Power FLARM as logger

[Lucky812]

I always tell my employees that the only stupid question is the one that is not asked, so..

I am re-configuring my cockpit over the winter and am looking at buying a Nano and a Power FLARM and was wondering, why isn't Power FLARM approved as a logger for all records?

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 7:30:54 AM UTC-8, Lucky812 wrote:
> I am re-configuring my cockpit over the winter and am looking at buying
> a Nano and a Power FLARM and was wondering, why isn't Power FLARM
> approved as a logger for all records?

The first thing to be aware of is that the PowerFLARM isn't an IGC approved flight recorder for anything, at this moment.

Second, those of us on the IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee put together a Technical Specification for GNSS Flight Recorders, which lays out the requirements for a flight recorder design to be approved for all badge flights, diplomas, and records. A manufacturer may choose to design a device that meets all of these requirements. Or, for cost and/or complexity reasons, to meet only a subset of the requirements, which makes the device eligible for lesser levels of approval, either all badges and diplomas, or all badges up to Diamonds. When the device is submitted for testing, the manufacturer states what level of approval is desired, and we examine the design, perform tests, require firmware or hardware modifications, as needed, then issue the approval document when the device is deemed suitable for approval at the requested level. So, the answer to your question is that the PowerFLARM will be approved for whatever level of approval FLARM requests, when it meets the relevant requirements.

Lastly, members of GFAC are volunteers, just like the SSA Rules Committee, and some of the members who post here (not myself), put a tremendous amount of time and effort into examining and testing each and every device that is submitted for approval, and have been doing so for upwards of 15 years. While the FAI was kind enough recently to give GFAC a "Group Diploma of Honour", all we ever get from rec.aviation.soaring is grief for not automatically approving any GPS receiver that someone finds in a Cracker Jacks box. Where are the bouquets of flowers and boxes of chocolates? ;^)

Marc

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 7:30:54 AM UTC-8, Lucky812 wrote:
> I am re-configuring my cockpit over the winter and am looking at buying
> a Nano and a Power FLARM and was wondering, why isn't Power FLARM
> approved as a logger for all records?

The first thing to be aware of is that the PowerFLARM isn't an IGC approved flight recorder for anything, at this moment.

Second, those of us on the IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee put together a Technical Specification for GNSS Flight Recorders, which lays out the requirements for a flight recorder design to be approved for all badge flights, diplomas, and records. A manufacturer may choose to design a device that meets all of these requirements. Or, for cost and/or complexity reasons, to meet only a subset of the requirements, which makes the device eligible for lesser levels of approval, either all badges and diplomas, or all badges up to Diamonds. When the device is submitted for testing, the manufacturer states what level of approval is desired, and we examine the design, perform tests, require firmware or hardware modifications, as needed, then issue the approval document when the device is deemed suitable for approval at the requested level. So, the answer to your question is that the PowerFLARM will be approved for whatever level of approval FLARM requests, when it meets the relevant requirements.

Lastly, members of GFAC are volunteers, just like the SSA Rules Committee, and some of the members who post here (not myself), put a tremendous amount of time and effort into examining and testing each and every device that is submitted for approval, and have been doing so for upwards of 15 years. While the FAI was kind enough recently to give GFAC a "Group Diploma of Honour", all we ever get from rec.aviation.soaring is grief for not automatically approving any GPS receiver that someone finds in a Cracker Jacks box. Where are the bouquets of flowers and boxes of chocolates? ;^)

Marc

[David Reitter]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 4:29:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:

>When the device is submitted for testing, the manufacturer states what level of approval is >desired, and we examine the design, perform tests, require firmware or hardware modifications, > as needed,

Are you at liberty to tell us what the status of the PowerFLARM approval is?
Has it been submitted, is it being evaluated?

Would approval at some point extend to previously sold hardware versions?

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 2:21:10 PM UTC-8, David Reitter wrote:
> Are you at liberty to tell us what the status of the PowerFLARM approval is?

If you supply a bouquet of flowers and a box of chocolates, perhaps. Otherwise, you'll likely get farther by asking FLARM...

Marc

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 5:21:10 PM UTC-5, David Reitter wrote:
> Are you at liberty to tell us what the status of the PowerFLARM approval is?

I'd prefer some nice coffee to chocolates.
Maybe some nice Hawaiian whole bean.
Or a Starbucks card ;-)

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

[Ramy]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 1:29:03 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, December 3, 2012 7:30:54 AM UTC-8, Lucky812 wrote:
>
> > I am re-configuring my cockpit over the winter and am looking at buying
>
> > a Nano and a Power FLARM and was wondering, why isn't Power FLARM
>
> > approved as a logger for all records?
>
>
>
> The first thing to be aware of is that the PowerFLARM isn't an IGC approved flight recorder for anything, at this moment.
>
>
>
> Second, those of us on the IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee put together a Technical Specification for GNSS Flight Recorders, which lays out the requirements for a flight recorder design to be approved for all badge flights, diplomas, and records. A manufacturer may choose to design a device that meets all of these requirements. Or, for cost and/or complexity reasons, to meet only a subset of the requirements, which makes the device eligible for lesser levels of approval, either all badges and diplomas, or all badges up to Diamonds. When the device is submitted for testing, the manufacturer states what level of approval is desired, and we examine the design, perform tests, require firmware or hardware modifications, as needed, then issue the approval document when the device is deemed suitable for approval at the requested level. So, the answer to your question is that the PowerFLARM will be approved for whatever level of approval FLARM requests, when it meets the relevant requirements.
>
>
>
> Lastly, members of GFAC are volunteers, just like the SSA Rules Committee, and some of the members who post here (not myself), put a tremendous amount of time and effort into examining and testing each and every device that is submitted for approval, and have been doing so for upwards of 15 years. While the FAI was kind enough recently to give GFAC a "Group Diploma of Honour", all we ever get from rec.aviation.soaring is grief for not automatically approving any GPS receiver that someone finds in a Cracker Jacks box. Where are the bouquets of flowers and boxes of chocolates? ;^)
>
>
>
> Marc

Marc, slightly of topic, but can you explain why some flight recorders can be approved for badges but not diplomas? I can understand world records with all their fame and groupies that follows them may have more strict requirements, but what is the difference between diamond and 1000km diploma? I mean, who else cares but me if I have diamond or 1000km diploma?? Other than the IGC and flight recorder manufactures, does anyone else think that we need "approved" flight recorders for badges and diplomas? Anyone?
It is time to end this nonsense.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 6:57:47 PM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
> Marc, slightly of topic, but can you explain why some flight recorders can be approved for badges but not diplomas? I can understand world records with all their fame and groupies that follows them may have more strict requirements, but what is the difference between diamond and 1000km diploma? I mean, who else cares but me if I have diamond or 1000km diploma?? Other than the IGC and flight recorder manufactures, does anyone else think that we need "approved" flight recorders for badges and diplomas? Anyone?
>
> It is time to end this nonsense.

I take it I should not be expecting any flowers or chocolate from you.

Flight recorders exist at various approval levels, as some achievements are considered more noteworthy than others, so a higher level of flight documentation security would seemingly be called for in those cases. Rather than having everyone one buy a flight recorder with all of the required bells and whistles for world record use, lesser options are available for those who choose to save a few bucks.

Make a proposal to your IGC delegate to initiate the two year process needed to make this sort of alteration to the Sporting Code. Perhaps a return to cameras and barographs?

[Ramy]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 8:39:03 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, December 3, 2012 6:57:47 PM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
>
> > Marc, slightly of topic, but can you explain why some flight recorders can be approved for badges but not diplomas? I can understand world records with all their fame and groupies that follows them may have more strict requirements, but what is the difference between diamond and 1000km diploma? I mean, who else cares but me if I have diamond or 1000km diploma?? Other than the IGC and flight recorder manufactures, does anyone else think that we need "approved" flight recorders for badges and diplomas? Anyone?
>
> >
>
> > It is time to end this nonsense.
>
>
>
> I take it I should not be expecting any flowers or chocolate from you.
>
>
>
> Flight recorders exist at various approval levels, as some achievements are considered more noteworthy than others, so a higher level of flight documentation security would seemingly be called for in those cases. Rather than having everyone one buy a flight recorder with all of the required bells and whistles for world record use, lesser options are available for those who choose to save a few bucks.
>
>
>
> Make a proposal to your IGC delegate to initiate the two year process needed to make this sort of alteration to the Sporting Code. Perhaps a return to cameras and barographs?

Marc, you deserve flowers and chocolate regardless :-)
But in case it wasn't clear, my proposal is not to get rid of flight recorders all together, but to just get rid of the approval requirements for badges and diplomas which are just personal achievements.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

>
> Are you at liberty to tell us what the status of the PowerFLARM approval is?
>
> Has it been submitted, is it being evaluated?
>

This question still begs an answer. Going "all in" with my doughnuts, I'll bet the PowerFLARM logger has not been submitted for approval.

[Lucky812]

Marc

Thank you for your response I am just starting out and appreciate the information.
My question came from the realization that I will have 3 GPS units (Power FLARM, Nano, and Nexus 7) in my glider and thought that it might just be a bit of over-kill as I remember the old days flying in Papua New Guinea with a wet compass and an incomplete map that said something like "maximum elevation not believed to be over 14,000".

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:54:49 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> >
>
> > Are you at liberty to tell us what the status of the PowerFLARM approval is?
>
> >
>
> > Has it been submitted, is it being evaluated?
>
> >
>
>
>
> This question still begs an answer. Going "all in" with my doughnuts, I'll bet the PowerFLARM logger has not been submitted for approval.

I think my donuts go on it having been submitted. A beta version of the
firmware came out last month adding the logging feature.

-- Matt

[Richard[_9_]]

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:31:57 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:54:49 AM UTC-5, wrote: > > > > > Are you at liberty to tell us what the status of the PowerFLARM approval is? > > > > > > Has it been submitted, is it being evaluated? > > > > > > > This question still begs an answer. Going "all in" with my doughnuts, I'll bet the PowerFLARM logger has not been submitted for approval. I think my donuts go on it having been submitted. A beta version of the firmware came out last month adding the logging feature. -- Matt


From Flarm

The process has been started, but we have not yet submitted a device as we first need to implement and test the ENL function.

Flarm and Flarm assessories, antennas etc. available at:

http://www.craggyaero.com/powerflarm.htm


Thanks,

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:38:16 AM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
> But in case it wasn't clear, my proposal is not to get rid of flight recorders all together, but to just get rid of the approval requirements for badges and diplomas which are just personal achievements.

They may be just personal achievements, but there still needs to be a little something there that keeps mostly honest people, like myself, from "forgetting" the little things that sometimes make flights not quite valid. Like, managing to complete a 1000K flight except for the tiny little detail of still being 20 or 30 miles out on final glide at official sunset in a glider with no lights. Or, making a flight and somehow forgetting that Class A airspace begins at 18000 ft in our corner of the world. Or my personal almost, but not quite, achievement, the one time I managed to declare my perfect 1000K triangle out of TPH, climbing out with full water at 9:15 am, zipping out to Utah in no time, making it all the way back past Mt Grant to 10 miles out from my last turnpoint with essentially no turns, which should have been followed by an easy ride back to TPH. Except, the turnpoint was smack underneath a shelf of over-developed clouds, which were already dumping water. Since I wanted the "personal achievement", I had to try, with the pretty much inevitable result that I didn't make it back to TPH until the next day. Or, I could have just declared a moral victory, turned 10 miles out, and made it back for the BBQ, but somehow, it wouldn't have been the same.

I think the rules are there for valid reasons, and part of any achievement is managing to comply with the rules while making the flight. Without some independent means of demonstrating compliance with the declaration and rules, all you have is the pilots word. There is still a significant difference between "making" a 1000K flight, and actually getting the FAI diploma. So, yes, I still think we need flight recorders...

[Ramy]

Marc, I completely agree with everything you say (including starting final glide after sunset...). My grip is only on the requirement for the flight computer to be "certified". What's wrong with using SeeYou/XCSoar etc IGC files for badges and diplomas? I imagine much more pilots will be motivated to get their badges and diplomas if they could simply submit the IGC files from their flight computer, certified or not, just like OLC.

Ramy

[FLARM]

Ramy,
IGC 'Position Recorders' have been created for exactly this purpose; no certification required.
http://www.fai.org/gnss-recording-devices/position-recorders

Nobody seems to care enough to make it happen, except for some more or less random approvals (e.g. of non-IGC certified FLARM devices).

Urs
FLARM

[FLARM]

The approval process has been initiated, but we need to finish and test ENL and a 'good' encryption for the certified G records.
As communicated from the start, are applying for a 'up to and including diamonds' approval (same as for 'Classic FLARM'), not 'all flights' as that would have serious implications on cost, both for manufacturing and maintenance.

Current US PowerFLARM hardware will be upgradeable for free and with no change in hardware if (if !) everything goes as planned.
No firm date on completion, obviously, but it is our #1 focus at this time.

If you have missed the news, IGC format recording, including G record, is available since over a month and seems to work very well.

And yes, someone should buy Marc, Tim and other GFAC members flowers and chocolate, but it shouldn't be us, obviously...
You could ask them for their mailing address, then use http://www.ftd.com/, worldwide.
;-)

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 10:24:43 AM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
> Marc, I completely agree with everything you say (including starting final glide after sunset...). My grip is only on the requirement for the flight computer to be "certified". What's wrong with using SeeYou/XCSoar etc IGC files for badges and diplomas? I imagine much more pilots will be motivated to get their badges and diplomas if they could simply submit the IGC files from their flight computer, certified or not, just like OLC.
>

Ramy, the approval process is only intended to provide some sort of reasonable baseline for the quality, integrity, and reliability of the evidence used to document flights that result in various kinds of FAI awards. We can argue about where the baseline should be, but if you eliminate the baseline altogether, in my mind, it starts to affect the value of the awards. GPS receivers are not all equal in quality, not all recording capable consumer GPS units produce usable position evidence, and code running on on readily reprogrammable devices isn't necessarily what it looks to be. We need some standards, which is not to say that existing standards are cast in stone.

Perhaps the IGC will eventually decide that SeeYou, XCSoar, or whatever, provide acceptable evidence on some specific kinds of hardware, but that is not the same thing as saying they will provide acceptable evidence on any and all possible hardware on which they run, which implies that there would still be a need for some sort of approval/certification process...

Marc

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:24:43 -0800, Ramy wrote:

> Marc, I completely agree with everything you say (including starting
> final glide after sunset...). My grip is only on the requirement for the
> flight computer to be "certified". What's wrong with using SeeYou/XCSoar
> etc IGC files for badges and diplomas? I imagine much more pilots will
> be motivated to get their badges and diplomas if they could simply
> submit the IGC files from their flight computer, certified or not, just
> like OLC.
>
The problem is that some pilots have, both in the past and currently,
continued to cheat and fake logs. Even for 500 km flights. I don't
understand that mentality at all, let alone how they can live with
themselves knowing they are liars whenever they say they've earned the
badge.

But, as long as that sort is around, we need secure loggers and the whole
business of Official Observers and paperwork to stop them from devaluing
the badge and diploma system for the rest of us.


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

[ursus]

I just did a test on PowerFLARM as a logger:
Set it outside, powered up and waited. Nothing happened for hours. All surrounding trees are still standing.
Those darn FLARM folks have really overpromised! Or maybe I need to change configuration settings? Or handicraft my own antenna? Or read the manual?

I suspect it will need a hard- and software update; maybe if someone can point FLARM to an autonomous chainsaw with serial interface (ideally IGC specification) they could finally deliver what has been promised:
FLARM as a logger.

Timber!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo

Now, if it could only make coffee...

[waremark]

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 11:48:43 PM UTC, ursus wrote:
> I just did a test on PowerFLARM as a logger:
>
> Set it outside, powered up and waited. Nothing happened for hours. All surrounding trees are still standing.
>
> Those darn FLARM folks have really overpromised! Or maybe I need to change configuration settings? Or handicraft my own antenna? Or read the manual?
>
>
>
> I suspect it will need a hard- and software update; maybe if someone can point FLARM to an autonomous chainsaw with serial interface (ideally IGC specification) they could finally deliver what has been promised:
>
> FLARM as a logger.
>
>
>
> Timber!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo
>
>
>
> Now, if it could only make coffee...

Most loggers don't start recording an IGC file until you start to move above a certain speed. What did you expect your PF to do in those circumstances?

And did they promise it would be a logger? When I recently bought a PF Core (European version) I did not receive any such promise.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:51:14 PM UTC-8, waremark wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 11:48:43 PM UTC, ursus wrote:
>
> > I just did a test on PowerFLARM as a logger:
>
> > Set it outside, powered up and waited. Nothing happened for hours. All surrounding trees are still standing.
>
> > Those darn FLARM folks have really overpromised! Or maybe I need to change configuration settings? Or handicraft my own antenna? Or read the manual?
>
> > I suspect it will need a hard- and software update; maybe if someone can point FLARM to an autonomous chainsaw with serial interface (ideally IGC specification) they could finally deliver what has been promised:
>
> > FLARM as a logger.
>
> > Timber!
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo
>
> And did they promise it would be a logger? When I recently bought a PF Core (European version) I did not receive any such promise.

I think the Joke only works in English, a sure sign that Urs has been with us too long ;^)

Marc

[Darryl Ramm]

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:51:14 PM UTC-8, waremark wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 11:48:43 PM UTC, ursus wrote:
>
> > I just did a test on PowerFLARM as a logger:
>
> >
>
> > Set it outside, powered up and waited. Nothing happened for hours. All surrounding trees are still standing.
>
> >
>
> > Those darn FLARM folks have really overpromised! Or maybe I need to change configuration settings? Or handicraft my own antenna? Or read the manual?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I suspect it will need a hard- and software update; maybe if someone can point FLARM to an autonomous chainsaw with serial interface (ideally IGC specification) they could finally deliver what has been promised:
>
> >
>
> > FLARM as a logger.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Timber!
>
> >
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Now, if it could only make coffee...
>
>
>
> Most loggers don't start recording an IGC file until you start to move above a certain speed. What did you expect your PF to do in those circumstances?
>
>
>
> And did they promise it would be a logger? When I recently bought a PF Core (European version) I did not receive any such promise.

The PowerFLARM is packaged and marketed differently in different geographies. This is not the first time for this confusion to pop up, folks have to look at the appropriate information.

In Europe: http://www.butterfly-avionics.com/index.php/de/produkte/powerflarm

In the USA: http://powerflarm.us and http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM

Other places, I have no idea, but check with your importer/reseller.

The units for sale in the USA have been marketed as expecting to have future IGC flight recorder approval. Contact your resellers or Butterfly Avionics for information on the units you purchase in Europe. My recollection is that IGC approval was not promised for baseline European units.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 5:17:55 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:51:14 PM UTC-8, waremark wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 11:48:43 PM UTC, ursus wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > I just did a test on PowerFLARM as a logger:
>
> >
>
> > > Set it outside, powered up and waited. Nothing happened for hours. All surrounding trees are still standing.
>
> >
>
> > > Those darn FLARM folks have really overpromised! Or maybe I need to change configuration settings? Or handicraft my own antenna? Or read the manual?
>
> >
>
> > > I suspect it will need a hard- and software update; maybe if someone can point FLARM to an autonomous chainsaw with serial interface (ideally IGC specification) they could finally deliver what has been promised:
>
> >
>
> > > FLARM as a logger.
>
> >
>
> > > Timber!
>
> > >
>
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo
>
> >
>
> > And did they promise it would be a logger? When I recently bought a PF Core (European version) I did not receive any such promise.
>
>
>
> I think the Joke only works in English, a sure sign that Urs has been with us too long ;^)
>
>
>
> Marc

Uh oh a Monty Python sense of humor. Now I'm more interested in looking for hidden Monty Python easter eggs in the UI than I am with waiting for IGC approval.

Darryl

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo
>>
>> And did they promise it would be a logger? When I recently
bought a PF
>Core (European version) I did not receive any such promise.
>
>I think the Joke only works in English, a sure sign that Urs has
been with
>us too long ;^)
>
>Marc
>

There is also a continental European version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
NR=1&v=aiVOG199X2c&feature=fvwp

;^)

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 8:44:00 AM UTC-6, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:
> >> > >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo >> >> And did they promise it would be a logger? When I recently bought a PF >Core (European version) I did not receive any such promise. > >I think the Joke only works in English, a sure sign that Urs has been with >us too long ;^) > >Marc > There is also a continental European version: http://www.youtube.com/watch? NR=1&v=aiVOG199X2c&feature=fvwp ;^)

the multi-national log:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUnGXTjmc9E

[Dave Nadler]

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:48:43 PM UTC-5, ursus wrote:
> I just did a test on PowerFLARM as a logger...

Now we know the real reason that Ian gets so upset
when anyone uses the term "logger" ;-)

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, December 6, 2012 3:47:58 AM UTC+1, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:48:43 PM UTC-5, ursus wrote:
>
> > I just did a test on PowerFLARM as a logger...
>
>
>
> Now we know the real reason that Ian gets so upset
>
> when anyone uses the term "logger" ;-)

Wouldn't the trees have to be FLARM, transponder, or ADS-B equipped to be logged by PowerFLARM?

Cue "I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK..."

Kirk
66