Re: PowerFlarm at Region 9 Contest

[Alan[_6_]]

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.

Alan

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:15:00 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> In article > anderson 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.
>
>
>
> Alan

It's neither open nor secret: it's licensed. There are multiple manufacturers
that have implemented it. Outside the US, FLARM units are more modestly priced
(e.g. starting at <$700 for a basic Flarm Mouse). The US PowerFLARM unit
is higher priced because it supports other detection methods (ADSB and PCAS)
and because the FCC imposed additional testing for it to be legal here,
so only one manufacturer has jumped that expensive hoop.

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

[guy]

> 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