Notable Power Flarm saves - Is it 'worth it'?

[son_of_flubber]

When I installed Power Flarm (PF) in 2013, I had no idea whether it would ever 'save my butt'. Not many people have it in my area.

Last October I was flying by myself on a weekday in the Sugarbush Wave, at 8000 climbing, and squawking 1202 (on a TT21 that came with the glider). I gave Burlington Approach a position report 20 minutes prior. I'm monitoring Approach freq and 123.3, gently orbiting a point to figure out the 'sweet spot' of the wave, and doing a continuous 360 scan for traffic. Wind aloft is 30 knots. Gentle wave.

The sky is crystal clear blue. Zero clouds. Peak foliage. Adirondack mountains visible on the far side of a deep blue Lake Champlain. More peaks visible in every direction. Weather is warm and dry. I'm feeling lucky.

I overhear Approach advise a Cirrus of my position. 'Step up' my scan... no traffic. Relax, keep looking. The ADS-B Flarm alarm goes off. Adrenaline jolt. Scan harder... Closing traffic 11 o'clock. Nose down, steep right 90.... Quick glance at the bottom of a shiny new Cirrus. Oh my...

Cirrus pilot to Approach: 'um... we just missed that glider'.

I get about one PF Alert a year. This was the first time that I saw the traffic. When alerts are rare, they provoke a 100% response. I have zero 'Cry Wolf' complacency from alert_fatigue. So for this reason, I think PF is very effective in low traffic areas. It only takes ONE significant alert to justify the costs.

[John Carlyle]

I'm with you - I wouldn't fly without my PowerFlarm. At about $1800 it's cheaper than a parachute, which I also wouldn't fly without. I don't really know how many potential collisions my PowerFlarm has alerted me to since 2012, but it has more than repaid its initial cost, simply from peace of mind. Maybe it's my old eyes, but I find gliders and SE aircraft are quite difficult to see at altitude when they're more than a mile away. The extra help the PowerFlarm gives to my scan is very much appreciated...

-John, Q3

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:59:26 AM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> When I installed Power Flarm (PF) in 2013, I had no idea whether it would ever 'save my butt'. Not many people have it in my area.
>
> Last October I was flying by myself on a weekday in the Sugarbush Wave, at 8000 climbing, and squawking 1202 (on a TT21 that came with the glider). I gave Burlington Approach a position report 20 minutes prior. I'm monitoring Approach freq and 123.3, gently orbiting a point to figure out the 'sweet spot' of the wave, and doing a continuous 360 scan for traffic. Wind aloft is 30 knots. Gentle wave.
>
> The sky is crystal clear blue. Zero clouds. Peak foliage. Adirondack mountains visible on the far side of a deep blue Lake Champlain. More peaks visible in every direction. Weather is warm and dry. I'm feeling lucky.
>
> I overhear Approach advise a Cirrus of my position. 'Step up' my scan... no traffic. Relax, keep looking. The ADS-B Flarm alarm goes off. Adrenaline jolt. Scan harder... Closing traffic 11 o'clock. Nose down, steep right 90... Quick glance at the bottom of a shiny new Cirrus. Oh my...
>
> Cirrus pilot to Approach: 'um... we just missed that glider'.
>
> I get about one PF Alert a year. This was the first time that I saw the traffic. When alerts are rare, they provoke a 100% response. I have zero 'Cry Wolf' complacency from alert_fatigue. So for this reason, I think PF is very effective in low traffic areas. It only takes ONE significant alert to justify the costs.

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

With me, the bonus is knowing the altitude differential, which informs my decision on how to avoid. If he's higher, descend and turn to acquire visually, if lower, trade airspeed for altitude while turning to acquire visually.. On the admittedly rare occasions when the target is overtaking, you can avoid, whereas before, you'd only be aware by a target flashing by, or that disconcerting sound of an engine getting louder (for GA targets).

I really like my PowerFLARM. It was worth it to me.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 09:36:00 -0700, Dan Daly wrote:

> .... or that disconcerting sound of an engine getting
> louder (for GA targets).
>
Tell me about it! It only really worrying one of those I've
had was very much pre-FLARM. I was in a Discus, so not much rear vision:
I much prefer a Pegase, not least for its much better rear view. In this
case decided not to turn since I didn't know where he was except 'behind'
and fairly close because I could hear him but not see him. After what
seemed like a long time he came fairly slowly past my right tip 50-60m
away.

And then, within a month or so of that incident, I was running along a
nice street when I met GA pilot coming head-on down the street at the
same height - playing at being a glider by the look of it. At least he
had his landing light on, so was easy enough to see.

> I really like my PowerFLARM. It was worth it to me.
>
Agreed. Since I've had FLARM I think all but one its warnings have either
been at quite long range or for traffic I'd already seen: that one made
having FLARM worthwhile since it was under a large dark cloud near a
turnpoint and which seemed to have a single energy line under it - which
we were both using.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[jfitch]

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 09:36:00 -0700, Dan Daly wrote:
>
> > .... or that disconcerting sound of an engine getting
> > louder (for GA targets).
> >
> Tell me about it! It only really worrying one of those I've
> had was very much pre-FLARM. I was in a Discus, so not much rear vision:
> I much prefer a Pegase, not least for its much better rear view. In this
> case decided not to turn since I didn't know where he was except 'behind'
> and fairly close because I could hear him but not see him. After what
> seemed like a long time he came fairly slowly past my right tip 50-60m
> away.
>
> And then, within a month or so of that incident, I was running along a
> nice street when I met GA pilot coming head-on down the street at the
> same height - playing at being a glider by the look of it. At least he
> had his landing light on, so was easy enough to see.
>
> > I really like my PowerFLARM. It was worth it to me.
> >
> Agreed. Since I've had FLARM I think all but one its warnings have either
> been at quite long range or for traffic I'd already seen: that one made
> having FLARM worthwhile since it was under a large dark cloud near a
> turnpoint and which seemed to have a single energy line under it - which
> we were both using.
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

I've yet to be warned of something I didn't already know was there. The catch to that is that PowerFlarm informs me of a lot that is there that I would not have otherwise seen. It picks them up at a much greater distance than warning range, and now I know to look for them. The improvement in situational awareness is by far its largest asset. With it and the targets on the screen, getting a warning is really a dope slap: "Hey Stupid! I told you they were there...."

It is similarly a great help in crowded thermals, keeping track of the guys out or your field of vision.

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Yes, PF saved my butt once. I was flying in front of another glider as we both made our way up the Pine Nuts. He was half a click behind at the same altitude. I hit some lift and rolled left to center it. unbeknownst to me, he also rolled left to improve his energy line, and didn't see me turn. I came around half of a turn and the flarm went nuts. We were head to head, and very close. I didn't see him right away, but banked sharply left, and he banked right. We passed each other, belly to belly.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Title is "Notable Power Flarm saves - is it worth it"?

The answer is, it is worth it BEFORE it saves your bacon! When it saves your "bacon" is when it pays off. As noted by J Fitch, who somehow can get situational awareness off a tiny winny iPhone screen:) Imagine a 7 inch screen mounted in panel that tells where your traffic is and color codes it as to below (green), above (blue) or same level (red). Now imagine this same device actually telling you while graphically showing you where to look, "Traffic 20 feet above 1/2 mile". That is a lot of situational sh*t for your awareness.

[bumper[_4_]]

There's a personality type that won't be convinced. I stopped to talk to a pilot who was launching on a wave day at Minden. Foehn gap was dynamic, tentacles moving and reaching in with drizzle earlier as I drove north on Foothill to Minden airport. The gap, and a lone sucker hole about half way to the Pinenuts, were the only holes through an otherwise solid deck at about 9,000'.

He was the only one launching in his Carat. I'd asked him before about no chute, said they were uncomfortable, I suggested he sit in my glider to see what he thought - he countered, "You don't use a chute in your Mooney, do you? Well, my Carat is certified too".

He was relatively new to soaring, so I cautioned him about going above and leaving the gap. He said he wouldn't do that as he didn't have O2 because of a slow leak - he declined my offer to fill his tank. There was more, but to keep it short . . . he died that day as I was eating lunch at the Taildragger. He was a retired airline pilot, lot's of experience but no attitude gyro. Kept his GPS off in the side pocket until he needed it. He went IMC. The debris field was 5 miles long. My golden retriever and I would be the last to ever greet him.

Really good pilots don't need Flarm. Don't need a chute either. He was not THAT good.

[JS[_5_]]

Sobering point, Bumper.
He was excited to have retired to Minden, and it didn't last very long.

For me the "convinced" box was checked in November 2007, nearly two years into owning a more primitive FLARM.

I wonder if this thread would be any different if titled:
"Notable automotive seat belt saves"
Jim

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 7:17:28 PM UTC-7, bumper wrote:
> There's a personality type that won't be convinced....

[jfitch]

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 7:02:21 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Title is "Notable Power Flarm saves - is it worth it"?
>
> The answer is, it is worth it BEFORE it saves your bacon! When it saves your "bacon" is when it pays off. As noted by J Fitch, who somehow can get situational awareness off a tiny winny iPhone screen:) Imagine a 7 inch screen mounted in panel that tells where your traffic is and color codes it as to below (green), above (blue) or same level (red). Now imagine this same device actually telling you while graphically showing you where to look, "Traffic 20 feet above 1/2 mile". That is a lot of situational sh*t for your awareness.

Actually my tiny 5.7" iPhone screen does all of that too. I think those who only have the old (or new) Flarm screen are missing a lot of the value. If those targets are always on your tactical screen, you already know where to look for them before the Bitchin' Betty starts to bark.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Size matters,
Godzilla

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 9:22:30 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> Actually my tiny 5.7" iPhone screen does all of that too. I think those who only have the old (or new) Flarm screen are missing a lot of the value. If those targets are always on your tactical screen, you already know where to look for them before the Bitchin' Betty starts to bark.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

As Jon points out the situational awareness provided by Flarm helps keep pilots informed of threats before it araises to a save. If you don’t already have it GET FLARM, it is worth it.

[Nick Kennedy]

Power Flarm works and it works good.
A couple of years ago flying just SW of Parowan heading SW I got a ADS-B warning. It was the Beech 1900 airliner headed into Cedar City. I visually saw it over my right shoulder and keep on my heading. After a couple of minutes it was clear that we would pass very close. I changed my heading and got out of the way.
Last summer flying out of Crawford Colorado I got another ADS-B warning, it was a business jet flying right at me going into land at Montrose Colorado.. This was very close also.
Flarm is remarkable and is not that expensive or hard to install; if you don't have one get one, with the extra antenna and IGC logger connected to a large screen like a Oudie, it is awesome. And it is available NOW.

[JS[_5_]]

Incidentally, both LX Nav and LX Navigation
(is that the Peoples Front Of Judea and the Judean Peoples Front?)
have new devices that will add PowerFLARM to your existing moving map display. About $900 US.
Jim

[Richard Pfiffner[_2_]]

On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 7:34:53 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
> Incidentally, both LX Nav and LX Navigation
> (is that the Peoples Front Of Judea and the Judean Peoples Front?)
> have new devices that will add PowerFLARM to your existing moving map display. About $900 US.
> Jim

Sorry to disappoint but (when FCC approval is obtained) LXNAV PowerMouse USA with ADS-b, IGC, Second Antenna closer to $1700 USD.

$900 for Flarm only and not certified in the USA.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 7:59:26 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> When I installed Power Flarm (PF) in 2013, I had no idea whether it would ever 'save my butt'. Not many people have it in my area.......
>

Regarding Flarms and Transponders, I find it odd that my glider insurance isn't reduced when one of these is installed. I assume the insurance companies believe neither produces a significant reduction in accidents. However the worry of collisions, however remote, induced me to install something.

The hassle/cost/space/power/antenna considerations of fitting either system caused me to consider which (Transponder or Flarm) would be the best choice. My decision was to get a Trig 22 and not a Flarm. I also easily generated SIL=0 ADSB-out using one of my two existing onboard (uncertified) GPSs (I am experimental). I could move to SIL=3, but right now see not much added protection, and feel the price of a certified gps is a gouge.

My reasoning was that a transponder gave me better protection than Flarm from commercial power traffic, which seems the most catastrophic risk. I will be visible 'for free' to gliders with Flarm, which will see my transponder, and maybe my SIL=0 ADSB-out too.

I'm now looking for a low-cost ADSB receiver and traffic display, to be able to see all transponder traffic myself. Regrettably, I don't believe that will enable me to see Flarm-only traffic, but they will continue to be able to see my transponder.

Would anyone disagree that a Transponder is now a better choice than Flarm in the USA?

[[email protected]]

You know...I get it. Flarms are very cool and glider specific.
BUT, transponders are the primary anti-collision tool for all aircraft.
I strongly argue that a transponder should be the first collision avoidance instrument installed in a glider.
Flying in the busy airspace around Reno with transponder on and transponder off and observing/listening to traffic control and the many "heavies" flying in the area made it so clear how powerful they are.
Then there is the problem that many don't want to discuss and that is the blind spots that Flarms have in carbon fiber gliders. There needs to be some serious work on external antennas for carbon fiber gliders.

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 7:06:47 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> You know...I get it. Flarms are very cool and glider specific.
> BUT, transponders are the primary anti-collision tool for all aircraft.
> I strongly argue that a transponder should be the first collision avoidance instrument installed in a glider.
> Flying in the busy airspace around Reno with transponder on and transponder off and observing/listening to traffic control and the many "heavies" flying in the area made it so clear how powerful they are.
> Then there is the problem that many don't want to discuss and that is the blind spots that Flarms have in carbon fiber gliders. There needs to be some serious work on external antennas for carbon fiber gliders.

I agree about the external flarm antenna. I have always thought it would be simple to make one that is as thin and flexible as a piece of tape, and the coax could be fed through an 1/8" hole in the bottom of the cockpit. Yes, polarization is wrong, but way better than seeing nothing below you. of course a vertical antenna on both side of the cockpit would be perfect. Any RF engineers out there care to comment?

Matt

[Dan Marotta]

Sounds to me like you're on the right track!

I've had a Trig 22 for 6-7 years and, since installing it, have not seen
any GA or airline traffic "up close".Â* I added a PF portable when one
became available locally at a great price and I've been happy with its
performance, especially with seeing the ADS-B traffic on the Flarm which
is displayed on my ClearNav and on my wife's Streak/XCSoar in the right
seat.Â* I don't see much glider traffic on the Flarm except around the
airport since I tend to fly alone or with just one gliding buddy.

For a cheap ADS-B In solution in an experimental ship, look at Stratux.Â*
You can pick up a ready to install system for around $250
<https://www.amazon.com/Stratux-Receiver-Aviation-Weather-Traffic/dp/B071HMQY19/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1525184065&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=stratux&psc=1>
or build it yourself with parts from Amazon for under $100.Â* It's all
open source software and there's a parts list
<http://stratux.me/#parts-list> on stratux.me.

I bought a home-assembled unit from another poster on this newsgroup for
$75, played with it for a few months (it works really well!), and then
sold it on to another user for what I paid for it.Â* Mine was made up of
basic parts and there were a lot of cables strung around the cockpit
which I didn't like, though the performance was great.Â* A ready made
unit with everything in a purpose built box is the way to go.

Good luck!

On 5/1/2018 7:01 AM, wrote:
> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 7:59:26 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
>> When I installed Power Flarm (PF) in 2013, I had no idea whether it would ever 'save my butt'. Not many people have it in my area.......
>>
> Regarding Flarms and Transponders, I find it odd that my glider insurance isn't reduced when one of these is installed. I assume the insurance companies believe neither produces a significant reduction in accidents. However the worry of collisions, however remote, induced me to install something.
>
> The hassle/cost/space/power/antenna considerations of fitting either system caused me to consider which (Transponder or Flarm) would be the best choice. My decision was to get a Trig 22 and not a Flarm. I also easily generated SIL=0 ADSB-out using one of my two existing onboard (uncertified) GPSs (I am experimental). I could move to SIL=3, but right now see not much added protection, and feel the price of a certified gps is a gouge.
>
> My reasoning was that a transponder gave me better protection than Flarm from commercial power traffic, which seems the most catastrophic risk. I will be visible 'for free' to gliders with Flarm, which will see my transponder, and maybe my SIL=0 ADSB-out too.
>
> I'm now looking for a low-cost ADSB receiver and traffic display, to be able to see all transponder traffic myself. Regrettably, I don't believe that will enable me to see Flarm-only traffic, but they will continue to be able to see my transponder.
>
> Would anyone disagree that a Transponder is now a better choice than Flarm in the USA?
>

--
Dan, 5J

[MNLou]

Maybe I'm missing something but, the way I see it, one of the key differences between Flarm and a transponder is with the Flarm, you get information about other aircraft in your cockpit.

With a transponder, you get no information in your cockpit and are relying only on visual contact to see and avoid. You are relying on the other aircraft (possibly with ATCs help) to avoid you.

I've been flying with Flarm for 3 years and am adding a transponder now. I've determined the best answer is both.

Total cost = about $5K. I think that's a good investment in increased safety.

Lou

[Tom BravoMike]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:01:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 7:59:26 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > When I installed Power Flarm (PF) in 2013, I had no idea whether it would ever 'save my butt'. Not many people have it in my area.......
> >
>
> Regarding Flarms and Transponders, I find it odd that my glider insurance isn't reduced when one of these is installed. I assume the insurance companies believe neither produces a significant reduction in accidents. However the worry of collisions, however remote, induced me to install something.
>
> The hassle/cost/space/power/antenna considerations of fitting either system caused me to consider which (Transponder or Flarm) would be the best choice. My decision was to get a Trig 22 and not a Flarm. I also easily generated SIL=0 ADSB-out using one of my two existing onboard (uncertified) GPSs (I am experimental). I could move to SIL=3, but right now see not much added protection, and feel the price of a certified gps is a gouge.
>
> My reasoning was that a transponder gave me better protection than Flarm from commercial power traffic, which seems the most catastrophic risk. I will be visible 'for free' to gliders with Flarm, which will see my transponder, and maybe my SIL=0 ADSB-out too.
>
> I'm now looking for a low-cost ADSB receiver and traffic display, to be able to see all transponder traffic myself. Regrettably, I don't believe that will enable me to see Flarm-only traffic, but they will continue to be able to see my transponder.
>
> Would anyone disagree that a Transponder is now a better choice than Flarm in the USA?

I second your opinion. With all its obvious merits, FLARM is glider-specific. It's not seen by the GA participants.

And BTW, if everybody is so concerned with the safety (including the FLARM people), how come we don't have inexpensive FLARM receivers on the market? Why can I get a cheap, under $100, ADS-B-in devices and follow the traffic through all kinds of apps, without having myself (yet) an ADS-B-out? Why can I get a TCAS or PCAS which informs me about transponder equipped planes around me - but no FLARM signal receivers which could show the targets on XCSoar even without the PowerFlarm in my ship?

Or maybe I'm wrong? Please correct me, let me know what cheap FLARM receivers are out there, and I will be happy to start my experience with the FLARM signals and increase safety, say by 20-50% ...

[[email protected]]

Dan, what would be a panel-mounted sunlight-visible display (plug and play compatible, I'm not a computer expert) for something like the Stratux? I don't want an iphone screen on my knee. The panel displays sold for Flarm are cheap and look good, but I can't find out if they work with adsb-receivers like Stratux.
>




> For a cheap ADS-B In solution in an experimental ship, look at
> Stratux.Â* You can pick up a ready
> to install system for around $250 or build it yourself with
> parts from Amazon for under $100.Â* It's all open source software and
> there's a parts list on stratux.me.
>
>
>

[Dan Marotta]

That's a good question.

When I was playing with Stratux, I used a Nexus 7, but it wasn't very
good in daylight.Â* I understand the new Samsung Galaxy tablets are quite
good, however.Â* The Dell Streak 5 would be great, but its Android
operating system is too old to run one of the Avare programs.Â* There may
be other Androids with daylight readable screens but I haven't kept up
to date on them.Â* Maybe someone else could make a recommendation.

Oh, and you can use a RAM mount to hold an Android, like a Samsung
Galaxy 8.Â* It will run both Avare (the application which displays ADS-B
targets from Stratux) AND XCSoar, an open source (read FREE) tactical
glider computer/moving map.Â* You could flip between applications or, if
available on the tablet, run both on split screen.

On 5/1/2018 2:11 PM, wrote:
> Dan, what would be a panel-mounted sunlight-visible display (plug and play compatible, I'm not a computer expert) for something like the Stratux? I don't want an iphone screen on my knee. The panel displays sold for Flarm are cheap and look good, but I can't find out if they work with adsb-receivers like Stratux.
>
>
>
>> For a cheap ADS-B In solution in an experimental ship, look at
>> Stratux.Â* You can pick up a ready
>> to install system for around $250 or build it yourself with
>> parts from Amazon for under $100.Â* It's all open source software and
>> there's a parts list on stratux.me.
>>
>>
>>

--
Dan, 5J

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 7:57:46 AM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:01:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 7:59:26 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > > When I installed Power Flarm (PF) in 2013, I had no idea whether it would ever 'save my butt'. Not many people have it in my area.......
> > >
> >
> > Regarding Flarms and Transponders, I find it odd that my glider insurance isn't reduced when one of these is installed. I assume the insurance companies believe neither produces a significant reduction in accidents. However the worry of collisions, however remote, induced me to install something..
> >
> > The hassle/cost/space/power/antenna considerations of fitting either system caused me to consider which (Transponder or Flarm) would be the best choice. My decision was to get a Trig 22 and not a Flarm. I also easily generated SIL=0 ADSB-out using one of my two existing onboard (uncertified) GPSs (I am experimental). I could move to SIL=3, but right now see not much added protection, and feel the price of a certified gps is a gouge.
> >
> > My reasoning was that a transponder gave me better protection than Flarm from commercial power traffic, which seems the most catastrophic risk. I will be visible 'for free' to gliders with Flarm, which will see my transponder, and maybe my SIL=0 ADSB-out too.
> >
> > I'm now looking for a low-cost ADSB receiver and traffic display, to be able to see all transponder traffic myself. Regrettably, I don't believe that will enable me to see Flarm-only traffic, but they will continue to be able to see my transponder.
> >
> > Would anyone disagree that a Transponder is now a better choice than Flarm in the USA?
>
> I second your opinion. With all its obvious merits, FLARM is glider-specific. It's not seen by the GA participants.
>
> And BTW, if everybody is so concerned with the safety (including the FLARM people), how come we don't have inexpensive FLARM receivers on the market? Why can I get a cheap, under $100, ADS-B-in devices and follow the traffic through all kinds of apps, without having myself (yet) an ADS-B-out? Why can I get a TCAS or PCAS which informs me about transponder equipped planes around me - but no FLARM signal receivers which could show the targets on XCSoar even without the PowerFlarm in my ship?
>
> Or maybe I'm wrong? Please correct me, let me know what cheap FLARM receivers are out there, and I will be happy to start my experience with the FLARM signals and increase safety, say by 20-50% ...

in order for flarm to predict a potential collision, it needs BOTH aircraft to be transmitting information. a receive only flarm would give situational awareness, but NO collision avoidance.

[AS]

> Would anyone disagree that a Transponder is now a better choice than Flarm in the USA? <

I had been flying with a FLARM core for a couple of years now and installed a transponder last winter. Got it certified, too. It is 'only' a used Mode C but the combination adds to the safety. I was flying in NM last year with the FLARM screen set to 6 miles, when a transponder target moved across the screen in a very short time. It may have been a jet going into Albuquerque and I am sure, he didn't see me at all since he had no way of knowing I was there.
If you have the space on your panel and can afford it, get both.

Uli
'AS'

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 4:11:24 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> ... what would be a panel-mounted sunlight-visible display ... for something like the Stratux?

http://www.craggyaero.com/air_traffic_display.htm is very highly regarded. It's not cheap.

Is there a way to interface a dual band ADS-B-in to an Oudie?

[Tom BravoMike]

> >
> > I second your opinion. With all its obvious merits, FLARM is glider-specific. It's not seen by the GA participants.
> >
> > And BTW, if everybody is so concerned with the safety (including the FLARM people), how come we don't have inexpensive FLARM receivers on the market? Why can I get a cheap, under $100, ADS-B-in devices and follow the traffic through all kinds of apps, without having myself (yet) an ADS-B-out? Why can I get a TCAS or PCAS which informs me about transponder equipped planes around me - but no FLARM signal receivers which could show the targets on XCSoar even without the PowerFlarm in my ship?
> >
> > Or maybe I'm wrong? Please correct me, let me know what cheap FLARM receivers are out there, and I will be happy to start my experience with the FLARM signals and increase safety, say by 20-50% ...
>
> in order for flarm to predict a potential collision, it needs BOTH aircraft to be transmitting information. a receive only flarm would give situational awareness, but NO collision avoidance.

Matt, could you please expand on it or direct me to a source so that I can understand better (and appreciate) how FLARM works? Is it about hardware (e..g. directional antennas) or software algorithm? My flight data is on board in my glider - right?, and from the 'receiver Flarm' I would get flight data transmitted from other gliders. What prohibits MY computer to do the needed calculations (course, speed, altitude) with regards to a potential collision? Isn't that what the existing apps for the cheap ADS-B-In are doing? I can see other aircrafts with their speed and direction, and as they get closer they change the color from blue to yellow to red and at one point alarm goes off. Why do you 'have to transmit' to receive this kind of a warning?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 6:57:19 AM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > >
> > > I second your opinion. With all its obvious merits, FLARM is glider-specific. It's not seen by the GA participants.
> > >
> > > And BTW, if everybody is so concerned with the safety (including the FLARM people), how come we don't have inexpensive FLARM receivers on the market? Why can I get a cheap, under $100, ADS-B-in devices and follow the traffic through all kinds of apps, without having myself (yet) an ADS-B-out? Why can I get a TCAS or PCAS which informs me about transponder equipped planes around me - but no FLARM signal receivers which could show the targets on XCSoar even without the PowerFlarm in my ship?
> > >
> > > Or maybe I'm wrong? Please correct me, let me know what cheap FLARM receivers are out there, and I will be happy to start my experience with the FLARM signals and increase safety, say by 20-50% ...
> >
> > in order for flarm to predict a potential collision, it needs BOTH aircraft to be transmitting information. a receive only flarm would give situational awareness, but NO collision avoidance.
>
> Matt, could you please expand on it or direct me to a source so that I can understand better (and appreciate) how FLARM works? Is it about hardware (e.g. directional antennas) or software algorithm? My flight data is on board in my glider - right?, and from the 'receiver Flarm' I would get flight data transmitted from other gliders. What prohibits MY computer to do the needed calculations (course, speed, altitude) with regards to a potential collision? Isn't that what the existing apps for the cheap ADS-B-In are doing? I can see other aircrafts with their speed and direction, and as they get closer they change the color from blue to yellow to red and at one point alarm goes off. Why do you 'have to transmit' to receive this kind of a warning?

Thankfully we don't have FLARM receive only boxes... well not mainstream ones anyhow. To provide good defense across to the fleet we need lots of gliders equipped with transmitters. The sensible choice was for FLARM to focus on delivering boxes that did both and for the glider fleet to equip with both capabilities, and for the system to be relatively simple and work.... ADS-B set out to be relatively *complex* and is a bit of a mess because of that. FLARM is relatively simple and *should* just work, at least compared to ADS-B... Unfortunately the PowerFLARM rollout in the USA hit too several snags and was painful for a while, hopefully those issues are well behind us..

GA and ADS-B In in the USA is a model of what could happen by delivering low-cost receive only devices. We had lots of folks buying UAT or dual-link low cost receivers over the last half decade or so. With many of those GA aircraft not equipped with any ADS-B Out, so the effective coverage was not great and there has been a fair amount of confusion about what services a non-ADS-B Out aircraft receives that lulls some pilots into a false sense of security about what they are receiving.

FLARM choose to encrypt part of their data, which makes third parties doing stuff with the data difficult. That provides FLARM protection against competitors but also allows FLARM to ensure their systems are all compatible. Lots of the mess with ADS-B is trying to meet requirements/needs from so many potential users, and just trying to spec requirements which gets complex fast. FLARM has been able to avoid much of that by focusing on the glider market (and yes they do some GA in Europe and are doing more drone work now) and picking specific components/technology parts (FLARM actually makes some of the internal chips and firmware used on them and is very careful about the specific GPS technology they integrate with) and using in their systems.

Some of the questions above has been gone over before on r.a.s. and makes me think you have not flown with FLARM and not really compared it to an ADS-B based traffic system. The basic description of seeing traffic icons is kind of pointless, gliders are often surrounded closely by other gliders, nobody should be looking at the screen to see if they think they might run into another aircraft or relying on coarse 'traffic' audible warnings which rapidly become distracting, and need to be silenced. None of those other systems work well in the environment of other gliders and towplanes in close proximity, and they are simply not designed to.

At the most basic level FLARM is transmitting GPS data and looking at other FLARM units GPS data.... the antennas are not directional etc. It's all about software and focus on the glider community and making the traffic warnings usable/reducing false positives and providing the NMEA based data integration with glider traffic displays and glider flight computers... nothing those other systems can do. But to do that as well as FLARM does is non-trivial. Would it be nicer for PowerFLARM to be lower-cost, sure, but I also could not think of the effort needed to develop that technology and ecosystem and sell a similar system into such as small market (tens of thousands of FLARM units being a small market).

There are technical resources online about how FLARM works, findable with a Google search, but I suspect you would probably be better off flying a PowerFLARM equipped glider and see how FLARM works for you. If you have PowerFLARM users in your area then ask them, it would be fairly unusual for folks who have it not to recommend it. If nobody has it in your area then it's kinda academic unless you want to start a campaign for other folks to install it.

FLARM can be a great tool, but to provide technology assisted traffic awareness and collision avoidance owners/pilots might need to consider FLARM, Transponders, ADS-B Outf, ADS-B In and what works best for their specific threat scenarios.

[[email protected]]

Once again, the "Voice of Reason" steps up with a clear and concise explanation of the situation. Thanks, Darryl. And thanks for trying to explain the ins and outs of ADS-B. A daunting task, made more daunting by the inherent characteristics of a Federal Bureaucracy mandating a questionable technology. Not that I am totally against it- I am in the process of installing a Trig TT22. I may also have to request a new Airworthiness Certificate, moving my glider from Standard to Experimental so I can take advantage of 2020 compliant ADS-B for one sixth the price of a Standard Category installation. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

[Tom BravoMike]

> At the most basic level FLARM is transmitting GPS data and looking at other FLARM units GPS data.... the antennas are not directional etc. It's all about software and focus on the glider community and making the traffic warnings usable/reducing false positives and providing the NMEA based data integration with glider traffic displays and glider flight computers... nothing those other systems can do. (...)

Thank you for taking your time to clarify it to me. You are right, I have not flown in a FLARM equipped glider yet. But I find this your statement very important and revealing to me: "It's all about software and focus on the glider community". So the questions that bothers me all the time is: with the ADS-B becoming so common and mandatory for most aircraft, why should I have two transmitting systems on board (FLARM and a transponder - think about price and power usage). If it's all about software, why can't we have software using the ADS-B transmission (more universal, stronger ergo better visible) to provide us, glider pilots, with the information (visual/acoustic) equal to that produced by FLARM.

Let me make it clear: I am for the safety, visibility, awareness etc. I have a Microair Mode C Transponder and the ATD-300 Traffic Watch working beautifully, and I know it's not enough. I'm not against the idea behind FLARM and I bow down before the guys who invented and implemented it - but now it's the NextGen and ADS-B era - let's adapt to it! If a FLARM device appears on the market with the added ADS-B-Out feature, I'll be among the first to order, ready to invest in it whatever is necessary and justified.

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 9:23:29 PM UTC-4, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > If it's all about software, why can't we have software using the ADS-B transmission (more universal, stronger ergo better visible) to provide us, glider pilots, with the information (visual/acoustic) equal to that produced by FLARM.

I'm pretty sure that it is not 'all about software'. The two other 'biggies' are radio frequency bandwidth (limited) and the rate at which 3-D positions need to be broadcast. Position transmission rate must be limited to avoid saturation of the available bandwidth. To calculate collision avoidance between gliders (that are sharing a thermal), 3-D position broadcasts need to be very frequent, much more frequent than the rate needed for collision avoidance between powered aircraft with nominal separation.

I doubt that ADS-B out transmits frequent enough position reports to compute collision avoidance between gliders. Gliders frequently fly close to other gliders.

So you might ask, 'how come Powerflarm has enough bandwidth to do collision avoidance between proximate aircraft and ADS-B does not?' Part of the answer (I guess) is that Powerflarm uses lower transmission power (so the signal does not travel as far), and there are far fewer Powerflarm transmitters in range of other Powerflarm transmitters, than the number of ADS-B transmitters talking to each other in a Bravo airspace. Another guess is that a Powerflarm transmission is smaller than an ADS-B transmission.

ADS-B transmission is not encrypted, so if anyone would like to try to build Flarm like collision avoidance on top of ADS-B, there is nothing stopping you. I'd love to see that happen, but I'd not under-estimate the obstacles, and I would certainly not delay installing Powerflarm while waiting for something new to come on line.

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:04:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I may also have to request a new Airworthiness Certificate, moving my glider from Standard to Experimental ...

Surely you're joking? And if not, how is that possible?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > At the most basic level FLARM is transmitting GPS data and looking at other FLARM units GPS data.... the antennas are not directional etc. It's all about software and focus on the glider community and making the traffic warnings usable/reducing false positives and providing the NMEA based data integration with glider traffic displays and glider flight computers... nothing those other systems can do. (...)
>
> Thank you for taking your time to clarify it to me. You are right, I have not flown in a FLARM equipped glider yet. But I find this your statement very important and revealing to me: "It's all about software and focus on the glider community". So the questions that bothers me all the time is: with the ADS-B becoming so common and mandatory for most aircraft, why should I have two transmitting systems on board (FLARM and a transponder - think about price and power usage). If it's all about software, why can't we have software using the ADS-B transmission (more universal, stronger ergo better visible) to provide us, glider pilots, with the information (visual/acoustic) equal to that produced by FLARM.
>
> Let me make it clear: I am for the safety, visibility, awareness etc. I have a Microair Mode C Transponder and the ATD-300 Traffic Watch working beautifully, and I know it's not enough. I'm not against the idea behind FLARM and I bow down before the guys who invented and implemented it - but now it's the NextGen and ADS-B era - let's adapt to it! If a FLARM device appears on the market with the added ADS-B-Out feature, I'll be among the first to order, ready to invest in it whatever is necessary and justified.

Thanks for equipping with a transponder... that's actually a huge help near airliners, fast jets, military traffic etc. and while within SSR coverage it makes your aircraft visible via TIS-B to properly equipped aircraft (that confusingly need to have ADS-B In *and* Out...remember by complexity comment about ADS-B earlier).

PowerFLARM (with the ADS-B In option, which almost all the units in the USA have) *does* receive ADS-B 1090ES and provide much of the same capabilities as a PowerFLARM-PowerFLARM system. Unfortunately it only receivers 1090ES and not UAT, and not ADS-R or TIS-B services, even if your glider has ADS-B Out to make it a ADS-R or TIS-B Client.... unfortunate European legacy there for where the ADS-B technology in PowerFLARM came from-hopefully FLARM will address in future. But even if all that worked... you can't properly receive ADS-R or TIS-B services unless you have a TABS or 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out system. (See comment earlier about complexity...)

For 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out in a certified glider today you are looking at: Trig TT22 (~$1,900) and TN70 (~$1,900) plus install costs.

For 2020 Complaint ADS-B Out in an experimental glider today you are looking at: Trig TT22 (~$1,900) and TN72 (~$350)

You can also use the TT22 and TN72 and do TABS in the type certified glider, that gets you visibility to other ADS-B in traffic and TIS-B and ADS-R client status, but not visibility to over ADS-B out to ATC and no post-January 1 2020 ADS-B Out airspace privileges. And that's ADS-B out only... can be a great thing for visibility to say GA traffic that increasingly has ADS-B In but not say TCAS the airliners and fast jets have. But to do fully featured Dual-link ADS-B In in a glider today you need a Stratus or Stratux box and a suitable display like Foreflight (my favorite...) today there is no way to integrate that with other glider flight displays... and by then you really risk having too much junk in the cockpit distracting the pilot. There is just no single perfect collision avoidance/awareness system for gliders in the USA. On the other hand we don't need to see more fatal mid-air collisions involving gliders... so we have to do the best we can and pick the technology or combination that works best. Perfect is the enemy of good..... doing nothing because we don't have a perfect systems avaialble is not a good option.

ADS-B has benefits in dense GA environments but it's the most complex and expensive to install. The starting point for glider pilots concerned about airliners, fast jets and military traffic is to equip with a transponder (Mode C is fine). Please talk to the military folks to see what their aircraft are equipped with and if they or ATC can see transponder and how much it will help. For folks mostly concerned about other gliders and towplanes the answer is PowerFLARM but you need multiple community adoption in the local area.

If both "fast jets, airliners, military" and "gliders and tow planes" are concerns then it unfortunately takes both a transponder and PowerFLARM. But it's worth remembering those are usually the first choices, not ADS-B Out and/or In.

The leading edge of ADS-B Out adoption in gliders are folks who already own a suitable Trig transponder and who can install a TN72 GPS Source at relatively low additional cost, and/or who have post January 1 2020 regulatory concerns such as needing to fly in Class A airspace or above Class B/C airspace but below 10,000' and so who will require 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out equipped gliders. Folks who do own a Trig transponder probably should consider adding at least a TN72 at their next annual.

And while Mode C is fine to keep using, any new transponder today should be a Trig TT22 as it provides most ADS-B Out options, and if installing now I'd also install the ~$350 TN72 GPS for 2020 Complaint ADS-B Out in an experimental glider or TABS in a type certified glider... that adds ADS-B Out benefits for a relatively small increase in cost... and while wiring up the transponder you might as well install the TN72.

BTW PowerFLARM (with the ADS-B option) also includes a PCAS capability, so the same PCAS capability as in your ATD-300 for transponder equipped threat aircraft with no 1090ES Out... if the threat has 1090ES Out you get a precise target.

---

And yes all this is the technology side of stuff, yes folks need their head outside the cockpit, and it's my experience that pilots who are safety conscious enough to equip with this stuff are already pretty concerned about traffic and careful about looking outside, and PowerFLARM (and PCAS like your ATD-300) are good at reminding them to do that. And lots of other things can be done to understand traffic risks, develop ops and ATC procedures to try to reduce risks, etc.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 7:57:16 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 9:23:29 PM UTC-4, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > > If it's all about software, why can't we have software using the ADS-B transmission (more universal, stronger ergo better visible) to provide us, glider pilots, with the information (visual/acoustic) equal to that produced by FLARM.
>
> I'm pretty sure that it is not 'all about software'. The two other 'biggies' are radio frequency bandwidth (limited) and the rate at which 3-D positions need to be broadcast. Position transmission rate must be limited to avoid saturation of the available bandwidth. To calculate collision avoidance between gliders (that are sharing a thermal), 3-D position broadcasts need to be very frequent, much more frequent than the rate needed for collision avoidance between powered aircraft with nominal separation.
>
> I doubt that ADS-B out transmits frequent enough position reports to compute collision avoidance between gliders. Gliders frequently fly close to other gliders.

Nope. ADS-B Out at ~2 Hz, actually transmits at at higher rate than FLARM. It really is mostly "just" about software. And I'm not saying that to minimize stuff, it's actually very hard to do this well. FLARM has invested a lot of work there to get this far.

> So you might ask, 'how come Powerflarm has enough bandwidth to do collision avoidance between proximate aircraft and ADS-B does not?' Part of the answer (I guess) is that Powerflarm uses lower transmission power (so the signal does not travel as far), and there are far fewer Powerflarm transmitters in range of other Powerflarm transmitters, than the number of ADS-B transmitters talking to each other in a Bravo airspace. Another guess is that a Powerflarm transmission is smaller than an ADS-B transmission.

ADS-B has the bandwidth. It's transmitting away all those packers already. That is not the issue... and PowerFLARM itself today works on top of 1090ES In signals just fine.

One ADS-B issue is, as it has always been, the cost of doing ADS-B Out. Both the cost of the transmitter and suitable GPS source.... especially if you want that source to be 2020 Complaint. So doing a software layer similar to FLARM, with as much focus on needs of glider pilots, on top of ADS-B Out needs ADS-B Out adoption in gliders, and then somebody to develop software and build out an ecosystem similar to FLARM and do things like sign up OEMs and integration partners, and... oh my. Just ain't likely to happen is it?

> ADS-B transmission is not encrypted, so if anyone would like to try to build Flarm like collision avoidance on top of ADS-B, there is nothing stopping you. I'd love to see that happen, but I'd not under-estimate the obstacles, and I would certainly not delay installing PoweFlarm while waiting for something new to come on line.

Yes, indeed, its all unencrypted, which ends up being an separate issue... for another day. Although spending a few $k on RTCA spec docs will help things go faster. After that it will only take a small fortune of developer time and lots of effort. And if you are doing ADS-B smart stuff the money is not to be made in the glider market.. it's in the GA market today, and maybe large drone/UAV markets. So I'd *really* not hold my breath.

[[email protected]]

"Surely you're joking? And if not, how is that possible?"

Nope. No joke. As to "how," you go to FAA dot Gov and download FAA Form 8130-6 "Application for US Airworthiness Certificate" and fill it out. Your aircraft must be in compliance with all Airworthiness Directives. You need an inspection by a "Certificated Mechanic," possibly an inspection by an "FAA Designee" or FAA Inspector. There may be a Flight Test period (generally five hours TT for Phase 1). Your Operating Limitations will be spelled out as part of the new certificate and will place certain restrictions on use of the aircraft. A yearly Program Letter must be filed with the local FSDO.

Going from Standard Category to Experimental is relatively simple. Trying to go from Experimental to Standard is nearly impossible, so this decision should be carefully considered, as it may affect the value of your aircraft. However, many gliders operate under "Experimental" limitations without much in the way of restrictions. It is just that certain things are easier to accomplish mechanically with an Experimental Certificate. In this case, as Darryl states:

"For 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out in a certified glider today you are looking at: Trig TT22 (~$1,900) and TN70 (~$1,900) plus install costs.

For 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out in an experimental glider today you are looking at: Trig TT22 (~$1,900) and TN72 (~$350)"

The price point of the TN70 at $1,900 vs $350 for the TN72 is what is driving my decision.

[[email protected]]

"Thanks for equipping with a transponder..."

Darryl- I have been flying with a Becker 3401/5401 Transponder/ Control Unit for over 9 years. It didn't pass re certification this year due to an undetermined problem (spurious altitude deviations according to the test equipment). Rather than throw money (possibly LOTS of money) at an old piece of equipment, I chose to go with a new Trig TT22. As to adding the TN72, that will depend on whether to go to Experimental Category. For ADS-B In, I am using PowerFlarm and my LXNav S80 display.

If I can determine the problem with the Becker, I will probably fix it and sell it, or possibly sell it "as is" with the caveat that it needs diagnosis, repair and a new approval.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 10:24:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> "Thanks for equipping with a transponder..."
>
> Darryl- I have been flying with a Becker 3401/5401 Transponder/ Control Unit for over 9 years. It didn't pass re certification this year due to an undetermined problem (spurious altitude deviations according to the test equipment). Rather than throw money (possibly LOTS of money) at an old piece of equipment, I chose to go with a new Trig TT22. As to adding the TN72, that will depend on whether to go to Experimental Category. For ADS-B In, I am using PowerFlarm and my LXNav S80 display.
>
> If I can determine the problem with the Becker, I will probably fix it and sell it, or possibly sell it "as is" with the caveat that it needs diagnosis, repair and a new approval.

You can always add a TN72, just on a type certified glider it can only do SIL=1/TABS.

On the Becker transponder... the encoder and cabling is always suspect there. Ideally have a technician test it with a know good encoder and cabling on a bench... but it's probably not worth much not working. I've seen used working Becker ATC4401 transponders selling for ~$600 with encoder.... that can be a nice deal for folks who have older gliders and want to add a Mode C transponder.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 11:39:37 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
^ BTW PowerFLARM (with the ADS-B option) also includes a PCAS capability

Darryl, can you explain that further, for those of us who are dazed and stupefied when confronted with the FAA's alphabet soup? AFAIK, PF does not transmit anything that the ATC system receives, so how can it give you collision warnings for non-FLARM aircraft, other than the warning about the presence of a transmitting transponder nearby?

Also, you say a cheap used mode C transponder is a good addition to a glider. Can you explain further what that will get you? E.g., will ATC still see you after 2020? Will PowerFLARM devices sense your mode C transponder transmissions? Will the collision-avoidance equipment on airliners detect you, now and in the future?

[Dan Marotta]

Off topic, but...

On 5/2/2018 9:59 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:

One ADS-B issue is, as it has always been, the cost of doing ADS-B Out. Both the cost of the transmitter and suitable GPS source.... especially if you want that source to be 2020 Complaint.

Yeah, and I just bought a WAAS GPS from Amazon
<https://www.amazon.com/Dual-Electronics-XGPS150A-Multipurpose-Augmentation/dp/B006M49G80/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1525361200&sr=1-3&keywords=waas+gps>
for $78.58.Â* I can use that to provide a good signal to my iPad if I
choose to use it in my glider for powered repositioning flights and
using Garmin Pilot software.

Seems to me that the price of a "suitable" GPS source has more to do
with paperwork (TSO) than with technology.
--
Dan, 5J

[George Haeh]

Air Avionics has recently announced an "Air Traffic" box that combines
Flarm
with GPS suitable for ADS-B Out, at least in EASA land.

https://www.air-avionics.com/?page_id=253

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:42:20 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 11:39:37 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> ^ BTW PowerFLARM (with the ADS-B option) also includes a PCAS capability
>
> Darryl, can you explain that further, for those of us who are dazed and stupefied when confronted with the FAA's alphabet soup? AFAIK, PF does not transmit anything that the ATC system receives, so how can it give you collision warnings for non-FLARM aircraft, other than the warning about the presence of a transmitting transponder nearby?

That's all PowerFLARM does for transponder threats: PCAS. PowerFLARM does not transmit anything seen by ATC or non-FLARM/PowerFLARM equipped aircraft.

Almost all PowerFLARM in the USA have the "ADS-B" option which also includes PCAS capability. PCAS systems listens for transponders replying to other interrogators (SSR, TCAS, TCAD). It sees the altitude reported in those Mode C or S replies and guesses the distance from the received power. So accurate altitude, approximate distance and no directional information.

> Also, you say a cheap used mode C transponder is a good addition to a glider. Can you explain further what that will get you? E.g.,
>will ATC still see you after 2020?

Yes. There is nothing happening in 2020 that affects this, including the ADS-B Out carriage mandate becoming effective.

> Will PowerFLARM devices sense your mode C transponder transmissions?

Yes. As long as your Transponder is being interrogated by SSR (aka ATC radar), TCAS or TCAD (lower-cost TCAS like systems). But only PowerFLARM with the ADS-B option, which almost all in the USA have, ...*don't* buy PowerFLARM "Pure" in the USA. There are settings in the PowerFLARM that can disable PCAS or adjust the filtering of PCAS targets.

> Will the collision-avoidance equipment on airliners detect you, now and in the future?

Yes. That's one of the big reasons for getting a transponder, Mode C or Mode S. In fact TCAS requires a transponder in the threat aircraft, if your aircraft happens to have UAT Out and no transponder... TCAS II will let an airliner fly right into your glider with no collision RA (which is the main reasons that UAT Out in gliders was always a bad idea).

There is no plan to end of life Mode C in the USA, there was some talk from the FAA on long term reducing the number of approach radar systems (which would impact Mode S transponder without ADS-B Out equally). None of that seems to be even planned yet. There already issues with ADS-B Out equipage being behind schedule, and removing some approach radar systems has other issues, including possible national security ones.

One downside of Mode C transponders near other gliders is that the Mode C transponder replies unlike Mode S replies do not contain an ICAO number and its harder for the PowerFLARM to guess say that a PowerFLARM and Mode C equipped glider are the same target. But this is also going to happen at times when Mode S transponders get interrogated by a old Mode C interrogator, like most of the TCAD systems flying around... then the Mode S transponder has to emulate a Mode C transponder.

My message for a long time has been: If you fly near areas of dense airliners, fast jets and military traffic, just get a transponder, Mode S or used Mode C does not matter... get what you can afford.

Mode S, at least with a Trig transponder, has the additional benefit of being able to do ADS-B Out. Not all Mode S transponders can do ADS-B out or TABS. The Trig TT22 is currently *the* Mode S transponder to purchase for ADS-B Out in gliders in that USA.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-7, George Haeh wrote:
> Air Avionics has recently announced an "Air Traffic" box that combines
> Flarm
> with GPS suitable for ADS-B Out, at least in EASA land.
>
> https://www.air-avionics.com/?page_id=253

It's just a new generation of basically what was PowerFLARM. Saying it can do ADS-B Out in EASA land is kinda meaningless, you can connect up any old NMEA GPS there in a glider. And you can do that here in the USA... which will get you visibility to PowerFLARM units and portable ADS-B In receivers but that is all.

And it's apparently not FCC approved. So not legal to sell in the USA.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Air-avionics also markets their VT-01 transponder as having ADS-B out capability, but it does’t! Be careful purchasing air-avionics anti-collision equipment, at least for US market..

[2G]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:39:37 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-7, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > > At the most basic level FLARM is transmitting GPS data and looking at other FLARM units GPS data.... the antennas are not directional etc. It's all about software and focus on the glider community and making the traffic warnings usable/reducing false positives and providing the NMEA based data integration with glider traffic displays and glider flight computers... nothing those other systems can do. (...)
> >
> > Thank you for taking your time to clarify it to me. You are right, I have not flown in a FLARM equipped glider yet. But I find this your statement very important and revealing to me: "It's all about software and focus on the glider community". So the questions that bothers me all the time is: with the ADS-B becoming so common and mandatory for most aircraft, why should I have two transmitting systems on board (FLARM and a transponder - think about price and power usage). If it's all about software, why can't we have software using the ADS-B transmission (more universal, stronger ergo better visible) to provide us, glider pilots, with the information (visual/acoustic) equal to that produced by FLARM.
> >
> > Let me make it clear: I am for the safety, visibility, awareness etc. I have a Microair Mode C Transponder and the ATD-300 Traffic Watch working beautifully, and I know it's not enough. I'm not against the idea behind FLARM and I bow down before the guys who invented and implemented it - but now it's the NextGen and ADS-B era - let's adapt to it! If a FLARM device appears on the market with the added ADS-B-Out feature, I'll be among the first to order, ready to invest in it whatever is necessary and justified.
>
> Thanks for equipping with a transponder... that's actually a huge help near airliners, fast jets, military traffic etc. and while within SSR coverage it makes your aircraft visible via TIS-B to properly equipped aircraft (that confusingly need to have ADS-B In *and* Out...remember by complexity comment about ADS-B earlier).
>
> PowerFLARM (with the ADS-B In option, which almost all the units in the USA have) *does* receive ADS-B 1090ES and provide much of the same capabilities as a PowerFLARM-PowerFLARM system. Unfortunately it only receivers 1090ES and not UAT, and not ADS-R or TIS-B services, even if your glider has ADS-B Out to make it a ADS-R or TIS-B Client.... unfortunate European legacy there for where the ADS-B technology in PowerFLARM came from-hopefully FLARM will address in future. But even if all that worked... you can't properly receive ADS-R or TIS-B services unless you have a TABS or 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out system. (See comment earlier about complexity...)
>
> For 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out in a certified glider today you are looking at: Trig TT22 (~$1,900) and TN70 (~$1,900) plus install costs.
>
> For 2020 Complaint ADS-B Out in an experimental glider today you are looking at: Trig TT22 (~$1,900) and TN72 (~$350)
>
> You can also use the TT22 and TN72 and do TABS in the type certified glider, that gets you visibility to other ADS-B in traffic and TIS-B and ADS-R client status, but not visibility to over ADS-B out to ATC and no post-January 1 2020 ADS-B Out airspace privileges. And that's ADS-B out only... can be a great thing for visibility to say GA traffic that increasingly has ADS-B In but not say TCAS the airliners and fast jets have. But to do fully featured Dual-link ADS-B In in a glider today you need a Stratus or Stratux box and a suitable display like Foreflight (my favorite...) today there is no way to integrate that with other glider flight displays... and by then you really risk having too much junk in the cockpit distracting the pilot. There is just no single perfect collision avoidance/awareness system for gliders in the USA. On the other hand we don't need to see more fatal mid-air collisions involving gliders... so we have to do the best we can and pick the technology or combination that works best. Perfect is the enemy of good..... doing nothing because we don't have a perfect systems avaialble is not a good option.
>
> ADS-B has benefits in dense GA environments but it's the most complex and expensive to install. The starting point for glider pilots concerned about airliners, fast jets and military traffic is to equip with a transponder (Mode C is fine). Please talk to the military folks to see what their aircraft are equipped with and if they or ATC can see transponder and how much it will help. For folks mostly concerned about other gliders and towplanes the answer is PowerFLARM but you need multiple community adoption in the local area.
>
> If both "fast jets, airliners, military" and "gliders and tow planes" are concerns then it unfortunately takes both a transponder and PowerFLARM. But it's worth remembering those are usually the first choices, not ADS-B Out and/or In.
>
> The leading edge of ADS-B Out adoption in gliders are folks who already own a suitable Trig transponder and who can install a TN72 GPS Source at relatively low additional cost, and/or who have post January 1 2020 regulatory concerns such as needing to fly in Class A airspace or above Class B/C airspace but below 10,000' and so who will require 2020 Compliant ADS-B Out equipped gliders. Folks who do own a Trig transponder probably should consider adding at least a TN72 at their next annual.
>
> And while Mode C is fine to keep using, any new transponder today should be a Trig TT22 as it provides most ADS-B Out options, and if installing now I'd also install the ~$350 TN72 GPS for 2020 Complaint ADS-B Out in an experimental glider or TABS in a type certified glider... that adds ADS-B Out benefits for a relatively small increase in cost... and while wiring up the transponder you might as well install the TN72.
>
> BTW PowerFLARM (with the ADS-B option) also includes a PCAS capability, so the same PCAS capability as in your ATD-300 for transponder equipped threat aircraft with no 1090ES Out... if the threat has 1090ES Out you get a precise target.
>
> ---
>
> And yes all this is the technology side of stuff, yes folks need their head outside the cockpit, and it's my experience that pilots who are safety conscious enough to equip with this stuff are already pretty concerned about traffic and careful about looking outside, and PowerFLARM (and PCAS like your ATD-300) are good at reminding them to do that. And lots of other things can be done to understand traffic risks, develop ops and ATC procedures to try to reduce risks, etc.

The sad reality is that the ADS-B equipage rate is pathetically low. Only about 27% of the GA fleet is now equipped. And don't expect any "mad rush" to beat the deadline due to the limited number of avionics shops qualified to do the install. What is even sadder is that equipage in the airline fleet is even LOWER at 20% as of a year ago. The FAA was even compelled to publish a GPS exemption 12555 for these aircraft, the foot-dragging was so bad.

I don't think it is worth to have TABS for this low penetration. I do have Powerflarm, and just ordered a new Air Avionics ATD-57 traffic display. I can do my own traffic avoidance just be seeing what transponder equipped aircraft are near me.

I also have a bone to pick over the size of certified GPS units; they just won't fit in the space I have available.

Tom

[Tango Whisky]

Why do you say it doesn't?

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-6, George Haeh wrote:
> Air Avionics has recently announced an "Air Traffic" box that combines
> Flarm
> with GPS suitable for ADS-B Out, at least in EASA land.
>
> https://www.air-avionics.com/?page_id=253

careful with this display if you wear polarized sunglasses. It s polarized exactly the wrong way, and looks 100% black when viewed through polarized glasses.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 9:52:46 PM UTC-7, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Why do you say it doesn't?

Are you replying to the VT-01 does not do ADS-B Out statement?

---

Why do you think it does?

The problem is "ADS-B" is a fluff marketing term. And as long as vendors keep talking in marketing fluff like that there will be confusion. I'd hope that Air Avionics care about being clear what their products do, including to the USA market, and so be leading more with the actual specs their products meet, unfortunately they really bury this stuff.

The USA glider community already has the issue with missing full 1090ES Support in PowerFLARM, other purchasers don't need to suffer similar problems with Air Avionics transponders. Not when there is a perfectly good options already available from Trig.

As far as I know the VT-01 transponder does not implement RTCA DO-260B and it does not does have the corresponding TSO-C166b approval. DO-260B is the current standard for 1090ES Out, so ya would think somebody claiming to do a Transponder with ADS-B Out would actually meet that standard? Right? Bzzzzt. Wrong. And you can't use old DO-260 or DO-260A complaint or whatever old compliance they actually have for TABS or 2020 Compliance in the USA.

And beyond implementing DO-260B and ideally having a TSO-C166b approval to be practically useful in a certified glider the transponder needs to be pairable with a known TSO-C145c GPS source and have an STC for that install to form the basis for installs using the pairing of the transponder and GPS source. Stuff that all the vendors who work in the USA market have spend the last several years doing. Air Avionics could try to enter the USA market with experimental only coverage but I think you need both, and to be targeting wide than just gliders to justify the effort.

Or even for for TABS installs the vendor needs a suitable TSO-C199 approved for install in certified gliders or "meets requirements of TSO-C199" GPS source that for experimental gliders (but since the TSO is relatively easy there just do what Trig did and get the TSO)... or partner with a vendor who has a TSO-C199 GPS GPS box... but oops the choices there are Trig and Garmin who are competitors.

Even if Air Avionics delivered DO-260B compliance tomorrow they seem so far behind on all the other stuff. I don't assume they are clueless, I assume they just made a decision not to worry about the USA market. Their opacity in actually producing clear spec claims for their products has a certain odor. And some glider manufacturers and avionics resellers have sold Garrecht/Air Avionics Mode S transponders to USA glider pilots... who then find they have no ADS-B Out path available, at least today. If I had been sold those with an expectation they were ADS-B Out compatible I would be asking for a refund.

For many years have I been saying Trig TT22 is *the* transponder to get... because of it's ADS-B Out options. When another manufacturer has a usable 1090ES Out capable transponder suitable for gliders I will mention that as well. Competition for Trig would be great (they might then improve their install documentation).

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 10:57:44 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 9:52:46 PM UTC-7, Tango Whisky wrote:
> > Why do you say it doesn't?
>
> Are you replying to the VT-01 does not do ADS-B Out statement?
>
> ---
>
> Why do you think it does?
>
> The problem is "ADS-B" is a fluff marketing term. And as long as vendors keep talking in marketing fluff like that there will be confusion. I'd hope that Air Avionics care about being clear what their products do, including to the USA market, and so be leading more with the actual specs their products meet, unfortunately they really bury this stuff.
>
> The USA glider community already has the issue with missing full 1090ES Support in PowerFLARM, other purchasers don't need to suffer similar problems with Air Avionics transponders. Not when there is a perfectly good options already available from Trig.
>
> As far as I know the VT-01 transponder does not implement RTCA DO-260B and it does not does have the corresponding TSO-C166b approval. DO-260B is the current standard for 1090ES Out, so ya would think somebody claiming to do a Transponder with ADS-B Out would actually meet that standard? Right? Bzzzzt. Wrong. And you can't use old DO-260 or DO-260A complaint or whatever old compliance they actually have for TABS or 2020 Compliance in the USA.
>
> And beyond implementing DO-260B and ideally having a TSO-C166b approval to be practically useful in a certified glider the transponder needs to be pairable with a known TSO-C145c GPS source and have an STC for that install to form the basis for installs using the pairing of the transponder and GPS source. Stuff that all the vendors who work in the USA market have spend the last several years doing. Air Avionics could try to enter the USA market with experimental only coverage but I think you need both, and to be targeting wide than just gliders to justify the effort.
>
> Or even for for TABS installs the vendor needs a suitable TSO-C199 approved for install in certified gliders or "meets requirements of TSO-C199" GPS source that for experimental gliders (but since the TSO is relatively easy there just do what Trig did and get the TSO)... or partner with a vendor who has a TSO-C199 GPS GPS box... but oops the choices there are Trig and Garmin who are competitors.
>
> Even if Air Avionics delivered DO-260B compliance tomorrow they seem so far behind on all the other stuff. I don't assume they are clueless, I assume they just made a decision not to worry about the USA market. Their opacity in actually producing clear spec claims for their products has a certain odor. And some glider manufacturers and avionics resellers have sold Garrecht/Air Avionics Mode S transponders to USA glider pilots... who then find they have no ADS-B Out path available, at least today. If I had been sold those with an expectation they were ADS-B Out compatible I would be asking for a refund.
>
> For many years have I been saying Trig TT22 is *the* transponder to get.... because of it's ADS-B Out options. When another manufacturer has a usable 1090ES Out capable transponder suitable for gliders I will mention that as well. Competition for Trig would be great (they might then improve their install documentation).

Grr typo there, Garmin does not have a TSO-C199/TABS GPS source, only Trig does. Garmin has a low-cost "meets TSO-C145c" GPS source, but that does not help you do TABS in a type certified glider... even if it was technicality able to connect to say a VT-01 transponder.

[[email protected]]

I made the mistake on the Air Avionics Transponder.

The VT-01 is NOT capable of either a SIL=1 or SIL=3 output. Therefore while it can send an ADS-B “message�, ALL USA ATC or certified ADS-B IN receivers will simply ignore the message. As such, you’re basically invisible. Not much good there....

THE solution is Trig TT22 with a TN72 GPS if you are experimental. Certified and your best choice is TT22 and TN70 GPS.

I recently completed my TT22/TN72 installation with SIL=3 and have checked my FAA report showing no errors.

Richard at craggyaero.com had the stuff in stock and provided additional help with the setup process.

[[email protected]]

> My message for a long time has been: If you fly near areas of dense airliners, fast jets and military traffic, just get a transponder, Mode S or used Mode C does not matter... get what you can afford.
>

This seems logical, but I heard another corner case where might not be so.

I sat in a presentation from our local Approach Control folks. They noted that with the new ADSB ground stations they had better visibility than from their existing radar plus ModeC. Specifically, low and far out. This like it might permit them to route controlled traffic in new places where gliders are, but where a Mode C transponder on the glider might not help.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:25:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > My message for a long time has been: If you fly near areas of dense airliners, fast jets and military traffic, just get a transponder, Mode S or used Mode C does not matter... get what you can afford.
> >
>
> This seems logical, but I heard another corner case where might not be so..
>
> I sat in a presentation from our local Approach Control folks. They noted that with the new ADSB ground stations they had better visibility than from their existing radar plus ModeC. Specifically, low and far out. This like it might permit them to route controlled traffic in new places where gliders are, but where a Mode C transponder on the glider might not help.

You need to do a bit more thinking about the flaws in your logic here.

A transponder provides visibility to TCAS and IFF systems in airliners, fast jets and (some) military traffic...

If ATC was about to do this, and direct traffic towards areas where gliders are it is more reason to want to have a transponder.

If in this scenario you also wanted ADS-B out, then a Mode S transponder is the way to go. I hope you spoke up and talked about gliders in the area and what they are or are not equipped with. I'd have possibly also pointed out the Chicago 737-glider NMAC last year as an example....

[Craig Reinholt]

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:25:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > My message for a long time has been: If you fly near areas of dense airliners, fast jets and military traffic, just get a transponder, Mode S or used Mode C does not matter... get what you can afford.
> >
>
> This seems logical, but I heard another corner case where might not be so..
>
> I sat in a presentation from our local Approach Control folks. They noted that with the new ADSB ground stations they had better visibility than from their existing radar plus ModeC. Specifically, low and far out. This like it might permit them to route controlled traffic in new places where gliders are, but where a Mode C transponder on the glider might not help.

Unfortunately, what the Approach Control folks failed to mention that their software removes targets of anything less than 70 mph ground speed. This is to remove the clutter from highway traffic. It also removes most gliders unless we have electronic identification measures. YMMV with each approach personnel. PDX was pretty clueless about gliders and their senior controller didn't know what the 1202 transponder frequency identified. They have since programed 1202 to print "glider" on their screen.
Craig

[Ron Gleason]

On Sunday, 6 May 2018 09:12:34 UTC-6, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:25:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > My message for a long time has been: If you fly near areas of dense airliners, fast jets and military traffic, just get a transponder, Mode S or used Mode C does not matter... get what you can afford.
> > >
> >
> > This seems logical, but I heard another corner case where might not be so.
> >
> > I sat in a presentation from our local Approach Control folks. They noted that with the new ADSB ground stations they had better visibility than from their existing radar plus ModeC. Specifically, low and far out. This like it might permit them to route controlled traffic in new places where gliders are, but where a Mode C transponder on the glider might not help.
>
> Unfortunately, what the Approach Control folks failed to mention that their software removes targets of anything less than 70 mph ground speed. This is to remove the clutter from highway traffic. It also removes most gliders unless we have electronic identification measures. YMMV with each approach personnel. PDX was pretty clueless about gliders and their senior controller didn't know what the 1202 transponder frequency identified. They have since programed 1202 to print "glider" on their screen.
> Craig

Salt Lake City Approach and Center has implemented the same, GLDR appears on the screen when a 1202 squawk code is received.

The Utah Soaring Association has a great relationship with SLC ATC and Center for general glider flying and during events at Nephi and Logan. I highly recommend you contact the ATC and sit down with, explain where and when you fly and educate them. They want to be informed and eliminate surprises.

Ron Gleason

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:12:34 AM UTC-7, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:25:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > My message for a long time has been: If you fly near areas of dense airliners, fast jets and military traffic, just get a transponder, Mode S or used Mode C does not matter... get what you can afford.
> > >
> >
> > This seems logical, but I heard another corner case where might not be so.
> >
> > I sat in a presentation from our local Approach Control folks. They noted that with the new ADSB ground stations they had better visibility than from their existing radar plus ModeC. Specifically, low and far out. This like it might permit them to route controlled traffic in new places where gliders are, but where a Mode C transponder on the glider might not help.
>
> Unfortunately, what the Approach Control folks failed to mention that their software removes targets of anything less than 70 mph ground speed. This is to remove the clutter from highway traffic. It also removes most gliders unless we have electronic identification measures. YMMV with each approach personnel. PDX was pretty clueless about gliders and their senior controller didn't know what the 1202 transponder frequency identified. They have since programed 1202 to print "glider" on their screen.
> Craig

And to be very clear on what Craig is saying, he is talking about primary radar doppler discriminators filtering slow moving aircraft so they are not seen on ATC primary radar, this is *not* SSR (Secondary Surveillance Radar) that detects transponders. If your glider has a transponder it will be seen by ATC via SSR any time it is within SSR coverage, independent of airspeed.

I have to say this because I know there is still confusion out there, including hearing people get this completely backwards and claim that this filtering is an issue with transponders, it's not... its a reason why you want a transponder.

[Craig Reinholt]

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:42:20 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:12:34 AM UTC-7, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:25:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > > My message for a long time has been: If you fly near areas of dense airliners, fast jets and military traffic, just get a transponder, Mode S or used Mode C does not matter... get what you can afford.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This seems logical, but I heard another corner case where might not be so.
> > >
> > > I sat in a presentation from our local Approach Control folks. They noted that with the new ADSB ground stations they had better visibility than from their existing radar plus ModeC. Specifically, low and far out. This like it might permit them to route controlled traffic in new places where gliders are, but where a Mode C transponder on the glider might not help.
> >
> > Unfortunately, what the Approach Control folks failed to mention that their software removes targets of anything less than 70 mph ground speed. This is to remove the clutter from highway traffic. It also removes most gliders unless we have electronic identification measures. YMMV with each approach personnel. PDX was pretty clueless about gliders and their senior controller didn't know what the 1202 transponder frequency identified. They have since programed 1202 to print "glider" on their screen.
> > Craig
>
> And to be very clear on what Craig is saying, he is talking about primary radar doppler discriminators filtering slow moving aircraft so they are not seen on ATC primary radar, this is *not* SSR (Secondary Surveillance Radar) that detects transponders. If your glider has a transponder it will be seen by ATC via SSR any time it is within SSR coverage, independent of airspeed.
>
> I have to say this because I know there is still confusion out there, including hearing people get this completely backwards and claim that this filtering is an issue with transponders, it's not... its a reason why you want a transponder.

Aaak! Sorry for not being clear on my post. What Darryl said!