examples will convince you - you've
effectively made up your mind already.

I was giving range information for FLARM signals only - not ADS-B/Mode-
C/Mode-S signals. I have only encountered a few so far and have
always seen them at 3-4 nm range (even though my ADS-B antenna is
buried in my turtle-deck). I believe that range on the ADS-B/Mode-C/
Mode-S function is going to be more stable and more reliable for lots
of folks because its a much STRONGER signal than the FLARM broadcast
strength.

--Noel

[[email protected]]

I love RAS because I always learn something. Just now I learned the meaning of pedantic...which I had to look up. Great word and thanks Noel.


>
>
>
> --Noel, who's being pedantic tonight...

[BruceGreeff]

Glider Pilot - Curmudgeonly, pedant with a predisposition to over
analysis leading to interminable debate on RAS ;-)

Primary exercise - jumping to indefensible conclusions - then debating
the nuances for months.

Bruce - who is being slightly disillusioned and whimsical.--

On 2012/10/05 4:46 AM, wrote:
> I love RAS because I always learn something. Just now I learned the meaning of pedantic...which I had to look up. Great word and thanks Noel.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> --Noel, who's being pedantic tonight...
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:16:11 AM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:
> On Oct 3, 3:47*am, Robert Fidler > wrote:
>
> > I am not buying the Flarm until all these issues are resolved. I refused shipment of my ordered unit because all of these issues are not resolved. I think if people refused to purchase the unit until these issues are resolved, the factory would have the issues resolved. All I hear is the factory saying yeah we have fixed the problems and the customers coming back and stating, no, all of the problems are not fixed. Rest my case.
>
>
>
> Come on now, this is a ridiculous attitude to have. How do you go
>
> through life? Do you refuse to buy a car model if *any* one ever sold
>
> has broken down? Do you refuse to buy *any* computer or software, if
>
> it has ever had a single bug? Do you refuse to go into *any*
>
> restaurant that's ever had even one bad review or complaint online?
>
>
>
> The PowerFLARM system isn't perfect, and I (like many) are still
>
> waiting for the IGC logging capability and some of the other tweaks).
>
> But the system works perfectly fine as it is right now! Here are some
>
> things to keep in mind:
>
>
>
> 1) FLARM is based on two-way radio signals. So the range and
>
> performance is strongly affected by both _your_ installation _and_
>
> your buddies' installation. In this thread here, we've heard some
>
> details about one person's installation, but we haven't gotten
>
> complete details on the people he's been flying with. His
>
> installation could be _great_ but if his buddies haven't done a good
>
> job then they'll all have "poor" performance.
>
>
>
> Making judgements about the PowerFLARM when you only know details of
>
> one unit/installation is like complaining about someone driving past
>
> you at double your speed, while failing to mention that you're driving
>
> a 3-cylinder Yugo at 45mph on a 70mph freeway. You're making
>
> judgements while leaving out key parts of the context of the
>
> situation!
>
>
>
> 2) FLARM IS ***NOT*** A RADAR SYSTEM. IT IS AN __ANTI-COLLISION__
>
> SYSTEM. Sorry for shouting, but I think people's expectations here
>
> have gotten wayyyy out of whack. You need to remember that first and
>
> foremost, the mission of a FLARM is to protect you against a midair.
>
> If it is performing well-enough to prevent a midair, then it is doing
>
> its job. Yes, I'll admit that its really cool when you _can_ see
>
> every piece of traffic at 6-8nm and make tactical decisions or find
>
> your friends from a long ways off. But that is *not* the device's
>
> intended function - that is a "bonus".
>
>
>
> Now, what is acceptable mid-air collision avoidance? Your opinion may
>
> be different from mine, but let's run the numbers on the "bad" 1.5nm
>
> range. Let's take a worst-case-scenario of two gliders approaching
>
> each other head-on just under cloudbase (so its realllly hard to
>
> visually spot the other glider, and closing speed is maximized).
>
> Let's say they're bombing along under a cloudstreet at 100mph, so the
>
> closing-speed is 200mph. 200mph is 1 mile every 18 seconds. So at
>
> 1.5nm range you have over 25 seconds to react to a threat. STOP
>
> reading this right now, stare at a wall, and count out 25 seconds.
>
> I'll wait. Wow, when you count it out that's a pretty good chunk of
>
> time, isn't it? Even IF you spend the first 5-10 seconds looking
>
> around for the oncoming glider before you make a decision to change
>
> your course, you'd still have enough time to make that evasive
>
> maneuver.
>
>
>
> Since most people are seeing traffic at least twice that distance
>
> (~3-4nm), I'd argue the system is working acceptably and DOING ITS
>
> JOB.
>
>
>
> If you visually pick up on a glider before the FLARM does,
>
> congratulations on your visual scan! This does not mean the FLARM has
>
> failed you. FLARM is there to protect you against the gliders you
>
> *don't* see - not the ones you do. Accident records show us that
>
> gliders come close to one another a lot, without either pilot seeing
>
> the other aircraft. THAT is the fundamental safety issue that FLARM
>
> addresses.
>
>
>
> And lastly: Not to be critical of the original poster, but why do you
>
> need FLARM to tell you where your buddies are? Can't you call them on
>
> the radio and ask them to report their location & altitude? Glider
>
> pilots have been doing that for decades! Again, I'm not trying to
>
> give the original poster a hard time; but for those who see this as a
>
> "failure" of the FLARM system, I want to point out the fallacy of that
>
> line of thinking.
>
>
>
> FLARM *can* do some pretty cool things. But don't judge the system by
>
> its "bonus" capabilities, judge it by its core mission and whether it
>
> is succeeding at that. And from everything I've seen (including the
>
> Standard Class Nationals that I flew in this year), it is delivering
>
> on the promise of collision detection and alerting.
>
>
>
> --Noel

Much to my surprise, I find myself having to defend Robert's (F2) position. Although I wouldn't have stated categorically that I won't buy PFlarm until absolutely all issues have been resolved, I also cancelled my order for a brick because I was unhappy with the reports of recent owners. In a subtle way, Noel is suggesting that it's irresponsible to not have Flarm and use it since it's the only available system of it's kind. I don't like being put in that box.

Funding questions for our expensive instrumentation aside, we all make decision about what to buy based on benefits and cost. Please respect the position of pilots who prefer to wait and see and let them continue to fly in contests. TA is making a dangerous proposal regarding mandatory use of PFlarm next year. Want to drive down contest entries beyond what happened this year? Go ahead, mandate Flarm.

Herb,J7

[noel.wade]

On Oct 5, 7:16*am, wrote:

> Much to my surprise, I find myself having to defend Robert's (F2) position. *Although I wouldn't have stated categorically that I won't buy PFlarm until absolutely all issues have been resolved, I also cancelled my order for a brick because I was unhappy with the reports of recent owners. *In a subtle way, Noel is suggesting that it's irresponsible to not have Flarm and use it since it's the only available system of it's kind. *I don't like being put in that box.

No, Herb - that's not what I was suggesting.

What I was suggesting is that people need to be realistic about what
the PowerFLARM is currently delivering. If you wait for the "perfect"
system that will tell you about 100% of the traffic 100% of the time
at 10nm range no matter how you've installed the device or how others
have installed the device, then you're being completely unrealistic
and you've incorrectly set your expectations for what an "anti-
collision" system needs to do. We all _want_ the ultimate device; but
that's different from what we _need_ and, what is _good enough_ to do
the job.

The vast majority of glider midairs are glider-on-glider incidents,
and we've done the math here to show that the current PowerFLARM works
pretty well for that EVEN IF your installation (or "the other guy's"
installation) is not good and your range is only 1.5nm. As I and
others have explained in this thread, many of us see traffic at 4-8nm
- way better than the "worst case scenario" that some people have
reported.

There *were* some early teething problems with the devices, and
they're not yet "perfect". But in everyday use they work great and it
frustrates me to see people holding off on buying a functioning
product, just because a couple of people complain about them on the
internet. So my last point in the previous email was this: If you
refuse to accept the math that the PowerFLARM is working acceptably
AND you refuse to accept the testimony of dozens of satisfied
PowerFLARM users, then you're not "waiting" to buy the PowerFLARM. In
reality, you are looking for reasons _not_ to purchase it; you're
fooling yourself and you really don't want it. These occasional
complaints or the idea that the device isn't "perfect" are the excuse
you're (consciously or subconsciously) looking for.

Finally, I'm _not_ saying you can't be a safe pilot without a
PowerFLARM. I _am_ saying that I flew in the Nationals and we had 24
gliders in the air with PowerFLARM - and it was great. Running up and
down ridges and narrow convergence-lines under cloud (on the same
tasks as heavily-ballasted 18-meter ships, often-times going head-on
with other gliders), I am quite certain that the PowerFLARM helped
avoid several midairs.

--Noel

[Mike the Strike]

I try to keep my head out of the cockpit and rely on audio alerts (vario, PCAS, etc.) In my opinion, a Flarm product that has an audio alarm that is inaudible to a sizable portion of the users is defective.

Mike

[Greg Arnold]

On 10/5/2012 8:14 AM, noel.wade wrote:
> On Oct 5, 7:16 am, wrote:
>
>> Much to my surprise, I find myself having to defend Robert's (F2) position. Although I wouldn't have stated categorically that I won't buy PFlarm until absolutely all issues have been resolved, I also cancelled my order for a brick because I was unhappy with the reports of recent owners. In a subtle way, Noel is suggesting that it's irresponsible to not have Flarm and use it since it's the only available system of it's kind. I don't like being put in that box.
>
> No, Herb - that's not what I was suggesting.
>
> What I was suggesting is that people need to be realistic about what
> the PowerFLARM is currently delivering. If you wait for the "perfect"
> system that will tell you about 100% of the traffic 100% of the time
> at 10nm range no matter how you've installed the device or how others
> have installed the device, then you're being completely unrealistic
> and you've incorrectly set your expectations for what an "anti-
> collision" system needs to do. We all _want_ the ultimate device; but
> that's different from what we _need_ and, what is _good enough_ to do
> the job.
>
>
> --Noel
>

PowerFLARM is not working as promised. Right now, if you have it you
are a beta tester. If seems to me it is reasonable to refuse to be a
beta tester.

Also, I wonder if the problems will be fixed in the software, or if one
will have to purchase improved hardware.

[noel.wade]

On Oct 5, 8:52*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> I try to keep my head out of the cockpit and rely on audio alerts (vario, PCAS, etc.) *In my opinion, a Flarm product that has an audio alarm that is inaudible to a sizable portion of the users is defective.
>
> Mike

Mike -

In all fairness you've just recently posted, calling yourself deaf.
The PowerFLARM guys can't be responsible for everyone's hearing! ;-)

I will say that - after I figured out how to adjust the volume of my
"rectangular" PF display - I find it to be quite loud in the cockpit.
I *do* have it on a gooseneck, sitting just in above/in-front-of my
knee so its not bured in the panel... But the speaker hole is in the
front of the display, pointing right at your face so panel-mounting it
shouldn't dampen the sound.

Have you maxed the volume? Have you asked PF/Butterfly about this?
It could be you have a defective/troubled display unit...

--Noel

[noel.wade]

On Oct 5, 9:14*am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 8:14 AM, noel.wade wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 7:16 am, wrote:
>
> >> Much to my surprise, I find myself having to defend Robert's (F2) position. *Although I wouldn't have stated categorically that I won't buy PFlarm until absolutely all issues have been resolved, I also cancelled my order for a brick because I was unhappy with the reports of recent owners. *In a subtle way, Noel is suggesting that it's irresponsible to not have Flarm and use it since it's the only available system of it's kind. *I don't like being put in that box.
>
> > No, Herb - that's not what I was suggesting.
>
> > What I was suggesting is that people need to be realistic about what
> > the PowerFLARM is currently delivering. *If you wait for the "perfect"
> > system that will tell you about 100% of the traffic 100% of the time
> > at 10nm range no matter how you've installed the device or how others
> > have installed the device, then you're being completely unrealistic
> > and you've incorrectly set your expectations for what an "anti-
> > collision" system needs to do. *We all _want_ the ultimate device; but
> > that's different from what we _need_ and, what is _good enough_ to do
> > the job.
>
> > --Noel
>
> PowerFLARM is not working as promised. *Right now, if you have it you

If you're going to make an assertion like this, please provide
evidence. Otherwise we can all just respond "Nuh-UHHhhhHH!" with
equal authority.

I will say that I'm annoyed the IGC logging function is not yet
working. But the manufacturers have proclaimed repeatedly that this
(and other tweaks and improvements) will be delivered by software; no
new hardware will be required.

--Noel

[Greg Arnold]

On 10/5/2012 9:28 AM, noel.wade wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:14 am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 8:14 AM, noel.wade wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 7:16 am, wrote:
>>
>>>> Much to my surprise, I find myself having to defend Robert's (F2) position. Although I wouldn't have stated categorically that I won't buy PFlarm until absolutely all issues have been resolved, I also cancelled my order for a brick because I was unhappy with the reports of recent owners. In a subtle way, Noel is suggesting that it's irresponsible to not have Flarm and use it since it's the only available system of it's kind. I don't like being put in that box.
>>
>>> No, Herb - that's not what I was suggesting.
>>
>>> What I was suggesting is that people need to be realistic about what
>>> the PowerFLARM is currently delivering. If you wait for the "perfect"
>>> system that will tell you about 100% of the traffic 100% of the time
>>> at 10nm range no matter how you've installed the device or how others
>>> have installed the device, then you're being completely unrealistic
>>> and you've incorrectly set your expectations for what an "anti-
>>> collision" system needs to do. We all _want_ the ultimate device; but
>>> that's different from what we _need_ and, what is _good enough_ to do
>>> the job.
>>
>>> --Noel
>>
>> PowerFLARM is not working as promised. Right now, if you have it you
>
> If you're going to make an assertion like this, please provide
> evidence. Otherwise we can all just respond "Nuh-UHHhhhHH!" with
> equal authority.

Have you been reading RAS?

>
> I will say that I'm annoyed the IGC logging function is not yet
> working. But the manufacturers have proclaimed repeatedly that this
> (and other tweaks and improvements) will be delivered by software; no
> new hardware will be required.
>
> --Noel
>

[Paul Remde]

Hi Mike,

OK. I may concede that the Butterfly rectangular remote display has a
speaker that is not as loud as we would hope. Fortunately, there are
alternatives. The Butterfly 57 mm round display is quite loud. So is the
new LXNAV FlarmView. I have one on my desk and it is very loud. I have
them in stock for $255 and will add them to my web site very soon. Until
then you can see details at www.lxnav.com.

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
_______________________________________

"Mike the Strike" wrote in message
...

I try to keep my head out of the cockpit and rely on audio alerts (vario,
PCAS, etc.) In my opinion, a Flarm product that has an audio alarm that is
inaudible to a sizable portion of the users is defective.

Mike

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Oct 5, 12:02*pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> OK. *I may concede that the Butterfly rectangular remote display has a
> speaker that is not as loud as we would hope. *Fortunately, there are
> alternatives. *The Butterfly 57 mm round display is quite loud. *So is the
> new LXNAV FlarmView. *I have one on my desk and it is very loud. *I have
> them in stock for $255 and will add them to my web site very soon. *Until
> then you can see details atwww.lxnav.com.
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
> _______________________________________

Is there no provision for an external speaker? If not, Paul, I hope
you'll lobby flarm to provide it. There are enough wires dangling out
of this thing to assign two of them to audio out. Many people will use
PNAs, PDAs or clearnav for display. Do we have then no audio at all?
John Cochrane

[Andy[_1_]]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 10:59:34 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
Is there no provision for an external speaker? If not, Paul, I hope you'll lobby flarm to provide it. There are enough wires dangling out of this thing to assign two of them to audio out. Many people will use PNAs, PDAs or clearnav for display. Do we have then no audio at all? John Cochrane

The brick has no audio output and no internal audio circuits. The alarms are indicated to an external device by setting the appropriate values in the serial digital output data.

GY

[noel.wade]

On Oct 5, 10:59*am, John Cochrane > wrote:
> of this thing to assign two of them to audio out. Many people will use
> PNAs, PDAs or clearnav for display. Do we have then no audio at all?
> John Cochrane

John - Not sure about the external speaker (and like you, I think
there ought to be an option). But here's an alternative: You can
shove the FLARM data out to your PDA/PNA (along with GPS info). Then
the PDA can provide the audio (if your PNA/PDA program of choice
supports FLARM - many of them do). I'm not making excuses here, just
trying to provide solutions...

Greg - I have. And while there were a rash of early problems and
complaints, lately I've only seen a couple of people expressing
serious concerns. I see a lot of whining about wanting the system to
be better; but very few legitimate instances where the system did not
alert the user to traffic at a range sufficient to prevent a
collision.

Again, I return to my earlier points about restaurants and cars: Go
do an internet search for your favorite model of car and you will find
people posting about problems with it, accidents, breakdowns, etc.
That doesn't mean the car is necessarily horrible and you should never
buy one. The key is to think about how many people _aren't_
complaining, because things are working just fine for them. You will
always find more complaints than endorsements about a product because
complaining is so easy (especially in the internet age), and people
are more motivated when things are going wrong. When things are
working well, people use something and get on with their life.

--Noel

[[email protected]]

Mark and everybody,

sorry for the inconvenience!

To help us track down the problem, would you be able to
create a flarmcfg.txt with the following line,
put it on the root directory of a USB stick and connect it to your brick
before switching on power:

$adsb,configure,mtlac,300
$pflac,s,pcasrange,9000

ATTENTION: The mtlac setting is non-permanent, so you'll
have to connect the USB stick every time the core starts up.
(Settings using $PFLAC are permanent).

If this improves the PCAS range then it's a software problem
and will be fixed in the upcoming firmware release.

The LED should flash green to confirm the setting.

You write your antenna installation is good. Do you get a display for
ADS-B targets?

Thanks for your help and sorry again for the inconvenience.

FYI: IGC format logging is under internal testing, a beta release
is upcoming.

Best
--Gerhard




Am Montag, 1. Oktober 2012 17:56:14 UTC+2 schrieb Mark:
> Three members at my club (self included) have installed PowerFlarm bricks recently. We carefully read and have complied with the antenna separation requirements in the manual. As is stands currently, the maximum xperienced communication range (Flarm to Flarm) is about 2.2 miles and it frequently drops out around 1.3-1.5 miles. Regarding PCAS operation, the only alert I have received using the PowerFlarm Brick has been the towplane at a distance of about 1000-1500 feet lateraly, same altitude. At the same time my Zaon PCAS alerted to the same towplane at a range of 2+ miles and 1000 feet below.
>
>
>
> The three gliders are a Ventus 1, Discus 2, and a PIK. All three seem to be experiencing the same issues with very poor range. Emails to FLARM have seemed to fall on deaf ears. We're curious if we're the only ones or if others are also seeing the same issues with BRICKS. We've heard plenty from portable users who are reporting 6+ miles Flarm to Flarm and PCAS alerts approaching 5 miles. If changes to the installation will fix this, great! We just need to know what to change. The US dealer has seen pics of our installation and says the antenna installations look good. They are all on the top of the glare shields so should be excellent visibility. We'd like this to work, but if there is no option to improve the performance then sending the stuff back is certainly on the table. More testing this weekend, but at the moment it's not looking good.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 1:35:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
>$adsb,configure,mtlac,300 $pflac,s,pcasrange,9000


From the ADS-B module data port specification:

MTLAC 64 to 800 Mode-A/C minimum triggering level.


A continous stream of airliners passes over my house. What I normally see is that PF PCAS function does not detect them until the range is about 2 statute miles. However, after they have first been detected, they remain displayed until the range reaches 6 statute miles or more.

I'll try changing MTLAC and report if it makes any difference.


Andy GY

[Andy[_1_]]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 2:22:04 PM UTC-7, Andy wrote:


On second thoughts, since airliners will be mode S equipped, isn't varying MTLS more likely to change the behavior?

MTLS 64 to 800 Mode-S and ADS-B minimum triggering level (sensitivity) of the TRX in ADC units. The higher, the less sensitive.

Andy

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 4:22:04 PM UTC-5, Andy wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 1:35:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> >
>
> >$adsb,configure,mtlac,300 $pflac,s,pcasrange,9000
>
>
>
>
>
> From the ADS-B module data port specification:
>
>
>
> MTLAC 64 to 800 Mode-A/C minimum triggering level.
>
>
>
>
>
> A continous stream of airliners passes over my house. What I normally see is that PF PCAS function does not detect them until the range is about 2 statute miles. However, after they have first been detected, they remain displayed until the range reaches 6 statute miles or more.
>
>
>
> I'll try changing MTLAC and report if it makes any difference.
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy GY

Andy, I noticed the same behaviour when ground testing my PFB: many of the PCAS targets would appear at short range, then stay on the display out to the full 5 miles.

ADSB tracks seemed to not have the same problem; however, they are still fairly infrequent so hard to make a valid comparison.

My ground settings are:

################################################## ######################
# Set ADS-B horizontal and vertical range in meters.
# horizontal range: max: 65535m For gliders recommended: 9000m
# vertical range: For gliders recommended: 500m
# Testing max range
################################################## ######################
$pflac,s,adsbrange,23000
$pflac,s,adsbvrange,3000

################################################## ######################
# Set PCAS horizontal and vertical range in meters.
# horizontal range: max: 9250m For gliders recommended: 9250m
# vertical range: For gliders recommended: 500m
# Testing max range
################################################## ######################
$pflac,s,pcasrange,9250
$pflac,s,pcasvrange,3000

################################################## ######################

Kirk
66

[FLARM]

http://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=468&view=findpost&p=1389

We are planning to have a beta v2.60 release before November 2012.
That release should also improve PCAS range.
It will be a joint release for both 'Brick' and 'Portable'

The release will also include obstacle warning functionality.
If you know of any dangerous obstacles (especially non-AIP), please let us know.
Check out Obstacle Submission Manual:
http://www.flarm.com/support/manual/FLARM_ObstacleManual_v5.00E.pdf

[Ramy]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 3:55:28 PM UTC-7, FLARM wrote:
> http://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=468&view=findpost&p=1389
>
>
>
> We are planning to have a beta v2.60 release before November 2012.
>
> That release should also improve PCAS range.
>
> It will be a joint release for both 'Brick' and 'Portable'
>
>
>
> The release will also include obstacle warning functionality.
>
> If you know of any dangerous obstacles (especially non-AIP), please let us know.
>
> Check out Obstacle Submission Manual:
>
> http://www.flarm.com/support/manual/FLARM_ObstacleManual_v5.00E.pdf

Thanks Flarm. And it looks like we now have a dedicated forum at
http://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6

To those claiming that powerflarm is not working as promissed, this is far from accurate. Powerflarm is doing well what it was mainly design to do, provide collision alert between flarm equipped aircrafts. Sure there are still some quirks, and fixes are coming. Worst case scenario you will need to send you unit back for free upgrade. You won't benefit from waiting, it will cost the same or more later, and in the meantime you will be missing a valuable protection for yourself and those who fly with you.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

Andy,

>
> A continous stream of airliners passes over my house. What I normally see is that PF PCAS function does not detect them until the range is about 2 statute miles. However, after they have first been detected, they remain displayed until the range reaches 6 statute miles or more.

Is that with the device indoors? ADS-B targets (trianges) or Mode C/S (circles)?

> I'll try changing MTLAC and report if it makes any difference.

I recommend to leave it above 250 (both Mode S and C). Please let me know how it goes.

FYI, Mode S XPDRs also reply to Mode C interrogations.

PCAS is limited to 5 NM (the configurator has this wrong unfortunately,
we'll fix that ASAP), trying to set a higher PCASRANGE is ignored.

Best
--Gerhard

--
Dr. Gerhard Wesp
Development Manager, Avionics
FLARM Technology GmbH
Switzerland
CH-020.4.033.059-8

[Paul Remde]

Hi John,

The audio function is provided by the display device - either a remote FLARM
or Butterfly or LXNAV display or a PDA. The PowerFLARM Brick unit is
usually mounted in a "buried" location - inside the instrument panel. That
is why it made sense to put the speaker in the display. Rather than adding
an additional external speaker, I think the best approach is to improve the
loudness of the Butterfly Rectangular Display.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

"John Cochrane" wrote in message
...

On Oct 5, 12:02 pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> OK. I may concede that the Butterfly rectangular remote display has a
> speaker that is not as loud as we would hope. Fortunately, there are
> alternatives. The Butterfly 57 mm round display is quite loud. So is the
> new LXNAV FlarmView. I have one on my desk and it is very loud. I have
> them in stock for $255 and will add them to my web site very soon. Until
> then you can see details atwww.lxnav.com.
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
> _______________________________________

Is there no provision for an external speaker? If not, Paul, I hope
you'll lobby flarm to provide it. There are enough wires dangling out
of this thing to assign two of them to audio out. Many people will use
PNAs, PDAs or clearnav for display. Do we have then no audio at all?
John Cochrane

[Jim[_32_]]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 12:45:52 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Oct 4, 12:25*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 4:55*pm, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > *>PF (with a Butterfly rectangular display) did its thing and allowed
>
> > me to take evasive action (the other glider never saw me, or at >least
>
> > never took evasive action).
>
> >
>
> > How do explain that scenario? If you received a flarm warning for the
>
> > other glider then he must have been flarm equipped. *Are you
>
> > suggesting that his system didn't show you as a threat, or perhaps
>
> > that he chose to ignore the threat?
>
> >
>
> > GY
>
>
>
> A couple of possibilities suggest themselves: a) conflict pilot had TA
>
> in view, judged no evasive action was necessary, b) conflict pilot
>
> wasn't able to correctly interpret whatever warning was given. There
>
> were a few guys flying with PF for the first time. Flarm display/
>
> audio doesn't work out real well for 65 yo eyes and ears in some
>
> cases. I heard words to the effect of "Are you $%^&ing KIDDING me?" a
>
> number of times. Being of the bifocal generation now myself, I have
>
> to agree: the power flarm displays aren't what they need to be. Some
>
> of the less important characters on that screen I cannot read without
>
> a magnifier while on the *ground* and my vision is corrected to 20/20
>
> near and far.
>
>
>
> T8
Even on the ground, true. While sitting in my cockpit, I can almost make out the little PCAS above/below numbers . . but I absolutely CANNOT tell if that dot before it is a + or a -. That is the first thing they need to make bigger for us 60+ year-olds.

-Jim

[Jim[_32_]]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 1:09:26 PM UTC-4, Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> The audio function is provided by the display device - either a remote FLARM
>
> or Butterfly or LXNAV display or a PDA. The PowerFLARM Brick unit is
>
> usually mounted in a "buried" location - inside the instrument panel. That
>
> is why it made sense to put the speaker in the display. Rather than adding
>
> an additional external speaker, I think the best approach is to improve the
>
> loudness of the Butterfly Rectangular Display.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Paul Remde
>
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
>
>
> "John Cochrane" wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> On Oct 5, 12:02 pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike,
>
> >
>
> > OK. I may concede that the Butterfly rectangular remote display has a
>
> > speaker that is not as loud as we would hope. Fortunately, there are
>
> > alternatives. The Butterfly 57 mm round display is quite loud. So is the
>
> > new LXNAV FlarmView. I have one on my desk and it is very loud. I have
>
> > them in stock for $255 and will add them to my web site very soon. Until
>
> > then you can see details atwww.lxnav.com.
>
> >
>
> > Paul Remde
>
> > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > _______________________________________
>
>
>
> Is there no provision for an external speaker? If not, Paul, I hope
>
> you'll lobby flarm to provide it. There are enough wires dangling out
>
> of this thing to assign two of them to audio out. Many people will use
>
> PNAs, PDAs or clearnav for display. Do we have then no audio at all?
>
> John Cochrane

Paul-

I have the Butterfly rectangle display and if it is designed incapable of providing a louder PCAS beep (due to power constraints) then I would be thrilled if FLARM provided a connection for even an external speaker!

-Jim

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 6, 9:41*am, wrote:

> > A continuous stream of airliners passes over my house. *What I normally see is that PF PCAS function does not detect them until the range is about 2 statute miles. *However, after they have first been detected, they remain displayed until the range reaches 6 statute miles or more.

Gerhard,

Thank you for your interest in this.

To answer you questions:

> Is that with the device indoors?

Yes the antenna is indoors, but it is hanging close to a window where
it has a clear view of the airliner's approach path.

>ADS-B targets (trianges) or Mode C/S (circles)?

My comments related to the C/S circles. It appears that the range for
first detection is much lower than the range for display after first
detection. However, I see initial detection of ADS-B targets at much
greater range (5 to 6 statute miles).

> FYI, Mode S XPDRs also reply to Mode C interrogations.

Since you indicated that there were different threshold settings for
Mode C and Mode S, I wanted to make it clear that the targets were
airliners (with mandatory TCAS) and must have been mode S equipped.

> PCAS is limited to 5 NM (the configurator has this wrong unfortunately,
> we'll fix that ASAP), trying to set a higher PCASRANGE is ignored.

I didn't use the configurator. Instead I read the data port
specification and the addendum. First I set a high value of PCASRange
but found it was not accepted. I then experimented with different
values to determine the highest value that was accepted and reported
in the dump file. My observations are summarized in my config file
comments -

#
# Sets the PCAS oblique (PCASRANGE) in meters
# Slant (oblique) range is estimated from signal strength
# and is approximate
# Max value appears to be 9250 not 65535 as specified in dataport
addendum
# Values of 9300 and greater will give Amber LED after loading.
#
$PFLAC,S,PCASRANGE,9250
#

The maximum value that I found by experiment is equivalent to 5NM.
Perhaps the dataport addendum has been updated since I downloaded my
copy.

> I recommend to leave it above 250 (both Mode S and C). Please let me know how it goes.

I'll do that, but don't know when. The test requires that the traffic
is landing to the East and that I am at home. I also want to set up
the equipment outside so there is no possible antenna issue.

Andy Durbin

[[email protected]]

> Perhaps the dataport addendum has been updated since I downloaded my
>
> copy.

Hi Andy,

thanks for pointing that out. Correct information is now online at

http://www.flarm.com/support/manual/developer/dataport_spec_6.00_addendum.txt

Best
--Gerhard

[Andy[_1_]]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:44:05 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Hi Andy, thanks for pointing that out. Correct information is now online at http://www.flarm.com/support/manual/developer/dataport_spec_6.00_addendum..txt Best --Gerhard

Gerhard,

Thanks for making the update.

I was able to run some PCAS range tests. I used an outdoor test setup with a clear view of the sky. The only exception to the clear view is that line of sight from the antenna to the airliner arrival route is obstructed by the upper branches of a orange tree until the airliners have approached to within about 2-3 miles. I doubt the signal attenuation is significant.

I tested with baseline settings on Sunday morning and with MTLAC and MTLS set to 300 on Monday morning. It became obvious that attempting to photograph the display when a target was first detected was unreliable, so I set up continuous video recording.

I have not yet reviewed the video from this mornings testing but it was obvious that PCAS performance was not satisfactory. Three airliners flew within about 1 mile, and at about 5000ft, and were never displayed. However, in a few cases the detection seemed to be earlier than with the default settings.

I did notice that the altitude was incorrectly reported for at least 2 of the passing airliners. That makes me wonder if the problem is not sensitivity but incorrect decode of the altitude squawk. If their altitude is incorrectly decoded, and the altitude exceeds the set maximum altitude, then the traffic would not be displayed.

One airliner was ADS-B Out equipped and was displayed continuously for about 12 miles.

I'd like to share the video with you but have no experience with uploading video files. Perhaps you, or someone else, could suggest how I can share .MOV files that are up to 250MByte.

This evening I'll review the video and record the range and altitudes for first detections.

Please let me know if there is another configuration you would like me to evaluate.

Andy

[[email protected]]

Andy,

> I tested with baseline settings on Sunday morning and with MTLAC and MTLS set to 300 on Monday morning. It became obvious that attempting to photograph the display when a target was first detected was unreliable, so I set up continuous video recording.

The PF did accept the settings? You must not restart the PF after a $adsb,configure,... command because these settings are not saved in nonvolatile
memory. What were the PCASRANGE and PCASVRANGE settings?

You could try MTLAC down to 200 or even 150 for testing.

> I did notice that the altitude was incorrectly reported for at least 2 of the passing airliners. That makes me wonder if the problem is not sensitivity but incorrect decode of the altitude squawk. If their altitude is incorrectly decoded, and the altitude exceeds the set maximum altitude, then the traffic would not be displayed.

This is probably the systematic problem with legacy XPDRs---it's impossible to
distinguish Mode C and Mode A replies, so some squawks can be interpreted
als altitudes.

> I'd like to share the video with you but have no experience with uploading video files. Perhaps you, or someone else, could suggest how I can share .MOV files that are up to 250MByte.

Dropbox, or if you use Google, they recently introduced 'Google Drive'.

> Please let me know if there is another configuration you would like me to evaluate.

Thanks for doing the tests already. As above, please just make sure that
the range settings are OK and you don't restart the device after $adsb,configure,...!

F/W update is forthcoming!

Best
--Gerhard

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 8, 11:01*pm, wrote:

Gerhard,

Sorry for the delay in replying.

> The PF did accept the settings? *You must not restart the PF after a $adsb,configure,... >command because these settings are not saved in nonvolatile
> memory. *What were the PCASRANGE and PCASVRANGE settings?

I don't know if the threshold values were accepted but the unit was
not powered down after reading the CF drive. The flarmcfg file
included the following:


$PFLAC,S,PCASRANGE,9250
$PFLAC,S,PCASVRANGE,2500

$adsb,configure,mtlac,300
$adsb,configure,mtls,300

I spent a bit more time reviewing the video files and I see no obvious
difference in the detection range with thresholds set to 300.

General observations for both settings are similar:

Earliest detection is typically 3 - 3.5 statute miles but sometime
less
Sometime there is no detection
Sometimes the displayed altitude is unreasonable
Usually the range ring circle is smallest 15-30 seconds (estimated)
after the aircraft has passed the closest point.
After detection with correct altitude targets usually remain displayed
to 4.5 - 5 miles.

I understand that the aircraft being monitored for these tests are not
collision threats and are well outside the maximum altitude that I
would set for use in flight. I hope, however, that I have
established a baseline against which any updates to PCAS performance
can be evaluated.

Please email me if there is another configuration you would like me to
evaluate.

Andy

[JS]

Finally got around to installing the brick and display, using the antenna configuration that Peter Kelly documented on Valley Soaring Association's site.
http://www.valleysoaring.net/?page_id=1487
And the Butterfly configurator to build a file complete with Mode S code.
http://www.butterfly-avionics.com/index.php/en/products/powerflarm-en/powerflarm-core-config-en
From inside the carport and on the trailer ramp - lots of metal right in front of the nose - a transponder was displayed 6NM away. I couldn't see the aircraft through the trees.
Waiting until it's had a decent flight test to see how well things work or not.
Jim

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 15, 4:34*pm, JS > wrote:
> From inside the carport and on the trailer ramp - lots of metal right in front of the nose - a transponder was displayed 6NM away.

Very good since the max possible range is specified as 5NM!


Andy

[[email protected]]

Hi Andy,

thanks for the update.

In the meantime, we've found an error in our PCAS module supplier's code that
applies a per-module PCAS sensitivity calibration value.
This will be fixed in the imminent beta release of the PowerFLARM
firmware.

Best
--Gerhard