PowerFlarm at Region 9 Contest

[Mike the Strike]

Here's a brief review of my experience with PowerFlarm at last week's Region 9 contest in Moriarty.

As some of you know, I've been a bit annoyed with some of my PowerFlarm experience - setup isn't really intuitive and it's hard to find all the info you need in the manual. The antennas are cheesy and mounting them effectively is tough - I ended up with a setup that looked like a bomb sight from Dambusters!

Having said all that, I got it up and running and had my first flights during the contest. It works extremely well and in four contest days I got three alarms of imminent conflict that I took action to avoid. One of them really caught my attention as my cockpit view was filled with a glider crossing my path! I'm now an enthusiast!

A second major value was the information about gliders in your vicinity. It really, really, helps a pilot with situational awareness of where everyone is and this definitely helps to avoid conflict.

The Butterfly display works well and with Flarmnet data gives you the contest numbers of the gliders located (hence its value as a leeching tool). Its audio, however, is totally inadequate - especially for a half-deaf old geezer in a noisy cockpit. Some PDAs and PNAs also give you better presentation of the data.

During the contest, we had one very close mid-air (<6 feet) with two gliders that were not Flarm equipped and that would likely have been avoided if they were. I hate making proprietary equipment compulsory, but I have to say that I am leaning that way for PowerFlarm for contests in the USA.

Some pilots whined that being able to see other gliders and their climb rates would forever change the way we fly contests and this may be true. This will not be the last we hear of this topic!

Mike (WA)

[Dan Marotta]

"Compulsory" for contests - fine with me since I don't fly in contests, but
you'll never get me to install one.

I'd much rather have ATC keeping power traffic, e.g., airliners, away from
me than seeing other gliders in my vicinity. My Mode-S Trig TT-22 does a
fine job of that; I haven't seen an airliner up close in over 200 hours of
flying since installing it. I saw plenty of them before that. Flim-Flarm
won't do that.

Dan


"Mike the Strike" > wrote in message
...
Here's a brief review of my experience with PowerFlarm at last week's Region
9 contest in Moriarty.

As some of you know, I've been a bit annoyed with some of my PowerFlarm
experience - setup isn't really intuitive and it's hard to find all the info
you need in the manual. The antennas are cheesy and mounting them
effectively is tough - I ended up with a setup that looked like a bomb sight
from Dambusters!

Having said all that, I got it up and running and had my first flights
during the contest. It works extremely well and in four contest days I got
three alarms of imminent conflict that I took action to avoid. One of them
really caught my attention as my cockpit view was filled with a glider
crossing my path! I'm now an enthusiast!

A second major value was the information about gliders in your vicinity. It
really, really, helps a pilot with situational awareness of where everyone
is and this definitely helps to avoid conflict.

The Butterfly display works well and with Flarmnet data gives you the
contest numbers of the gliders located (hence its value as a leeching tool).
Its audio, however, is totally inadequate - especially for a half-deaf old
geezer in a noisy cockpit. Some PDAs and PNAs also give you better
presentation of the data.

During the contest, we had one very close mid-air (<6 feet) with two gliders
that were not Flarm equipped and that would likely have been avoided if they
were. I hate making proprietary equipment compulsory, but I have to say
that I am leaning that way for PowerFlarm for contests in the USA.

Some pilots whined that being able to see other gliders and their climb
rates would forever change the way we fly contests and this may be true.
This will not be the last we hear of this topic!

Mike (WA)

[Morgan[_2_]]

Might be too little information too late since you already have spent the money on the Butterfly, but the LXNav Flarmview is really quite good. I have it connected to a portable unit for my primary display in the front seat.

The audio is not lacking in any way shape or form. It's almost too loud. I haven't actually tried to adjust the volume, I think that may be an option, but you could hear it just fine in a 2-33 at 60knots.

It's a bit cheaper than the Butterfly displays and it works great with polarized glasses. I'm really happy with it so far. A few usability quirks, but for the job it is supposed to do it works great. The configuration and manual leave a little to be desired as well, but like most things it is all firmware so I am confident those idiosyncrasies will get worked out in time..

I second Dan's opinion that a transponder is really the preferred safety device if you fly in airspace with big metal. For me it isn't an either/or for Flarm/Transponder. Both is the right choice.


Morgan


On Monday, June 10, 2013 7:30:54 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> Here's a brief review of my experience with PowerFlarm at last week's Region 9 contest in Moriarty.
>
>
>
> As some of you know, I've been a bit annoyed with some of my PowerFlarm experience - setup isn't really intuitive and it's hard to find all the info you need in the manual. The antennas are cheesy and mounting them effectively is tough - I ended up with a setup that looked like a bomb sight from Dambusters!
>
>
>
> Having said all that, I got it up and running and had my first flights during the contest. It works extremely well and in four contest days I got three alarms of imminent conflict that I took action to avoid. One of them really caught my attention as my cockpit view was filled with a glider crossing my path! I'm now an enthusiast!
>
>
>
> A second major value was the information about gliders in your vicinity. It really, really, helps a pilot with situational awareness of where everyone is and this definitely helps to avoid conflict.
>
>
>
> The Butterfly display works well and with Flarmnet data gives you the contest numbers of the gliders located (hence its value as a leeching tool). Its audio, however, is totally inadequate - especially for a half-deaf old geezer in a noisy cockpit. Some PDAs and PNAs also give you better presentation of the data.
>
>
>
> During the contest, we had one very close mid-air (<6 feet) with two gliders that were not Flarm equipped and that would likely have been avoided if they were. I hate making proprietary equipment compulsory, but I have to say that I am leaning that way for PowerFlarm for contests in the USA.
>
>
>
> Some pilots whined that being able to see other gliders and their climb rates would forever change the way we fly contests and this may be true. This will not be the last we hear of this topic!
>
>
>
> Mike (WA)

[Mike the Strike]

I've had a transponder for eight years. What it doesn't do is keep away general aviation and some military - I have had close-up views of a few light twins in the past couple of years. Some sort of PCAS device will help with this.

If you are flying with more than a handful of gliders, Flarm is very useful. For fun flying, perhaps not so much, but for team flying and contests it's a great tool.

I've already heard about the superiority of LX Flarmview, but the Butterfly display came with my core unit.

Mike

[Dan Marotta]

I can see that if you fly with a bunch of gliders Flarm can be a big help.
I'm mystified about about the close encounters with military and GA aircraft
unless you're operating in an area with little to no radar coverage, VFR
fliers, MOAs, oil burner routes, etc. I used to have to make position
reports while flying IFR in the Albuquerque to Cortez, CO area since there
was no radar coverage (this was several years back), but I haven't done that
in some time and I don't know about coverage there now.

Since installing my transponder I've seen it replying on the ground at
Moriarty and in the air many miles east and down low.

As they may have briefed at the pilot's meetings, we have an arrival
corridor pretty much overhead and sometimes airliners come over at 12,000'
MSL (6,000 AGL), and, I understand that ATC held them above 18,000' MSL for
the duration of the contest. Before installing my transponder, I saw many
airliners, C-130s, big twins, etc. closer than I would have liked. I even
heard a few engines. A Flarm would have provided no warning against those.
Since installing the transponder, I never see military or airline aircraft
closer than 5 miles or a couple thousand feet vertically. Neither Flarm nor
transponder will protect against VFR aircraft not in contact with ATC. PCAS
might work for that, however.


"Mike the Strike" > wrote in message
...
> I've had a transponder for eight years. What it doesn't do is keep away
> general aviation and some military - I have had close-up views of a few
> light twins in the past couple of years. Some sort of PCAS device will
> help with this.
>
> If you are flying with more than a handful of gliders, Flarm is very
> useful. For fun flying, perhaps not so much, but for team flying and
> contests it's a great tool.
>
> I've already heard about the superiority of LX Flarmview, but the
> Butterfly display came with my core unit.
>
> Mike

[jfitch]

On Monday, June 10, 2013 8:53:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Neither Flarm nor
>
> transponder will protect against VFR aircraft not in contact with ATC. PCAS
>
> might work for that, however.
>
>
>

I was under the impression that PowerFlarm (not Flarm) did that since it receives Mode C replies. Is that not the case?

[Mike the Strike]

On Monday, June 10, 2013 9:39:26 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Monday, June 10, 2013 8:53:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> Neither Flarm nor
>
> >
>
> > transponder will protect against VFR aircraft not in contact with ATC. PCAS
>
> >
>
> > might work for that, however.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> I was under the impression that PowerFlarm (not Flarm) did that since it receives Mode C replies. Is that not the case?

Yes, but I was replying to Dan who doesn't want a Flarm. We have lots of aviation traffic going to small airfields that are not in contact with ATC. Single-engine stuff is usually low down, but twins are often coming in from a destination further away and descend through airspace near the gliderport. They never seem to be looking out of their windows and won't be aware of me unless they too have a PCAS.


Mike

[Ramy]

On Monday, June 10, 2013 10:06:24 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Monday, June 10, 2013 9:39:26 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 10, 2013 8:53:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Neither Flarm nor
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > transponder will protect against VFR aircraft not in contact with ATC.. PCAS
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > might work for that, however.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I was under the impression that PowerFlarm (not Flarm) did that since it receives Mode C replies. Is that not the case?
>
>
>
> Yes, but I was replying to Dan who doesn't want a Flarm. We have lots of aviation traffic going to small airfields that are not in contact with ATC.. Single-engine stuff is usually low down, but twins are often coming in from a destination further away and descend through airspace near the gliderport. They never seem to be looking out of their windows and won't be aware of me unless they too have a PCAS.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike

Every now and then the argument of flarm vs transponder will come up. This is like comparing apples to oranges. These are not alternative solutions. Each has different purpose and each solution is highly desirable depend on where you fly. Dan flies out of Moriarty so obviously both are desired. Sooner or later those who insist on never installing a flarm will find themselves less popular among their flying buddies who went through the trouble of installing. You may hear on the radio "watch out for a bozo flying around without flarm". My message to those who can afford a powerflarm but don't think they need it: Install one anyway and turn the display off if you want. At least we will be able to see and avoid you. You may never know that it saved your butt.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

On Monday, June 10, 2013 12:15:16 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
Sooner or later those who insist on never installing a flarm will find themselves less popular among their flying buddies who went through the trouble of installing. You may hear on the radio "watch out for a bozo flying around without flarm". My message to those who can afford a powerflarm but don't think they need it: Install one anyway and turn the display off if you want. At least we will be able to see and avoid you. You may never know that it saved your butt.

Ramy
__________________

Amen Ramy - I was sympathetic to the rationalizing by those who didn't fly with PowerFlarm or Transponders - until I got both. Both arguments are exactly the same - just focused on different traffic types. That argument is: "big sky, little glider, I don't need it".

You correctly point out the big cultural difference between the two - a transponder protect you and airline passengers, PowerFlarm protects you and your soaring buddies. I care that you don't run into an airliner, but it's an intellectual exercise. I care that you don't run into me because it's personal.

Lacking a PowerFlarm is becoming the path to being a pariah at contests. I see it being taken up at commercial operations too and I suspect the more active clubs are adopting. We'll see how long the diehard opponents last.

9B

[Dan Marotta]

Yes, but you can't get out of the way of an airliner - you're a stationary
target at his speed. And, if you have a Flarm only and not a transponder,
the airliner won't see you.


"jfitch" > wrote in message
...
> On Monday, June 10, 2013 8:53:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Neither Flarm nor
>>
>> transponder will protect against VFR aircraft not in contact with ATC.
>> PCAS
>>
>> might work for that, however.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I was under the impression that PowerFlarm (not Flarm) did that since it
> receives Mode C replies. Is that not the case?

[Dan Marotta]

Ramy, send me one and I'll install it. I won't, however, bend to peer
pressure and you can call me a bozo if you want. We have big skies around
Moriarty and, outside of contests, there are few gliders. I want protection
from transponder equipped aircraft.


"Ramy" > wrote in message
...
On Monday, June 10, 2013 10:06:24 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Monday, June 10, 2013 9:39:26 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 10, 2013 8:53:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Neither Flarm nor
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > transponder will protect against VFR aircraft not in contact with ATC.
> > > PCAS
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > might work for that, however.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I was under the impression that PowerFlarm (not Flarm) did that since it
> > receives Mode C replies. Is that not the case?
>
>
>
> Yes, but I was replying to Dan who doesn't want a Flarm. We have lots of
> aviation traffic going to small airfields that are not in contact with
> ATC. Single-engine stuff is usually low down, but twins are often coming
> in from a destination further away and descend through airspace near the
> gliderport. They never seem to be looking out of their windows and won't
> be aware of me unless they too have a PCAS.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike

Every now and then the argument of flarm vs transponder will come up. This
is like comparing apples to oranges. These are not alternative solutions.
Each has different purpose and each solution is highly desirable depend on
where you fly. Dan flies out of Moriarty so obviously both are desired.
Sooner or later those who insist on never installing a flarm will find
themselves less popular among their flying buddies who went through the
trouble of installing. You may hear on the radio "watch out for a bozo
flying around without flarm". My message to those who can afford a
powerflarm but don't think they need it: Install one anyway and turn the
display off if you want. At least we will be able to see and avoid you. You
may never know that it saved your butt.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

Dan,

It is not bending to peer pressure it is waking up to a important safety tool.
On a good weekend and some weekdays we have upwards of 20 gliders flying in the Moriarty airspace. Many are flying in the same areas as they are running shear lines and cloud streets for OLC points. We do have a big sky but often well populated routes.

On Monday, June 10, 2013 10:24:43 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Ramy, send me one and I'll install it. I won't, however, bend to peer pressure and you can call me a bozo if you want. We have big skies around Moriarty and, outside of contests, there are few gliders. I want protection from transponder equipped aircraft.

[guy]

There is still a great deal of work to do on Flarm before it is a
truely trustworthy piece of equipment.
Ramy ... name calling is just what we don't want on these discussions.
Your Power Flarms should be able to detect and display a transponder
that is actively being interrogated by ATC radar. The last four times
I have flown in airspace with PowerFlarm equiped gliders and have been
close enough to the Flarm plane to be able to read the model name on
the side of the cockpit, the PowerFlarm pilot did not see me on their
display. I talked with each of those pilots on the radio. My
transponder is blinking like a WalMart christmas tree and they don't
see me. They don't see me with their eyes either !!!!!!! My
transponder has passed all the tests and the antenna radiates with no
detectable blind spots. There are still some significant problems
with antenna placement with Flarm, especially in aircraft that have
carbon fuselages. Then there is the wildcard of how pilots set the
parameters on their Flarms...or don't.

Guy Acheson "DDS"

[Mike the Strike]

My first near mid-air with a glider some years ago involved a run down a cloud street - I was returning and a colleague was outbound. We were in radio contact and knew of the potential conflict. When we met, I saw a brief flash of wing and as I started climbing and turning, he passed 20 feet under my wing without ever seeing me. Replaying our igc files showed that we were both cruising around 85 to 90 knots IAS and had a closing speed of close to 250mph. I saw him at a distance of a mile, or about 12 seconds before we passed. Flarm would have helped.

I was one of the PowerFlarm skeptics, but have now seen the benefits. Gliders not so equipped are likely to become pariahs, firstly being excluded from competition and later from clubs or FBOs. I would not be surprised if insurance companies also weighed in by offering discounts to Flarm-equipped gliders.

I would lump pilots who moan about mandated safety devices with motorcyclists who like the freedom to ride without a helmet, except the pilot may kill one of his buddies too.

Mike

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dan Marotta wrote, On 6/10/2013 9:24 PM:
> I want protection from transponder equipped aircraft.

Maybe you meant TCAS equipped aircraft?

At least get an MRX, if you don't want a PowerFlarm. The MRX will warn
you of transponder equipped aircraft, most of which do not have TCAS.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks for understanding my position, Guy.

Robert and Mike, it's not about resistance to anything. As the Moriarty
folks know, I ride a motorcycle AND I wear a helmet though it's not required
in New Mexico. I make my decisions on my perceived need, not on the latest
promise of "safety". Sure I've seen claims of saves with Flarm, but I've
also seen a lot of complaints of it not living up to its promise.

I can appreciate its value in a crowded thermal; no argument other than the
sometimes missed alerts. I only flew one day during the contest. On
release, I found a really good thermal and other gliders, seeing me going up
so fast, came and joined. There were 4 or 5 as I recall. I left the
thermal and headed off in a non-task dirction. I didn't see another glider
all day. I generally fly alone or with one other glider and then we're in
constant communication. If we lose sight, we leave the thermal.

Look back at my OLC traces and you'll see that I don't follow the shear
lines all day to maximize speed and distance points. I fly for fun and I
enjoy exploring those places where the really fast guys don't go that often
because it slows them down.

And, no, I'm not talking about TCAS equipped aircraft. I mean ABQ Approach
sees me and vectors departing and arriving aircraft around me. I have
talked with them and done transponder checks to be sure they can see me -
they can! I also dragged my glider down to ABQ to the avionics shop to have
my installation checked. It works!

I know of at least one pilot at Moriarty who has a Flarm but refuses to
install a transponder. So he's protected from other Flarm or transponder
equipped gliders, but he's also invisible to ATC and TCAS. How smart is
that?


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Marotta wrote, On 6/10/2013 9:24 PM:
>> I want protection from transponder equipped aircraft.
>
> Maybe you meant TCAS equipped aircraft?
>
> At least get an MRX, if you don't want a PowerFlarm. The MRX will warn you
> of transponder equipped aircraft, most of which do not have TCAS.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email
> me)
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
> http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[kirk.stant]

Dan, I think you don't completely understand what a PowerFlarm provides: It allows you to pick up other PF-equipped gliders, and provides collision warning if necessary (had a couple of those at R9 myself). But it also detects and displays transponder-equipped traffic, and Mode-S/ADS-b traffic. I saw several of those, including other gliders who had their PF in Stealth mode later in the contest.

A transponder is nice if you are in a situation where you can talk to center and they are talking to other traffic. But in some areas, everybody is VFR and not everybody is talking to center - how does center tell that VFR 1200 Bonanza to look for the glider squawking 1202? In your situation, you will have NO warning until he hopefully sees you and misses you. With a PF, I will get a non-directional PCAS warning with his altitude and approximate distance. Similar, but not as good (yet) as PCAS, but otherwise workable.

I agree the best is to have both PF and a Mode S transponder. But to say that the transponder alone gives you better protection from ALL traffic than a PF is wrong.

And really, you don't think you can maneuver away from an airliners flightpath with 2 - 3 miles warning? Funny, I haven't had that problem even with visual pickups of airliners.

Personally, I would like Flarm to be mandatory for ALL contests next year, just like a parachute. And encourage Stealt mode be turned off during regional contests - I found it a lot of fun to be aware of all the gliders around me. For nationals, OK, stealth up, but I've got a feeling that again (like team flying) we will be setting ourselves up for a beat-down at the World's!

Like Mike said earlier - this year at Moriarty we had one real close near-midair (<7 ft separation), and at least one of those gliders didn't have a Flarm installed. Meanwhile, those of us with Flarm installed had several collision warnings that we resolved after being cued by the Flarm where to look.

I'm convinced. It works. And if really isn't that tough to install - plus it's easy to check the detection range online after a few flights with other Flarm-equipped gliders.

Kirk
66

[Dan Marotta]

No, Kirk, I think I *do* understand.

For *my* type of flying, I see no benefit to having warnings of
Flarm-equipped aircraft since I don't fly contests and I don't fly in the
busiest areas around Moriarty. Hell, I don't fly anywhere near other
gliders and I fly higher than all but a few GA aircraft so it's unlikely
I'll ever see an alert. You will see my Mode-S transponder if you get near
me and you'll turn away. There's no need for you to tell me. Besides, I'm
looking outside so I probably saw you any way.

I agree absolutely that Flarm should be mandatory at contests, along with
parachutes, and male external catheters. I don't care. I won't be there.

As to maneuvering, I once spotted a small dot on the horizon as I was
thermalling. Completing ONE revolution, I saw a B-767 maneuvering to avoid
me. Thank God he had head outside instead of up his ass staring at doo-dads
on his wonderful glass panel!

I don't expect ATC to talk to every light plane and warn him of my presence.
On the other hand, I don't see too many of them at the altitudes I fly.

Can no one understand that my interest is to have ATC vector IFR traffic
around me and that I have absolutely no interest in contests or gaggles or
(the glider equivalent of) oil burner routes?


"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
Dan, I think you don't completely understand what a PowerFlarm provides: It
allows you to pick up other PF-equipped gliders, and provides collision
warning if necessary (had a couple of those at R9 myself). But it also
detects and displays transponder-equipped traffic, and Mode-S/ADS-b traffic.
I saw several of those, including other gliders who had their PF in Stealth
mode later in the contest.

A transponder is nice if you are in a situation where you can talk to center
and they are talking to other traffic. But in some areas, everybody is VFR
and not everybody is talking to center - how does center tell that VFR 1200
Bonanza to look for the glider squawking 1202? In your situation, you will
have NO warning until he hopefully sees you and misses you. With a PF, I
will get a non-directional PCAS warning with his altitude and approximate
distance. Similar, but not as good (yet) as PCAS, but otherwise workable.

I agree the best is to have both PF and a Mode S transponder. But to say
that the transponder alone gives you better protection from ALL traffic than
a PF is wrong.

And really, you don't think you can maneuver away from an airliners
flightpath with 2 - 3 miles warning? Funny, I haven't had that problem even
with visual pickups of airliners.

Personally, I would like Flarm to be mandatory for ALL contests next year,
just like a parachute. And encourage Stealt mode be turned off during
regional contests - I found it a lot of fun to be aware of all the gliders
around me. For nationals, OK, stealth up, but I've got a feeling that again
(like team flying) we will be setting ourselves up for a beat-down at the
World's!

Like Mike said earlier - this year at Moriarty we had one real close
near-midair (<7 ft separation), and at least one of those gliders didn't
have a Flarm installed. Meanwhile, those of us with Flarm installed had
several collision warnings that we resolved after being cued by the Flarm
where to look.

I'm convinced. It works. And if really isn't that tough to install - plus
it's easy to check the detection range online after a few flights with other
Flarm-equipped gliders.

Kirk
66

[mike]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:59:54 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> No, Kirk, I think I *do* understand.
>
>
>
> For *my* type of flying, I see no benefit to having warnings of
>
> Flarm-equipped aircraft since I don't fly contests and I don't fly in the
>
> busiest areas around Moriarty. Hell, I don't fly anywhere near other
>
> gliders and I fly higher than all but a few GA aircraft so it's unlikely
>
> I'll ever see an alert. You will see my Mode-S transponder if you get near
>
> me and you'll turn away. There's no need for you to tell me. Besides, I'm
>
> looking outside so I probably saw you any way.
>
>
>
> I agree absolutely that Flarm should be mandatory at contests, along with
>
> parachutes, and male external catheters. I don't care. I won't be there.
>
>
>
> As to maneuvering, I once spotted a small dot on the horizon as I was
>
> thermalling. Completing ONE revolution, I saw a B-767 maneuvering to avoid
>
> me. Thank God he had head outside instead of up his ass staring at doo-dads
>
> on his wonderful glass panel!
>
>
>
> I don't expect ATC to talk to every light plane and warn him of my presence.
>
> On the other hand, I don't see too many of them at the altitudes I fly.
>
>
>
> Can no one understand that my interest is to have ATC vector IFR traffic
>
> around me and that I have absolutely no interest in contests or gaggles or
>
> (the glider equivalent of) oil burner routes?
>
>
>
>
>
> "kirk.stant" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> Dan, I think you don't completely understand what a PowerFlarm provides: It
>
> allows you to pick up other PF-equipped gliders, and provides collision
>
> warning if necessary (had a couple of those at R9 myself). But it also
>
> detects and displays transponder-equipped traffic, and Mode-S/ADS-b traffic.
>
> I saw several of those, including other gliders who had their PF in Stealth
>
> mode later in the contest.
>
>
>
> A transponder is nice if you are in a situation where you can talk to center
>
> and they are talking to other traffic. But in some areas, everybody is VFR
>
> and not everybody is talking to center - how does center tell that VFR 1200
>
> Bonanza to look for the glider squawking 1202? In your situation, you will
>
> have NO warning until he hopefully sees you and misses you. With a PF, I
>
> will get a non-directional PCAS warning with his altitude and approximate
>
> distance. Similar, but not as good (yet) as PCAS, but otherwise workable.
>
>
>
> I agree the best is to have both PF and a Mode S transponder. But to say
>
> that the transponder alone gives you better protection from ALL traffic than
>
> a PF is wrong.
>
>
>
> And really, you don't think you can maneuver away from an airliners
>
> flightpath with 2 - 3 miles warning? Funny, I haven't had that problem even
>
> with visual pickups of airliners.
>
>
>
> Personally, I would like Flarm to be mandatory for ALL contests next year,
>
> just like a parachute. And encourage Stealt mode be turned off during
>
> regional contests - I found it a lot of fun to be aware of all the gliders
>
> around me. For nationals, OK, stealth up, but I've got a feeling that again
>
> (like team flying) we will be setting ourselves up for a beat-down at the
>
> World's!
>
>
>
> Like Mike said earlier - this year at Moriarty we had one real close
>
> near-midair (<7 ft separation), and at least one of those gliders didn't
>
> have a Flarm installed. Meanwhile, those of us with Flarm installed had
>
> several collision warnings that we resolved after being cued by the Flarm
>
> where to look.
>
>
>
> I'm convinced. It works. And if really isn't that tough to install - plus
>
> it's easy to check the detection range online after a few flights with other
>
> Flarm-equipped gliders.
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

Dan,

More than you may think understand your position and agree with you. They see no point to be chastised is all. I had a choice between a Flarm and transponder and chose the transponder-a lowly mode C - what I could afford.

Mike

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:56:35 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:

PowerFlarm works best if most gliders use it. Offering not to fly when more than a few glider are airborne or promising not to climb in the areas of good lift, while generous offers, strain credulity a bit.

I expect a fair amount of sincere rationalizing between now and broad Flarm adoption in the US. It's a free country, but I will continue to encourage as many of my soaring friends to voluntarily adopt Flarm as I can. 100% adoption at contests is the short-term goal.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Monday, June 10, 2013 11:21:33 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Yes, but you can't get out of the way of an airliner - you're a stationary
>
> target at his speed. And, if you have a Flarm only and not a transponder,
>
> the airliner won't see you.
>
In fact, powerflarm gives lots of warning about airliners. They have mode S, ADSB transponders, so you see exact position and altitude from many miles away.

Just last weekend I was looking at my clearnav display, wondering how I was picking up that glider 10+ miles away, then noticed it was above cloudbase and descending 20 knots. Oh, yeah. Hmm, better alter course a bit to the right.

That's not an argument against transponders. I fly with both flarm and transponder. Flarm gives glider to glider collision warnings, especially in contests and densely flown glider areas. Flarm lets you see adsb-equipped aircraft, with enough warning to get out of the way of anything flying subsonic..

Transponders lets the FAA and airliners avoid me. That's very important where I fly since Midway approach seems to love to blast airliners through 20 miles of congested class E airspace right over our club at 4000'. Choose which risk you face most, and cost/benefit.

Contests are verging to large scale voluntary flarm adoption. It's not clear to me that Dan understands this thread is mainly talking about contests. For most contests, flown away from lots of heavy traffic, one can make a case that a transponder is less cost effective, and flarm much more important..

I would imagine that other densely flown glider areas would want to start thinking about heavy flarm adoption too, say up and down the white mountains or the pennsylvania ridges. Operations with lots of glider traffic, so that midairs among pilots based out of the same airport are the prime threat, might consider flarm as well.

If you fly all by yourself in heavy power traffic areas, and you're cheap, then one can make a case for transponder and no flarm. Still, you don't see the other traffic.

John Cochrane

[John Carlyle]

A few months ago I would have agreed with John Cochrane and just let it go when he said: "Transponders lets the FAA and airliners avoid me. That's very important where I fly since Midway approach seems to love to blast airliners through 20 miles of congested class E airspace right over our club at 4000'. But now I know that there is more to it.

I fly near the Class B airspace of PHL and EWR, and have been using a transponder for 5 years. For 4 of those years I've been pleased, as I've seen some airliners (mostly commuters but a few big guys, too) make slight course diversions to avoid me while I was thermalling. Clearly they saw me on their TCAS. But in late March I found out that EWR ATC either filtered out my 1202 squawk or just ignored it, as suddenly I found myself 500 feet below a 747 doing 250 kt. Turned out I was inadvertently flying under an approach path to EWR outside the Class B airspace (I certainly won't be flying near it again)! I'm sure the 747 saw me on his TCAS, but have since found out that he would only deviate if he'd gotten a RA, otherwise he'd be in trouble with ATC.

There are two lessons I learned from this. First, a PowerFLARM and a transponder won't prevent you from getting way too close to other traffic, even if they are under ATC control and have TCAS. Second, if you are a VFR pilot flying outside Class B airspace, you need to educate yourself on likely approach and departure routes that lie outside the Class B, and be very alert and careful if you get near them.

-John, Q3

[Dan Marotta]

I have a plan. I'll publish my flight schedule and the Flarm users can stay
on the ground! That way only people looking outside will be in the air.


> wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:56:35 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:

PowerFlarm works best if most gliders use it. Offering not to fly when more
than a few glider are airborne or promising not to climb in the areas of
good lift, while generous offers, strain credulity a bit.

I expect a fair amount of sincere rationalizing between now and broad Flarm
adoption in the US. It's a free country, but I will continue to encourage as
many of my soaring friends to voluntarily adopt Flarm as I can. 100%
adoption at contests is the short-term goal.

9B

[Dan Marotta]

I like the way you assume my understanding, John, and my financial position.

I've stated over and over that I don't fly in contests and I don't care
about contest flying. I only care about the bandying about of such terms as
compulsory and mandatory. Those of us who truly care about our freedoms
understand that if we give an inch, those who want to impose their wills
will take the proverbial mile. I won't give that inch. I'll make my own
decisions.

Yes, by all means try to mandate Flarm on the Applichian ridge to prevent
midairs between gliders. Oh, how many have there been there so far?


> wrote in message
...
On Monday, June 10, 2013 11:21:33 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Yes, but you can't get out of the way of an airliner - you're a stationary
>
> target at his speed. And, if you have a Flarm only and not a transponder,
>
> the airliner won't see you.
>
In fact, powerflarm gives lots of warning about airliners. They have mode S,
ADSB transponders, so you see exact position and altitude from many miles
away.

Just last weekend I was looking at my clearnav display, wondering how I was
picking up that glider 10+ miles away, then noticed it was above cloudbase
and descending 20 knots. Oh, yeah. Hmm, better alter course a bit to the
right.

That's not an argument against transponders. I fly with both flarm and
transponder. Flarm gives glider to glider collision warnings, especially in
contests and densely flown glider areas. Flarm lets you see adsb-equipped
aircraft, with enough warning to get out of the way of anything flying
subsonic.

Transponders lets the FAA and airliners avoid me. That's very important
where I fly since Midway approach seems to love to blast airliners through
20 miles of congested class E airspace right over our club at 4000'. Choose
which risk you face most, and cost/benefit.

Contests are verging to large scale voluntary flarm adoption. It's not clear
to me that Dan understands this thread is mainly talking about contests. For
most contests, flown away from lots of heavy traffic, one can make a case
that a transponder is less cost effective, and flarm much more important.

I would imagine that other densely flown glider areas would want to start
thinking about heavy flarm adoption too, say up and down the white mountains
or the pennsylvania ridges. Operations with lots of glider traffic, so that
midairs among pilots based out of the same airport are the prime threat,
might consider flarm as well.

If you fly all by yourself in heavy power traffic areas, and you're cheap,
then one can make a case for transponder and no flarm. Still, you don't see
the other traffic.

John Cochrane

[son_of_flubber]

It's a near miracle that a group of "middle-age+" people have quickly adopted an expensive new technology like PowerFlarm. The people in the racing community that have helped ease this along deserve a lot of credit. This is rare and true leadership in the community interest. Congratulation and thank you.

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:27:18 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:

> >...I only care about the bandying about of such terms as
> compulsory and mandatory. Those of us who truly care about our freedoms
> understand that if we give an inch, those who want to impose their wills
> will take the proverbial mile. I won't give that inch. I'll make my own
> decisions.

Dan, you are making it sound like some of the leaders in the racing community wants to take away your guns. Fine, don't install PowerFlarm. But PLEASE STOP mixing the rhetoric of "gun rights" with the PowerFlarm. You are discouraging anyone who owns guns and anyone who listens to gun rights rhetoric from acquiring PowerFlarm. That is how persuasion works. There are a lot of people on the fence about PowerFlarm and you are influencing them. You are leading the charge in the opposite direction. PowerFlarm is not a handgun.

Here is why I would politely ask you to stop beating your drum. YOU MAY BE WRONG ABOUT POWERFLARM. PowerFlarm may be the right decision for someone else who is on the fence. Please consider switching your drum beat to something like, "I considered adopting PowerFlarm and I decided that it is not for me because of how and when I fly. BUT you should make that decision for yourself. PowerFlarm may save YOUR life. Lots of people think it is a wise investment and I may be wrong, but I've chosen to take my chances. In general, I don't like bells and whistles, so it kinda makes sense that I would reject PowerFlarm."

If you can't go that far, how about switching to something neutral like "PowerFlarm is not for me." Surely you have something better to do than lead the charge against PowerFlarm.

[Doug Mueller]

John, I would like to share this with you and the entire glider community.
FWIW. I fly transport category aircraft for a living. I fly gliders and
small prop jobs for a hobby. I cannot over emphasis how critical
transponder usage is in this day and age. The airspace system has seen huge
pressure to condense for the number of airspace users. For example a
transport category aircraft is separated from another aircraft by only 1000
ft vertically above Flight Level 290(29000ft.)
The terminal airspace that is a 25 mile radius of a major airport is
overflowing and the Air Traffic Controllers are now spilling aircraft over
into other airspaces. Your EWR example is a perfect case.
In the lower altitudes of the controlled D airspace below 18000 along
airways and terminal areas, the transports rely on TCAS because we are
generally travelling anywhere from 4 to 9 miles per minute. I am a trained
general aviator and my head is outside of the cockpit 75% of the time. For
whatever reason sitting in the transport I can never see traffic with the
use of my own eyes before TCAS spots the traffic. It is probably because of
my focal length is geared to looking farther down the road at 4 to 9 miles
per minute. When I get a TCAS alert I change my focal range to look for
traffic that is within 5 miles of my aircraft. At the speeds I fly I have
approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute to acquire visual contact before I fly
past the vfr target. I have flown in and out of RENO and a lot up and down
the CA coast. Looking for gliders in the owns valley has always been a
challenge. I have not seen one yet. I have seen them on TCAS but have never
visually acquired one.
The day is coming when a glider or a small aircraft will collide with a
transport. The day that happens all gliders and GA aircraft will be
grounded since the transport industry is an economic contributor and will
not be punished or the incident. All General Aviators have a responsibility
to try to postpone that day. The transponder is a simple solution to
postponing that day. You can be part of the problem or part of the
solution. I wanna keep having the freedom to fly my glider. Thanks for
listening. Doug


At 14:12 12 June 2013, John Carlyle wrote:
>A few months ago I would have agreed with John Cochrane and just let it
go
>=
>when he said: "Transponders lets the FAA and airliners avoid me. That's
>ve=
>ry important where I fly since Midway approach seems to love to blast
>airli=
>ners through 20 miles of congested class E airspace right over our club
at
>=
>4000'. But now I know that there is more to it.=20
>
>I fly near the Class B airspace of PHL and EWR, and have been using a
>trans=
>ponder for 5 years. For 4 of those years I've been pleased, as I've seen
>so=
>me airliners (mostly commuters but a few big guys, too) make slight
course
>=
>diversions to avoid me while I was thermalling. Clearly they saw me on
>thei=
>r TCAS. But in late March I found out that EWR ATC either filtered out
my
>=
>1202 squawk or just ignored it, as suddenly I found myself 500 feet below
>a=
> 747 doing 250 kt. Turned out I was inadvertently flying under an
approach
>=
>path to EWR outside the Class B airspace (I certainly won't be flying
near
>=
>it again)! I'm sure the 747 saw me on his TCAS, but have since found out
>th=
>at he would only deviate if he'd gotten a RA, otherwise he'd be in
trouble
>=
>with ATC.=20
>
>There are two lessons I learned from this. First, a PowerFLARM and a
>transp=
>onder won't prevent you from getting way too close to other traffic, even
>i=
>f they are under ATC control and have TCAS. Second, if you are a VFR
pilot
>=
>flying outside Class B airspace, you need to educate yourself on likely
>app=
>roach and departure routes that lie outside the Class B, and be very
alert
>=
>and careful if you get near them.=20
>
>-John, Q3
>

[K]

On Monday, June 10, 2013 8:57:16 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> "Compulsory" for contests - fine with me since I don't fly in contests, but
>
> you'll never get me to install one.
>
>
>
> I'd much rather have ATC keeping power traffic, e.g., airliners, away from
>
> me than seeing other gliders in my vicinity.
> Dan
>
Dan,
Why the hard-on toward PF? Because of my abrasive personality around the gliderport I fly alone most of the time myself (Kidding, My job keeps me busy most weekends so I fly gliders mostly weekdays). I was out midweek at CV (Next to SLC) about 100 miles South of any metropolitan area and came across a glider out of Parawan right at cloudbase. At the time Parawan didn't have a regular or full time operation and the guy was on a different freq.(He never saw me and I had a hard time seeing him because I was looking up at cloudbase and I climbed right up at him). I never took flying alone for granted again.
I purchased one of the first portables sold in the US and transitioned to a Core on my new ship and I would not fly without it for several reasons. Especially at a contest. For those of you who believe airliners make "course diversions" for you do not understand how TCAS works. The best practice would be to study the STARs and DPs and stay clear of these areas.
Dan, Try this; borrow someones PF portable and try it for a couple of flights and then come back here and rant about your freedoms. Chances are you will be amazed at all the traffic that you did not see before. Hatches just blow, condoms break, and occasionally PF might miss an alert, but the technology is valid.

[JS]

Thanks for posting that Mike.
Seems that the people who don't like these things are the ones that haven't used them. Only takes one alarm for traffic you weren't aware of...
You can install FLARM and TXP at the same time, Dan et al. TXP won't be much help with pilots not talking to ATC. I've seen plenty of aircraft up close while squawking with (certified) transponders made by Becker (two installations) Terra (one) and Trig (two). There are no guarantees.
Jim

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:36:50 AM UTC-4, K wrote:
> Hatches just blow, condoms break, and occasionally PF might miss an alert, but the technology is valid.

Enjoying the discussion...

About PF... it's worth breaking down the package a bit for discussion of merits (and not-so-merits), especially for benefit of newcomers and skeptics. It's two very well integrated technologies with a third total lashup (barely) along for the ride. I'm speaking of flarm and ADSB on the one hand and PCAS transponder alerts on the other. For those of you with power flarm and a third party display capable of plotting ADSB traffic (e.g. ClearNav), you've probably already seen as I have just how much commercial and biz jet turbo traffic has adopted ADSB and it's great. Range is tens of miles, I now filter this in the interest of clutter removal to delta altitudes and ranges that I care about. It works *really* well. And if you get close, powerflarm will call out the traffic just as it does for flarm targets. Flarm, as already covered at length, works well too (given proper installation).

PCAS on the other hand is just a bad joke, especially if you are flying in proximity to gliders with transponders. The "alerts" in that case are continuous and therefore completely useless. PCAS may have some utility in a really empty sky, but being non-directional, it's a pretty limited sort of utility. It would be enhanced somewhat if we could differentiate 1200 from 1202 from everything else, which I am told we cannot due to technical limitations in what is still largely 1950s technology. With any density of "friendly" transponder traffic (for example at a contest), you'll want to turn PCAS off.

My $0.02

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Doug Mueller]

Sorry this did not format correctly.

John, I would like to share this with you and the entire glider community
FWIW. I fly transport category aircraft for a living. I fly gliders and
small prop jobs for a hobby. I cannot over emphasis how critical
transponder usage is in this day and age. The airspace system has seen a
huge pressure to condense for the number of airspace users. For example
transport category aircraft is separated from another aircraft by only 1000
ft vertically above Flight Level 290(29000ft.)
The terminal airspace that is a 25 mile radius of a major airport is
overflowing and the Air Traffic Controllers are now spilling aircraft over
into other airspaces. Your EWR example is a perfect case.
In the lower altitudes of the controlled D airspace below 18000 along
airways and terminal areas, the transports rely on TCAS because we are
generally travelling anywhere from 4 to 9 miles per minute. I am a trained
general aviator and my head is outside of the cockpit 75% of
the time. For whatever reason sitting in the transport I can never see
traffic with the use of my own eyes before TCAS spots the traffic. It is
probably because of
my focal length is geared to looking farther down the road at 4 to 9 miles
per minute. When I get a TCAS alert I change my focal range to look for
traffic that is within 5 miles of my aircraft. At the speeds I fly I have
approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute to acquire visual contact
before I fly past the vfr target. I have flown in and out of RENO and a lot
up and down the CA coast. Looking for gliders in the owens valley has
always been
challenge. I have not seen one yet. I have seen them on TCAS but have never
visually acquired one.
The day is coming when a glider or a small aircraft will collide with
transport. The day that happens all gliders and GA aircraft will be
grounded since the transport industry is an economic contributor and will
not be punished for the incident. All General Aviators have a
responsibility to try to postpone that day. The transponder is a simple
solution to postponing that day. You can be part of the problem or part of
the solution. I wanna keep having the freedom to fly my glider. Thanks for
listening. Doug

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:03:26 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:

> PCAS on the other hand is just a bad joke, especially if you are flying in proximity to gliders with transponders. The "alerts" in that case are continuous and therefore completely useless.<

I'll buy that it is a bad joke if you're close to a number of transponder equipped gliders.

>PCAS may have some utility in a really empty sky, but being non-directional, it's a pretty limited sort of utility.<

A lot of ZAON owners would strenuously disagree that PCAS is a bad joke. Plus I was under the impression that the early problems with PF PCAS missing alerts that ZAON would catch had largely been resolved.

For a non-racer starting with the bare minimum of gadgets, a selling point of PF is that it incorporates PCAS, approved logger, and provides high quality NEMA GPS to other instruments (like a V7 vario or a PNA) that might need it.


>With any density of "friendly" transponder traffic (for example at a contest), you'll want to turn PCAS off.
<

But turn it back ON when you're in the vicinity of random GA traffic, right? Do you really think that PCAS is of marginal utility?

[John Carlyle]

Doug,

I firmly agree that transponders are a necessity for gliders flying in
busy airspace. Having recently installed PowerFLARM, too, I think that
it is very useful for helping me be more aware of traffic. But that's
not really enough for a glider only rated pilot like myself. I think
it's critical for VFR only trained pilots like me to get educated on
how IFR traffic flows through VFR airspace.

A few years ago I learned the hard way that VOR stations have
increased traffic levels, so I put their locations into my waypoint
database so I'd know when to increase my vigilance. Now I know that
there are low level approach routes outside Class B airspace (I
previously thought IFR approaches were either inside the Class B or
over 10,000 feet), I'm trying to figure out how to mark their location
in my airspace file. Another thing I'm doing is picking the brains of
some fellow glider pilots who are ATP rated, to try and find out if
there are some other nasty surprises out there.

It would be great if there was some AOPA or FAA course that would make
flying VFR around IFR traffic learning more formalized. Have I missed
something?

-John, Q3


On Jun 12, 11:26 am, Doug Mueller > wrote:
> John, I would like to share this with you and the entire glider community.
> FWIW. I fly transport category aircraft for a living. I fly gliders and
> small prop jobs for a hobby. I cannot over emphasis how critical
> transponder usage is in this day and age. The airspace system has seen huge
> pressure to condense for the number of airspace users. For example a
> transport category aircraft is separated from another aircraft by only 1000
> ft vertically above Flight Level 290(29000ft.)
> The terminal airspace that is a 25 mile radius of a major airport is
> overflowing and the Air Traffic Controllers are now spilling aircraft over
> into other airspaces. Your EWR example is a perfect case.
> In the lower altitudes of the controlled D airspace below 18000 along
> airways and terminal areas, the transports rely on TCAS because we are
> generally travelling anywhere from 4 to 9 miles per minute. I am a trained
> general aviator and my head is outside of the cockpit 75% of the time. For
> whatever reason sitting in the transport I can never see traffic with the
> use of my own eyes before TCAS spots the traffic. It is probably because of
> my focal length is geared to looking farther down the road at 4 to 9 miles
> per minute. When I get a TCAS alert I change my focal range to look for
> traffic that is within 5 miles of my aircraft. At the speeds I fly I have
> approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute to acquire visual contact before I fly
> past the vfr target. I have flown in and out of RENO and a lot up and down
> the CA coast. Looking for gliders in the owns valley has always been a
> challenge. I have not seen one yet. I have seen them on TCAS but have never
> visually acquired one.
> The day is coming when a glider or a small aircraft will collide with a
> transport. The day that happens all gliders and GA aircraft will be
> grounded since the transport industry is an economic contributor and will
> not be punished or the incident. All General Aviators have a responsibility
> to try to postpone that day. The transponder is a simple solution to
> postponing that day. You can be part of the problem or part of the
> solution. I wanna keep having the freedom to fly my glider. Thanks for
> listening. Doug

[Doug Mueller]

Another comment for contest racers. As long as it is a sanctioned
contest and the contest directors have notified the FAA of the event,
the airspace should be protected with the issuance of NOTAM's for
all aircraft. High level airspace will be routed accordingly and Flarm
would be all that is needed and a transponder not be necessary. I
tend to fly like Dan M does and do not care for contests. But I have
every intention of being a good general aviation steward much like
Dan M and commend him for trying to postpone that inevitable day.
In full disclosure, I have a Portable Flarm and I will be installing a
transponder shortly in my ship. Kudos to anyone in the community
that has Dan M's mindset. Doug

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:43:49 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:03:26 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
>
>
> > PCAS on the other hand is just a bad joke, especially if you are flying in proximity to gliders with transponders. The "alerts" in that case are continuous and therefore completely useless.<
>
>
>
> I'll buy that it is a bad joke if you're close to a number of transponder equipped gliders.
>
>
>
> >PCAS may have some utility in a really empty sky, but being non-directional, it's a pretty limited sort of utility.<
>
>
>
> A lot of ZAON owners would strenuously disagree that PCAS is a bad joke. Plus I was under the impression that the early problems with PF PCAS missing alerts that ZAON would catch had largely been resolved.
>
>
>
> For a non-racer starting with the bare minimum of gadgets, a selling point of PF is that it incorporates PCAS, approved logger, and provides high quality NEMA GPS to other instruments (like a V7 vario or a PNA) that might need it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >With any density of "friendly" transponder traffic (for example at a contest), you'll want to turn PCAS off.
>
> <
>
>
>
> But turn it back ON when you're in the vicinity of random GA traffic, right? Do you really think that PCAS is of marginal utility?

PowerFlarm PCAS "works" now (v 3.0), at least so far as I can tell. It (and Zaon) have some marginal utility if you are not flying in the company of other transponder equipped gliders. All you need to make it worse than useless is one mode C, or one mode S (and no powerflarm) equipped glider within 6 miles.

"Worse than useless" in this case means a cockpit distraction with no utility.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, Doug Mueller wrote:
> Another comment for contest racers. As long as it is a sanctioned contest and the contest directors have notified the FAA of the event, the airspace should be protected with the issuance of NOTAM's for all aircraft. High level airspace will be routed accordingly and Flarm would be all that is needed and a transponder not be necessary. I tend to fly like Dan M does and do not care for contests. But I have every intention of being a good general aviation steward much like Dan M and commend him for trying to postpone that inevitable day. In full disclosure, I have a Portable Flarm and I will be installing a transponder shortly in my ship. Kudos to anyone in the community that has Dan M's mindset. Doug

Just imagine the response when some CD calls and asks for a NOTAM "protecting" airspace over an area of 100 miles by 150 miles. The laughter would be deafening.
It is possible and common to temporarily close an airport to permit grid and launch, but that is about all one can do.
UH

[Doug Mueller]

At 17:31 12 June 2013, John Carlyle wrote:
>Doug,
>
>I firmly agree that transponders are a necessity for gliders flying in
>busy airspace. Having recently installed PowerFLARM, too, I think that
>it is very useful for helping me be more aware of traffic. But that's
>not really enough for a glider only rated pilot like myself. I think
>it's critical for VFR only trained pilots like me to get educated on
>how IFR traffic flows through VFR airspace.
>
>A few years ago I learned the hard way that VOR stations have
>increased traffic levels, so I put their locations into my waypoint
>database so I'd know when to increase my vigilance. Now I know that
>there are low level approach routes outside Class B airspace (I
>previously thought IFR approaches were either inside the Class B or
>over 10,000 feet), I'm trying to figure out how to mark their location
>in my airspace file. Another thing I'm doing is picking the brains of
>some fellow glider pilots who are ATP rated, to try and find out if
>there are some other nasty surprises out there.
>
>It would be great if there was some AOPA or FAA course that would make
>flying VFR around IFR traffic learning more formalized. Have I missed
>something?
>
>-John, Q3
Hi John, I applaud you for wanting to learn more. It is often an overlooked
or forgotten concept in soaring. Most pilots who get their PPL in gliders
think thats all there is to know aside from badge flying and contest prep.
If one was to pursue a
powered rating they would quickly realize the short sided philosophy. There
are commercially available courses out there offered by Jeppeson and by
King courses to name a couple on airspace. By looking at airspace use by
the IFR pilot you
can come to the conclusions you have already with VOR's. Although VOR's are
going to the wayside, it would be good to understand the Lat Long structure
of GPS. In the IFR world, due to airspace consolidation, aircraft are now
flying along
GPS coordinate system waypoints. There are preferential National Airspace
routing system wayponts in the continental United States. Airspace highways
for transcontinental flight if you will. Airspace is the most often
misunderstood concept
even in powered flight. It can get you in the most trouble as well. It is
understandable that emphasis is not placed on airspace in the glider
ratings but for the pilots wishing to persue X-C flight, it becomes
critically important to understand. In
the interest of safety I would be glad to answer any questions you might
have if you use this public forum so all could read and understand. Doug

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:07:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, Doug Mueller wrote: > Another comment for contest racers. As long as it is a sanctioned contest and the contest directors have notified the FAA of the event, the airspace should be protected with the issuance of NOTAM's for all aircraft. High level airspace will be routed accordingly and Flarm would be all that is needed and a transponder not be necessary. I tend to fly like Dan M does and do not care for contests. But I have every intention of being a good general aviation steward much like Dan M and commend him for trying to postpone that inevitable day. In full disclosure, I have a Portable Flarm and I will be installing a transponder shortly in my ship. Kudos to anyone in the community that has Dan M's mindset. Doug Just imagine the response when some CD calls and asks for a NOTAM "protecting" airspace over an area of 100 miles by 150 miles. The laughter would be deafening. It is possible and common to temporarily close an airport to permit grid and launch, but that is about all one can do. UH

Getting back to Region 9 specifically...The airport was NOTAM'd closed each day until 3 PM to allow for gridding and launch. Also, through some coordination with Albuquerque Approach and/or Center controllers, traffic from the east was held above 18,000 feet as they passed over instead of the more typical mid teens.

At one of the morning pilots meetings Billy Hill showed a time lapse video of the center radar screen from the day before. Impressive how you could see all the 1202's flying around the course and all the jets coming in over us.

The only day I saw a jet below 18K was a DC-10 fire tanker that was headed for one of the wildfires up by Santa Fe. We were on the grid at the time.

I didn't have my portable PowerFLARM for the first two days of the contest. It was on its way back from the recall upgrade. I had one close encounter on Day 1 that I was unaware of until the other glider talked to me after landing. I got plenty of warnings on Day 3 and 4 to make me happy that I had it. I did have a few times where I was with a glider that was Transponder and FLARM equipped (Air Force Academy for example) but never had multiples of those where it wasn't clear to me that the transponder and FLARM target I was seeing were the same glider.

I bought the PowerFLARM in the beginning for the PCAS functionality as there are only 2 or 3 other PowerFLARM users in my area but a lot of GA traffic that is not talking to ATC but is squawking 1200. I also have transponders in the Cherokee and the Cirrus now.

[Doug Mueller]

NOTAMS do not mean closure of Airspace. It is only notification
that something is going on. If CD's dont do that they are doing a
dis service to the aviation community. I also believe they are
requested to do it by the AIM but I will check on that.

At 18:07 12 June 2013, wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, Doug
Mueller wrote:
>> Another comment for contest racers. As long as it is a
sanctioned
>contest=
> and the contest directors have notified the FAA of the event,
the
>airspace=
> should be protected with the issuance of NOTAM's for all
aircraft. High
>le=
>vel airspace will be routed accordingly and Flarm would be all
that is
>need=
>ed and a transponder not be necessary. I tend to fly like Dan
M does and
>do=
> not care for contests. But I have every intention of being a
good general
>=
>aviation steward much like Dan M and commend him for trying
to postpone
>tha=
>t inevitable day. In full disclosure, I have a Portable Flarm and
I will
>be=
> installing a transponder shortly in my ship. Kudos to anyone in
the
>commun=
>ity that has Dan M's mindset. Doug
>
>Just imagine the response when some CD calls and asks for a
NOTAM
>"protecti=
>ng" airspace over an area of 100 miles by 150 miles. The
laughter would be
>=
>deafening.
>It is possible and common to temporarily close an airport to
permit grid
>an=
>d launch, but that is about all one can do.
>UH
>

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:53:32 AM UTC-4, guy wrote:
> > I've installed the PF Brick unit in my plane so far. *I fly in a busy area
>
> > (three class C airports within ~50 miles, plus lots of military traffic)
>
> > so a transponder is on the wish list. *I also fly contests so FLARM was
>
> > a really good idea. *At least with PF I get warnings about traffic.
>
> >
>
> > Matt
>
>
>
> Now this is the thinking that really gets my attention. Someone who
>
> flies in crowded and busy airspace with the majority of the traffic
>
> using transponders chooses to install a Flarm before installing a
>
> transponder.
>
> Why? Flarm is cool and transponders are not?
>
>
>
> Remember the glider/Hawker collision at Minden? Glider had a
>
> transponder but it was not turned on. Would a Flarm in the glider
>
> (turned on) have made any difference? Several approach routes for
>
> Reno go right over Minden and go right over the mountain ridges we
>
> like to hang out on. I would argue that these types of areas would
>
> make a transponder the primary instrument of choice.
>
>
>
> These discussions will go nowhere. We all will rationalize our
>
> personnal point of view. The fact remains that transponders are the
>
> primary instrument for identifying traffic (along with eyeballs
>
> looking OUTSIDE the cockpit) in the United States. If I were emperor,
>
> all aircraft in the United States would be required to have a
>
> transponder and a PCAS/ADSB device. I bet if that were the law there
>
> would be combination units, kind of like the Flarm.
>
>
>
> OK. Burn me.
>
>
>
> Guy

Well, it had to do with personal experience with transponders. On more than
one occasion flying small planes I saw opposing traffic up close and personal.
The scariest case happened when both myself and the other guy were talking
to approach radar, were called as traffic to each other, and passed in
opposite directions about 50 feet apart. (Apparently the radar guy thought
that a 10kt crosswind required a 60 degree crab angle. Sigh.) I've also
seen commuter planes blow by, within 100 yards, at the wrong altitude. I
*know* those guys fly IFR so I know I was called as traffic to them.

Anyway, as John points out, the PF provides traffic depiction for ADSB
targets. Also, I'm off the approach paths to the big commercial hub
most of the time. The traffic I usually see is the big military transports
on the way to drops at Ft. Bragg, and that stuff is fairly low and REALLY BIG.
Plus, it squawks ADSB.

Lastly, it just had to do with how much cash I could pry loose at a time.
The PF came in at less than $1500, and a transponder will run at least $3000
by the time I get it certified. I just have to save up longer to handle that.

Matt

[K]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:07:08 PM UTC-6, wrote:

> Just imagine the response when some CD calls and asks for a NOTAM "protecting" airspace over an area of 100 miles by 150 miles. The laughter would be deafening.
>
> It is possible and common to temporarily close an airport to permit grid and launch, but that is about all one can do.
>
> UH
Actually this is not all one can do. Further, a CD can only "Issue" a local notam (with the concent of an airport manager). ATC can issue Notams for glider , balloon, model rockets and any other activity as they see fit. Kind of like the old days when you had to report towing activity in a control zone. Why do you find this amusing?

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:26:35 PM UTC-4, Doug Mueller wrote:
> NOTAMS do not mean closure of Airspace. It is only notification
>
> that something is going on. If CD's dont do that they are doing a
>
> dis service to the aviation community. I also believe they are
>
> requested to do it by the AIM but I will check on that.
>
>
>
> At 18:07 12 June 2013, unclhank wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, Doug
>
> Mueller wrote:
>
> >> Another comment for contest racers. As long as it is a
>
> sanctioned
>
> >contest=
>
> > and the contest directors have notified the FAA of the event,
>
> the
>
> >airspace=
>
> > should be protected with the issuance of NOTAM's for all
>
> aircraft. High
>
> >le=
>
> >vel airspace will be routed accordingly and Flarm would be all
>
> that is
>
> >need=
>
> >ed and a transponder not be necessary. I tend to fly like Dan
>
> M does and
>
> >do=
>
> > not care for contests. But I have every intention of being a
>
> good general
>
> >=
>
> >aviation steward much like Dan M and commend him for trying
>
> to postpone
>
> >tha=
>
> >t inevitable day. In full disclosure, I have a Portable Flarm and
>
> I will
>
> >be=
>
> > installing a transponder shortly in my ship. Kudos to anyone in
>
> the
>
> >commun=
>
> >ity that has Dan M's mindset. Doug
>
> >
>
> >Just imagine the response when some CD calls and asks for a
>
> NOTAM
>
> >"protecti=
>
> >ng" airspace over an area of 100 miles by 150 miles. The
>
> laughter would be
>
> >=
>
> >deafening.
>
> >It is possible and common to temporarily close an airport to
>
> permit grid
>
> >an=
>
> >d launch, but that is about all one can do.
>
> >UH
>
> >

At Perry one year we had a task that was kinda near the Columbia
class C airspace. I dialed over to their approach frequency to
see if there was anything coming my way. Listening to the
conversations pilots were having with approach, they definitely
knew there was a glider contest going on, but they had no idea
what a glider contest was! (They referred to it as a "regatta".)

Matt

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:46:25 PM UTC-4, K wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:07:08 PM UTC-6, wrote: > Just imagine the response when some CD calls and asks for a NOTAM "protecting" airspace over an area of 100 miles by 150 miles. The laughter would be deafening. > > It is possible and common to temporarily close an airport to permit grid and launch, but that is about all one can do. > > UH Actually this is not all one can do. Further, a CD can only "Issue" a local notam (with the concent of an airport manager). ATC can issue Notams for glider , balloon, model rockets and any other activity as they see fit. Kind of like the old days when you had to report towing activity in a control zone. Why do you find this amusing?

Many contest organizers do make their activity known to ATC or maybe the closest local tower. It certainly is a good idea. My comment was mostly aimed at the idea that this provides "protection". It may well be that at sites that work closely with their local ATC, traffic may be diverted. I know that where I fly in southeastern New York that if we called Boston Center and asked them to steer jets going into Newark around us, the response would simply be turn on your transponder and stay out of the way.
Fortunately they are still pretty high going over us.
UH

[John Carlyle]

On Jun 12, 2:19 pm, Doug Mueller > wrote:
> Hi John, I applaud you for wanting to learn more. It is often an overlooked
> or forgotten concept in soaring. Most pilots who get their PPL in gliders
> think thats all there is to know aside from badge flying and contest prep.
> If one was to pursue a
> powered rating they would quickly realize the short sided philosophy. There
> are commercially available courses out there offered by Jeppeson and by
> King courses to name a couple on airspace. By looking at airspace use by
> the IFR pilot you
> can come to the conclusions you have already with VOR's. Although VOR's are
> going to the wayside, it would be good to understand the Lat Long structure
> of GPS. In the IFR world, due to airspace consolidation, aircraft are now
> flying along
> GPS coordinate system waypoints. There are preferential National Airspace
> routing system wayponts in the continental United States. Airspace highways
> for transcontinental flight if you will. Airspace is the most often
> misunderstood concept
> even in powered flight. It can get you in the most trouble as well. It is
> understandable that emphasis is not placed on airspace in the glider
> ratings but for the pilots wishing to persue X-C flight, it becomes
> critically important to understand. In
> the interest of safety I would be glad to answer any questions you might
> have if you use this public forum so all could read and understand. Doug

Doug,

Thanks for the offer. The problem with doing such learning via RAS is
that we need more than words only because of the complexity of the
topic and the need to refer to Sectionals, TACs and Approach Plates.
In my case, it also involves learning the proper terminology before
writing! So I think I'm going to have to stick to face to face
conversations.

However, I would like to ask about the King or Jeppesen courses that
you mentioned. I would suspect that commercial courses would be geared
towards obtaining an IFR rating, and as such would be way over the top
for my needs. What I'm looking for instead is knowledge covering IFR
flight paths below 10,000 feet, with emphasis on safely conducting a
VFR flight that cannot maintain alititude while sharing class E
airspace with IFR traffic, particularly in the vicinity (say, 20
miles) of a class B or C boundary. Ideally, I'd like to come away with
the ability to mark up a sectional chart (and in future my moving map
airspace file) with areas to stay away from in my non-altitude
maintaining glider, given that PHL, EWR and JFK are using approaches
X, Y and Z today.

You mentioned the GPS coordinate system waypoints, which is another
complication for me. Some, but not all, are marked on sectionals. This
makes it difficult to take information from an approach plate and
transfer the data to a sectional. I've found that some approaches (for
example, see the one going into EWR that goes through SWEET at 7,000
feet) is marked on the NY TAC, but not marked on a sectional. There
are others (such as the ones that use SPUDS or BUNTS going into PHL)
that aren't marked on either the sectional or the PHL TAC, and don't
have airways associated with them, either. The IFR traffic is
expecting 8,000 feet at these points outside the class B, and
descending to 5,000 feet to points just inside the class B. I'm still
trying to make a map so I can stay away from these approach paths, and
getting more confused...

-John, Q3

[Doug Mueller]

John, if you would like, give me an area that you normally fly in and I
will see about building a cup file that would house the approach fixes in
the surrounding areas you fly. I have never done it before but I think I
can pull it off if you wish to try. Contact me via email
at canav8 at cox dot net and I will try to help. Doug

[Andy Blackburn[_2_]]

Alan > wrote:
> In article >
> writes:
>> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:56:35 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
>>
>> PowerFlarm works best if most gliders use it. Offering not to fly when more=
>> than a few glider are airborne or promising not to climb in the areas of g=
>> ood lift, while generous offers, strain credulity a bit.=20
>>
>> I expect a fair amount of sincere rationalizing between now and broad Flarm=
>> adoption in the US. It's a free country, but I will continue to encourage =
>> as many of my soaring friends to voluntarily adopt Flarm as I can. 100% ado=
>> ption at contests is the short-term goal.
>
> Is Flarm still a closed (secret) protocol on the transmitted signal? If
> it is, opening it up for others to implement it (if desired), and to make
> the standard public, might go a long way to acceptance by removing the
> monopoly of the manufacturer.

That comment suggests a bit of a gap in understanding of how the economy
works and how innovation is funded. First, Flarm is licensed to multiple
manufacturers today - including Butterfly who makes PowerFlarm. Second, the
pace of adoption would have to be dramatically increased to justify broader
licensing in such a limited market. This is especially true in hardware
businesses where gross margins are narrower and elasticity response to the
likely small change in street price would be unlikely to make up for the
drop in profit margin and revenues from subdividing of the market.

9B

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 15:25:13 UTC-6, Doug Mueller wrote:
> John, if you would like, give me an area that you normally fly in and I
>
> will see about building a cup file that would house the approach fixes in
>
> the surrounding areas you fly. I have never done it before but I think I
>
> can pull it off if you wish to try. Contact me via email
>
> at canav8 at cox dot net and I will try to help. Doug

During the 2011 15 Nationals in Logan UT I contacted ATC in SLC each day after we had the task defined. I would send them an email with the task area and then follow up with a telephone call. They would put a NOTAM out each day with the broad task area and to watch out for glider traffic.

The day we sent the fleet to the Teton's by Jackson Hole I contacted the tower there. They do not have a radar at Jackson and rely on SLC but they do verbally let pilots, coming to and departing from, know of the situation of gliders in the area.

Takes some digging to find the right folks to speak with. BTW a big kudo to Mark Keene for assisting with the initial discussions with ATC, nice to have a commercial pilot speak the speak with ATC.

Ron Gleason

[Dale Watkins]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 12:00:13 AM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
> My first near mid-air with a glider some years ago involved a run down a cloud street - I was returning and a colleague was outbound. We were in radio contact and knew of the potential conflict. When we met, I saw a brief flash of wing and as I started climbing and turning, he passed 20 feet under my wing without ever seeing me. Replaying our igc files showed that we were both cruising around 85 to 90 knots IAS and had a closing speed of close to 250mph. I saw him at a distance of a mile, or about 12 seconds before we passed. Flarm would have helped.
>
>
>
> I was one of the PowerFlarm skeptics, but have now seen the benefits. Gliders not so equipped are likely to become pariahs, firstly being excluded from competition and later from clubs or FBOs. I would not be surprised if insurance companies also weighed in by offering discounts to Flarm-equipped gliders.
>
>
>
> I would lump pilots who moan about mandated safety devices with motorcyclists who like the freedom to ride without a helmet, except the pilot may kill one of his buddies too.
>
>
>
> Mike

I will not install a power flarm or transponder in my KA6CR. too expensive.

Dale

[Dan Marotta]

Son,

It's not my mission or desire to discourage anyone from using Flarm. Nor do
I equate it with guns. I just get riled up at someone telling me what I
must do to share his sky.

I've stated over and over again that I performed my own analysis of cost,
benefit, useability and functionality for the type of flying that I do and
some folks continue to try to convince me that it's best if I get one.

Some day I might get one. Probably not. I encourage everyone who wants a
Flarm to buy, borrow, or rent one. If all of you will stop telling me that
I need one to fly in the same sky as you, I'll stop beating my drum.

I expect delivery of my Zaon MRX tomorrow or Friday. That should alert me
to any transponder equipped aircraft in my vicinity and my transponder
should alert Flarm guys to me.

"son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
...
It's a near miracle that a group of "middle-age+" people have quickly
adopted an expensive new technology like PowerFlarm. The people in the
racing community that have helped ease this along deserve a lot of credit.
This is rare and true leadership in the community interest. Congratulation
and thank you.

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:27:18 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:

> >...I only care about the bandying about of such terms as
> compulsory and mandatory. Those of us who truly care about our freedoms
> understand that if we give an inch, those who want to impose their wills
> will take the proverbial mile. I won't give that inch. I'll make my own
> decisions.

Dan, you are making it sound like some of the leaders in the racing
community wants to take away your guns. Fine, don't install PowerFlarm.
But PLEASE STOP mixing the rhetoric of "gun rights" with the PowerFlarm.
You are discouraging anyone who owns guns and anyone who listens to gun
rights rhetoric from acquiring PowerFlarm. That is how persuasion works.
There are a lot of people on the fence about PowerFlarm and you are
influencing them. You are leading the charge in the opposite direction.
PowerFlarm is not a handgun.

Here is why I would politely ask you to stop beating your drum. YOU MAY BE
WRONG ABOUT POWERFLARM. PowerFlarm may be the right decision for someone
else who is on the fence. Please consider switching your drum beat to
something like, "I considered adopting PowerFlarm and I decided that it is
not for me because of how and when I fly. BUT you should make that decision
for yourself. PowerFlarm may save YOUR life. Lots of people think it is a
wise investment and I may be wrong, but I've chosen to take my chances. In
general, I don't like bells and whistles, so it kinda makes sense that I
would reject PowerFlarm."

If you can't go that far, how about switching to something neutral like
"PowerFlarm is not for me." Surely you have something better to do than
lead the charge against PowerFlarm.

[Dan Marotta]

Very nicely reasoned argument, Doug. I'd only add that "day" has already
come - way back in 1978 when a collision between a Cessna on an instrument
training flight and a B-727 on arrival, both under ATC control, had a
mid-air. All souls were lost in both aircraft and a few on the ground, as
well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182


"Doug Mueller" > wrote in message
...
> John, I would like to share this with you and the entire glider community.
> FWIW. I fly transport category aircraft for a living. I fly gliders and
> small prop jobs for a hobby. I cannot over emphasis how critical
> transponder usage is in this day and age. The airspace system has seen
> huge
> pressure to condense for the number of airspace users. For example a
> transport category aircraft is separated from another aircraft by only
> 1000
> ft vertically above Flight Level 290(29000ft.)
> The terminal airspace that is a 25 mile radius of a major airport is
> overflowing and the Air Traffic Controllers are now spilling aircraft over
> into other airspaces. Your EWR example is a perfect case.
> In the lower altitudes of the controlled D airspace below 18000 along
> airways and terminal areas, the transports rely on TCAS because we are
> generally travelling anywhere from 4 to 9 miles per minute. I am a trained
> general aviator and my head is outside of the cockpit 75% of the time. For
> whatever reason sitting in the transport I can never see traffic with the
> use of my own eyes before TCAS spots the traffic. It is probably because
> of
> my focal length is geared to looking farther down the road at 4 to 9 miles
> per minute. When I get a TCAS alert I change my focal range to look for
> traffic that is within 5 miles of my aircraft. At the speeds I fly I have
> approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute to acquire visual contact before I
> fly
> past the vfr target. I have flown in and out of RENO and a lot up and down
> the CA coast. Looking for gliders in the owns valley has always been a
> challenge. I have not seen one yet. I have seen them on TCAS but have
> never
> visually acquired one.
> The day is coming when a glider or a small aircraft will collide with a
> transport. The day that happens all gliders and GA aircraft will be
> grounded since the transport industry is an economic contributor and will
> not be punished or the incident. All General Aviators have a
> responsibility
> to try to postpone that day. The transponder is a simple solution to
> postponing that day. You can be part of the problem or part of the
> solution. I wanna keep having the freedom to fly my glider. Thanks for
> listening. Doug
>
>
> At 14:12 12 June 2013, John Carlyle wrote:
>>A few months ago I would have agreed with John Cochrane and just let it
> go
>>=
>>when he said: "Transponders lets the FAA and airliners avoid me. That's
>>ve=
>>ry important where I fly since Midway approach seems to love to blast
>>airli=
>>ners through 20 miles of congested class E airspace right over our club
> at
>>=
>>4000'. But now I know that there is more to it.=20
>>
>>I fly near the Class B airspace of PHL and EWR, and have been using a
>>trans=
>>ponder for 5 years. For 4 of those years I've been pleased, as I've seen
>>so=
>>me airliners (mostly commuters but a few big guys, too) make slight
> course
>>=
>>diversions to avoid me while I was thermalling. Clearly they saw me on
>>thei=
>>r TCAS. But in late March I found out that EWR ATC either filtered out
> my
>>=
>>1202 squawk or just ignored it, as suddenly I found myself 500 feet below
>>a=
>> 747 doing 250 kt. Turned out I was inadvertently flying under an
> approach
>>=
>>path to EWR outside the Class B airspace (I certainly won't be flying
> near
>>=
>>it again)! I'm sure the 747 saw me on his TCAS, but have since found out
>>th=
>>at he would only deviate if he'd gotten a RA, otherwise he'd be in
> trouble
>>=
>>with ATC.=20
>>
>>There are two lessons I learned from this. First, a PowerFLARM and a
>>transp=
>>onder won't prevent you from getting way too close to other traffic, even
>>i=
>>f they are under ATC control and have TCAS. Second, if you are a VFR
> pilot
>>=
>>flying outside Class B airspace, you need to educate yourself on likely
>>app=
>>roach and departure routes that lie outside the Class B, and be very
> alert
>>=
>>and careful if you get near them.=20
>>
>>-John, Q3
>>
>

[Dan Marotta]

John,

You've got some pretty good ideas there. If you're an AOPA member (there
are other ways, of course), you can get approach plates for the airports of
interest and take the coordinates of such things as Initial Approach Fix to
put into your data file. That's where the approach to the airport will
begain. Note that there are normally many approaches to an airport. There
are many other things such as terminal VORs but too many to discuss this
way. You would be best served to talk with an instrument rated pilot about
your ideas. Preferably he's also a glider pilot!

Do you need to be flying around instrument runways?


"John Carlyle" > wrote in message
...
> Doug,
>
> I firmly agree that transponders are a necessity for gliders flying in
> busy airspace. Having recently installed PowerFLARM, too, I think that
> it is very useful for helping me be more aware of traffic. But that's
> not really enough for a glider only rated pilot like myself. I think
> it's critical for VFR only trained pilots like me to get educated on
> how IFR traffic flows through VFR airspace.
>
> A few years ago I learned the hard way that VOR stations have
> increased traffic levels, so I put their locations into my waypoint
> database so I'd know when to increase my vigilance. Now I know that
> there are low level approach routes outside Class B airspace (I
> previously thought IFR approaches were either inside the Class B or
> over 10,000 feet), I'm trying to figure out how to mark their location
> in my airspace file. Another thing I'm doing is picking the brains of
> some fellow glider pilots who are ATP rated, to try and find out if
> there are some other nasty surprises out there.
>
> It would be great if there was some AOPA or FAA course that would make
> flying VFR around IFR traffic learning more formalized. Have I missed
> something?
>
> -John, Q3
>
>
> On Jun 12, 11:26 am, Doug Mueller > wrote:
>> John, I would like to share this with you and the entire glider
>> community.
>> FWIW. I fly transport category aircraft for a living. I fly gliders and
>> small prop jobs for a hobby. I cannot over emphasis how critical
>> transponder usage is in this day and age. The airspace system has seen
>> huge
>> pressure to condense for the number of airspace users. For example a
>> transport category aircraft is separated from another aircraft by only
>> 1000
>> ft vertically above Flight Level 290(29000ft.)
>> The terminal airspace that is a 25 mile radius of a major airport is
>> overflowing and the Air Traffic Controllers are now spilling aircraft
>> over
>> into other airspaces. Your EWR example is a perfect case.
>> In the lower altitudes of the controlled D airspace below 18000 along
>> airways and terminal areas, the transports rely on TCAS because we are
>> generally travelling anywhere from 4 to 9 miles per minute. I am a
>> trained
>> general aviator and my head is outside of the cockpit 75% of the time.
>> For
>> whatever reason sitting in the transport I can never see traffic with the
>> use of my own eyes before TCAS spots the traffic. It is probably because
>> of
>> my focal length is geared to looking farther down the road at 4 to 9
>> miles
>> per minute. When I get a TCAS alert I change my focal range to look for
>> traffic that is within 5 miles of my aircraft. At the speeds I fly I have
>> approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute to acquire visual contact before I
>> fly
>> past the vfr target. I have flown in and out of RENO and a lot up and
>> down
>> the CA coast. Looking for gliders in the owns valley has always been a
>> challenge. I have not seen one yet. I have seen them on TCAS but have
>> never
>> visually acquired one.
>> The day is coming when a glider or a small aircraft will collide with a
>> transport. The day that happens all gliders and GA aircraft will be
>> grounded since the transport industry is an economic contributor and will
>> not be punished or the incident. All General Aviators have a
>> responsibility
>> to try to postpone that day. The transponder is a simple solution to
>> postponing that day. You can be part of the problem or part of the
>> solution. I wanna keep having the freedom to fly my glider. Thanks for
>> listening. Doug

[Dan Marotta]

John, look at the IFR Low Altitude charts for your area. The IFR High
Altitude charts may also have some points of interest to you.

Note: I'm not current on instruments any more and some of the names I've
used may no longer be applicable.

You're absolutely correct that a face to face chat with a current instrument
pilot would be best.

"John Carlyle" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 12, 2:19 pm, Doug Mueller > wrote:
>> Hi John, I applaud you for wanting to learn more. It is often an
>> overlooked
>> or forgotten concept in soaring. Most pilots who get their PPL in gliders
>> think thats all there is to know aside from badge flying and contest
>> prep.
>> If one was to pursue a
>> powered rating they would quickly realize the short sided philosophy.
>> There
>> are commercially available courses out there offered by Jeppeson and by
>> King courses to name a couple on airspace. By looking at airspace use by
>> the IFR pilot you
>> can come to the conclusions you have already with VOR's. Although VOR's
>> are
>> going to the wayside, it would be good to understand the Lat Long
>> structure
>> of GPS. In the IFR world, due to airspace consolidation, aircraft are now
>> flying along
>> GPS coordinate system waypoints. There are preferential National Airspace
>> routing system wayponts in the continental United States. Airspace
>> highways
>> for transcontinental flight if you will. Airspace is the most often
>> misunderstood concept
>> even in powered flight. It can get you in the most trouble as well. It is
>> understandable that emphasis is not placed on airspace in the glider
>> ratings but for the pilots wishing to persue X-C flight, it becomes
>> critically important to understand. In
>> the interest of safety I would be glad to answer any questions you might
>> have if you use this public forum so all could read and understand. Doug
>
> Doug,
>
> Thanks for the offer. The problem with doing such learning via RAS is
> that we need more than words only because of the complexity of the
> topic and the need to refer to Sectionals, TACs and Approach Plates.
> In my case, it also involves learning the proper terminology before
> writing! So I think I'm going to have to stick to face to face
> conversations.
>
> However, I would like to ask about the King or Jeppesen courses that
> you mentioned. I would suspect that commercial courses would be geared
> towards obtaining an IFR rating, and as such would be way over the top
> for my needs. What I'm looking for instead is knowledge covering IFR
> flight paths below 10,000 feet, with emphasis on safely conducting a
> VFR flight that cannot maintain alititude while sharing class E
> airspace with IFR traffic, particularly in the vicinity (say, 20
> miles) of a class B or C boundary. Ideally, I'd like to come away with
> the ability to mark up a sectional chart (and in future my moving map
> airspace file) with areas to stay away from in my non-altitude
> maintaining glider, given that PHL, EWR and JFK are using approaches
> X, Y and Z today.
>
> You mentioned the GPS coordinate system waypoints, which is another
> complication for me. Some, but not all, are marked on sectionals. This
> makes it difficult to take information from an approach plate and
> transfer the data to a sectional. I've found that some approaches (for
> example, see the one going into EWR that goes through SWEET at 7,000
> feet) is marked on the NY TAC, but not marked on a sectional. There
> are others (such as the ones that use SPUDS or BUNTS going into PHL)
> that aren't marked on either the sectional or the PHL TAC, and don't
> have airways associated with them, either. The IFR traffic is
> expecting 8,000 feet at these points outside the class B, and
> descending to 5,000 feet to points just inside the class B. I'm still
> trying to make a map so I can stay away from these approach paths, and
> getting more confused...
>
> -John, Q3
>
>
>

[SoaringXCellence]

OK, I've got to put my two cents in here. First: I'm a CFI, CFII, CFI-G Commercial SEL, MEL, and Glider. Twenty years as an active instructor with over 5000 hours in power and 400 in gliders, most of the time in both as an instructor, over 1000 hours of Instrument instruction and more than 1500 cross-country power. I also have over 1000 hours in TCAS equipped aircraft.

Let's talk transponders and ATC. Regarding "traffic alerts", ATC issues them to PARTICIPATING aircraft. That term means that both aircraft are in radio contact with ATC. ATC does issue alerts that call attention to other radar returns, but without having talked to the pilot, the traffic is "unverified". This makes it a nuisance alert as there is no way to be sure what altitude to scan and it often increases the workload at a critical flight phase.

In high density areas, near major airports the controller can selectively hide non-participating (I.E 1200 or 1202, or any other standard code) to de-clutter the screen. These VFR targets are not called out as they are not SEEN by the controller unless they are an immediate threat to a participating aircraft.

I have had TCAS systems alerting me to traffic that is 2 miles away, or less, in VFR conditions, and try as I do, I still cannot find them with the naked eye (my recently measured vision is better than 20/15 in both eyes, just to cover that question). TCAS in any form, including PF, even combined with the old Mark 1 eyeball does not mean you'll acquire all traffic in the area.

I fly for one of the largest flight schools in the PacNW and when I take one of the TCAS equipped aircraft into the practice area I am always amazed at the number of detected A/C that I know are there but cannot see.

The glider club that I belong to has a safety meeting every spring, where we have a number of presentations. One of them is always delivered by an instrument rated pilot that explains how the approaches and departure routes around out area work. In addition, one of the pilots took the time to plot all the "waypoints" and associated altitudes and we added it to our local turnpoint files. I think this puts us already working on two of the points noted before.

Our club bought two PF and the majority of the private gliders owners also bought them. I bought a PF portable so I can have one with me in any of the club gliders I fly. With all of this, I'm convinced that we cannot reduce the risk much more than we have already.

I accept that one of the most frightening scenarios is a mid-air. In reality, I think we need to turn our collective attention to the other, more consistent causes of pilot fatalities having to do with take-off, landing and pilot judgement errors that claim many more lives than the mid-air.

I recommend Tom Knuaff's articles on the causes of accident's, published both in 2010 and this year. PowerFlarm and transponders are not going to fix the major cause of accidents among glider pilots.

Mike

[Ramy]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:20:29 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Son,
>
>
>
> It's not my mission or desire to discourage anyone from using Flarm. Nor do
>
> I equate it with guns. I just get riled up at someone telling me what I
>
> must do to share his sky.
>
>
>
> I've stated over and over again that I performed my own analysis of cost,
>
> benefit, useability and functionality for the type of flying that I do and
>
> some folks continue to try to convince me that it's best if I get one.
>
>
>
> Some day I might get one. Probably not. I encourage everyone who wants a
>
> Flarm to buy, borrow, or rent one. If all of you will stop telling me that
>
> I need one to fly in the same sky as you, I'll stop beating my drum.
>
>
>
> I expect delivery of my Zaon MRX tomorrow or Friday. That should alert me
>
> to any transponder equipped aircraft in my vicinity and my transponder
>
> should alert Flarm guys to me.
>
>
>
> "son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> It's a near miracle that a group of "middle-age+" people have quickly
>
> adopted an expensive new technology like PowerFlarm. The people in the
>
> racing community that have helped ease this along deserve a lot of credit..
>
> This is rare and true leadership in the community interest. Congratulation
>
> and thank you.
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:27:18 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>
>
> > >...I only care about the bandying about of such terms as
>
> > compulsory and mandatory. Those of us who truly care about our freedoms
>
> > understand that if we give an inch, those who want to impose their wills
>
> > will take the proverbial mile. I won't give that inch. I'll make my own
>
> > decisions.
>
>
>
> Dan, you are making it sound like some of the leaders in the racing
>
> community wants to take away your guns. Fine, don't install PowerFlarm.
>
> But PLEASE STOP mixing the rhetoric of "gun rights" with the PowerFlarm.
>
> You are discouraging anyone who owns guns and anyone who listens to gun
>
> rights rhetoric from acquiring PowerFlarm. That is how persuasion works.
>
> There are a lot of people on the fence about PowerFlarm and you are
>
> influencing them. You are leading the charge in the opposite direction.
>
> PowerFlarm is not a handgun.
>
>
>
> Here is why I would politely ask you to stop beating your drum. YOU MAY BE
>
> WRONG ABOUT POWERFLARM. PowerFlarm may be the right decision for someone
>
> else who is on the fence. Please consider switching your drum beat to
>
> something like, "I considered adopting PowerFlarm and I decided that it is
>
> not for me because of how and when I fly. BUT you should make that decision
>
> for yourself. PowerFlarm may save YOUR life. Lots of people think it is a
>
> wise investment and I may be wrong, but I've chosen to take my chances. In
>
> general, I don't like bells and whistles, so it kinda makes sense that I
>
> would reject PowerFlarm."
>
>
>
> If you can't go that far, how about switching to something neutral like
>
> "PowerFlarm is not for me." Surely you have something better to do than
>
> lead the charge against PowerFlarm.

So after you made your own analysis of cost you ordered a device who has marginal usability (I have been flying with Zaon since the day it came out, I think it is almost 10 years) for 1/3 of the cost of a device which is in an order of magnitude better than the MRX and have significantly more functionality including alerting you for airliners? Sorry to say but this is silly. If I knew, I would have sold you my old MRX, but I just didnt thought that any glider pilot would want to buy one now that PF is available.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

Unless, of course, the airliner is also using a FLARM.

Of course, right now they're not and I'm the
first to admit that we do have a long way before we get there
(provided we want).

However, in Europe lots of commercial operators are in fact starting
to adopt FLARM simply because they know that they can avoid
gliders that way. Not only SEP < 2t. Also, light GA is gaining momentum.

FLARM is *not* a replacement for see-and-avoid. You need
to maintain lookout just the same as if you hadn't installed it.
That's covered in all the manuals. Consider it an 'attention trigger'.

FLARM's added value is mostly in less crowded areas: It's hard
to overlook 20+ gaggle. It's much less hard to overloog a single
white glider approaching head-on against a background of mountains
and snow, or against the sun.

Best
--Gerhard (FLARM dev mgr)

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:20:26 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I have a plan. I'll publish my flight schedule and the Flarm users can stay
> on the ground! That way only people looking outside will be in the air.
>

You suggested the opposite in your earlier post Dan. I quote:

"I generally fly alone or with one other glider and then we're in
constant communication. If we lose sight, we leave the thermal.
Look back at my OLC traces and you'll see that I don't follow the shear
lines all day to maximize speed and distance points. I fly for fun and I
enjoy exploring those places where the really fast guys don't go that often
because it slows them down."

I suspect neither of your statements are totally serious/accurate. Heat of debate.

Those of us who generally fly with other gliders in the vicinity and who try to fly where the best lift is have found Flarm to be a Godsend, not a fad and a complement to transponders, not a substitute. Some have had to try it to be convinced and certainly there are still improvements to be debated over.

Flarm's arrival has underscored one thing that I always knew to be true intellectually: humans are terrible at estimating the probability of rare, catastrophic events. Relying on past experience ("that's never happened to me") is a poor way to evaluate something like Flarm - particularly if you haven't tried it. My first flight I was shocked at how many gliders come close to you that you never see.

As I said it's a free country. If you fly alone all the time, not a problem, but don't be surprised if on occasions when more than a couple of glider pilots come together to fly they start treating you a bit like you have a bad odor. That may not matter to you at all, just understand that they are acting that way because it matters to them.

9B

[Dan Marotta]

Very informative, thanks!

I was speaking to an airline captain/glider pilot this morning. He told me
that, when he flies around Moriarty he keeps his radio tuned to ABQ approach
so he can monitor traffic. He also talks with ABQ to insure they know that
he's there. He uses a transponder and MRX. I'll be equipped that wan next
time I fly.

I'm going to start doing that, too.

Dan


"SoaringXCellence" > wrote in message
...
OK, I've got to put my two cents in here. First: I'm a CFI, CFII, CFI-G
Commercial SEL, MEL, and Glider. Twenty years as an active instructor with
over 5000 hours in power and 400 in gliders, most of the time in both as an
instructor, over 1000 hours of Instrument instruction and more than 1500
cross-country power. I also have over 1000 hours in TCAS equipped aircraft.

Let's talk transponders and ATC. Regarding "traffic alerts", ATC issues them
to PARTICIPATING aircraft. That term means that both aircraft are in radio
contact with ATC. ATC does issue alerts that call attention to other radar
returns, but without having talked to the pilot, the traffic is
"unverified". This makes it a nuisance alert as there is no way to be sure
what altitude to scan and it often increases the workload at a critical
flight phase.

In high density areas, near major airports the controller can selectively
hide non-participating (I.E 1200 or 1202, or any other standard code) to
de-clutter the screen. These VFR targets are not called out as they are not
SEEN by the controller unless they are an immediate threat to a
participating aircraft.

I have had TCAS systems alerting me to traffic that is 2 miles away, or
less, in VFR conditions, and try as I do, I still cannot find them with the
naked eye (my recently measured vision is better than 20/15 in both eyes,
just to cover that question). TCAS in any form, including PF, even combined
with the old Mark 1 eyeball does not mean you'll acquire all traffic in the
area.

I fly for one of the largest flight schools in the PacNW and when I take one
of the TCAS equipped aircraft into the practice area I am always amazed at
the number of detected A/C that I know are there but cannot see.

The glider club that I belong to has a safety meeting every spring, where we
have a number of presentations. One of them is always delivered by an
instrument rated pilot that explains how the approaches and departure routes
around out area work. In addition, one of the pilots took the time to plot
all the "waypoints" and associated altitudes and we added it to our local
turnpoint files. I think this puts us already working on two of the points
noted before.

Our club bought two PF and the majority of the private gliders owners also
bought them. I bought a PF portable so I can have one with me in any of the
club gliders I fly. With all of this, I'm convinced that we cannot reduce
the risk much more than we have already.

I accept that one of the most frightening scenarios is a mid-air. In
reality, I think we need to turn our collective attention to the other, more
consistent causes of pilot fatalities having to do with take-off, landing
and pilot judgement errors that claim many more lives than the mid-air.

I recommend Tom Knuaff's articles on the causes of accident's, published
both in 2010 and this year. PowerFlarm and transponders are not going to
fix the major cause of accidents among glider pilots.

Mike

[[email protected]]

"PowerFlarm and transponders are not going to fix the major cause of accidents among glider pilots."

I'm going to be purchasing and installing a PowerFLARM core this winter so I'm by no means "anti-FLARM" but I do agree with that statement. I lost two friends a little while back due to a glider-glider midair (both of them had PowerFLARM on early order but were still waiting for it to be produced when they collided) but I've lost several more in the dozen years I've been flying in other types of crashes.

Back to PowerFLARM itself, one thing I can't understand is why is the core unit so big? I made a mock up of the portable and the core to check out installation options. They're almost the same size even though the core doesn't need to house a display, control knob and batteries. It looks like I'll be able to fit it on top of the chassis holding my Dittel FSG-50 comm but it'll be tight.

By the time I finish paying for the core unit, 57mm display (nothing else will fit my panel without serious layout modifications and instrument changes), installing it according to the relevant Schleicher TN, and revising the W&B and equipment list I figure it's going to cost me a fair chunk more cash than the commonly bandied about "$1500" too.

What I would really like to see, and presumably it will come in time, would be the option to purchase a vario-nav system with built in integrated PowerFLARM similar to what's available now with the "classic" European FLARM system.

[[email protected]]

> By the time I finish paying for the core unit, 57mm display (nothing else will fit my panel without serious layout modifications and instrument changes), installing it according to the relevant Schleicher TN, and revising the W&B and equipment list I figure it's going to cost me a fair chunk more cash than the commonly bandied about "$1500" too.
>
> What I would really like to see, and presumably it will come in time, would be the option to purchase a vario-nav system with built in integrated PowerFLARM similar to what's available now with the "classic" European FLARM system.

There is no Schleicher TN on flarm installation, which will make your life easier.

Most of the current NAV systems allow you to display flarm data without the additional flarm display. Most clearnav pilots that I know are not using the flarm display, and just showing flarm data on clearnav.

John Cochrane

[Mike the Strike]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 7:10:14 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > By the time I finish paying for the core unit, 57mm display (nothing else will fit my panel without serious layout modifications and instrument changes), installing it according to the relevant Schleicher TN, and revising the W&B and equipment list I figure it's going to cost me a fair chunk more cash than the commonly bandied about "$1500" too.
>
> >
>
> > What I would really like to see, and presumably it will come in time, would be the option to purchase a vario-nav system with built in integrated PowerFLARM similar to what's available now with the "classic" European FLARM system.
>
>
>
> There is no Schleicher TN on flarm installation, which will make your life easier.
>
>
>
> Most of the current NAV systems allow you to display flarm data without the additional flarm display. Most clearnav pilots that I know are not using the flarm display, and just showing flarm data on clearnav.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

I found that I could squeeze the Butterfly display under my glare shield and I am porting the Flarm data to my Oudie. It's the antennas that I find difficult to mount neatly.

Mike

[[email protected]]

"There is no Schleicher TN on flarm installation, which will make your life easier."

There's nothing specific to FLARM but TN 02-2008 16.01.08 provides guidelines for installing additional equipment. This will actually make my life easier as it gives something for my AMO to refer to when documenting the installation. Having to make up the installation standards from scratch, get them approved by Transport Canada and hoping they consider it a minor mod would be a headache in comparison. The standards in the TN are pretty much common sense things that are what I would do anyways (if something's heavy enough to injure you if it breaks free you secure it well, don't block any of the primary flight instruments, use a fuse or breaker on electrical equipment etc. etc.)

Of the vario/nav systems I'm interested in I've been told the LX 7007C Basic won't display PowerFLARM but the LX 8080 Simple will. That's probably the one I'm going to buy. I'll still be using the dedicated 57mm Butterfly display with it.

[K]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 2:24:13 AM UTC-6, wrote:
>
> Of the vario/nav systems I'm interested in I've been told the LX 7007C Basic won't display PowerFLARM but the LX 8080 Simple will. That's probably the one I'm going to buy. I'll still be using the dedicated 57mm Butterfly display with it.

A dedicated display is good. You owe it to yourself to compare the LXNav Flarmview. Better audio and more features than the Butterfly.

[[email protected]]

Hi,

the pilot in the foto linked below might believe he's flying alone
with just his buddy around.

http://www.flarm.com/pics/eye_limitations/find-the-danger.png

Try to identify the threat in the first image. You have
an estimated 8 seconds until impact.

Best
--Gerhard (FLARM dev mgr)





































Solution:
http://www.flarm.com/pics/eye_limitations/solution.png







> You suggested the opposite in your earlier post Dan. I quote:
>
> "I generally fly alone or with one other glider and then we're in
> constant communication. If we lose sight, we leave the thermal.

[Doug Mueller]

Gerhart, that was an excellent example.

[[email protected]]

Andy,

of course you're raising valid points.Two things, however:
- As others have pointed out, there's no relative motion before impact
(CBDR---constant bearing, decreasing range).
- Given a video, I might have tasked you with focussing on your buddy for the next 8
seconds or so, e.g. to allow you to join him in the thermal. Compare to the
following video. Follow the spoken instructions, reading the comments may spoil
the experience!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vJG698U2Mvo#!

I know---8M views, many of you have probably seen it already. For those
who haven't --- enjoy!

Best
--Gerhard (FLARM dev mgr)

[[email protected]]

"A dedicated display is good. You owe it to yourself to compare the LXNav Flarmview. Better audio and more features than the Butterfly."

The only PowerFLARM dedicated display which will fit my panel without extensive alterations to the panel itself and changes to the pneumatic instruments to make room is the 57mm Butterfly so I'll have to go with it regardless of any advantages the others have.

If anyone else made a 57mm display I would certainly give it consideration - actually, a complete PowerFLARM built into a unit with a 57mm display would be ideal for my purposes as it would avoid the work required to build a mount on top of the radio bracket to accommodate the Core. I doubt anything like that will ever be made however.

[Ramy]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:23:29 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> "A dedicated display is good. You owe it to yourself to compare the LXNav Flarmview. Better audio and more features than the Butterfly."
>
>
>
> The only PowerFLARM dedicated display which will fit my panel without extensive alterations to the panel itself and changes to the pneumatic instruments to make room is the 57mm Butterfly so I'll have to go with it regardless of any advantages the others have.
>
>
>
> If anyone else made a 57mm display I would certainly give it consideration - actually, a complete PowerFLARM built into a unit with a 57mm display would be ideal for my purposes as it would avoid the work required to build a mount on top of the radio bracket to accommodate the Core. I doubt anything like that will ever be made however.

I see many go through special effort the mount the core. The core is so light you can just use industrial velcro. Mine is holding very well.

Ramy

[K]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:00:38 AM UTC-6, Ramy wrote:
>
> I see many go through special effort the mount the core. The core is so light you can just use industrial velcro. Mine is holding very well.
>
Where I come from we use duct tape for that (Kidding ;)). My portable was bolted to a Williams mount which was velcro'd to the glaresheild and my core is mounted with velcro as well. The mounting tabs on the core sure are nice and Ive seen some interesting (In a good way) mounts.

[K]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:23:29 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> "A dedicated display is good. You owe it to yourself to compare the LXNav Flarmview. Better audio and more features than the Butterfly."

> The only PowerFLARM dedicated display which will fit my panel without >extensive alterations to the panel itself and changes to the pneumatic >instruments to make room is the 57mm Butterfly so I'll have to go with it >regardless of any advantages the others have.
My FlarmView sits on the edge of the glaresheild. I made a mount out of lexan (Or polycarbonate) which you can bend in a sheet metal break just like aluminum or steel. Dont try this with plexiglass because it will shatter if you try to bend it. Easy to work with and I used some to make a shelf behind the panel for mounting accessories like antennas speaker etc.. Having the display where you don't have to look down into your cockpit helps when you are trying to spot traffic and it is sunlight readable. PM me and I can send you a picture of the mount.