FLARM Fusion Range

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Hi guys,

I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.

Thanks,

Matt Herron


PastedGraphic-4.tiff

PastedGraphic-1.tiff

PastedGraphic-2.tiff

[Ramy[_2_]]

Matt,

I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.

Ramy

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt Herron
>
>
> PastedGraphic-4.tiff
>
> PastedGraphic-1.tiff
>
> PastedGraphic-2.tiff

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Fair enough, but there were 5-6 gliders in the air, including you. I thermaled with many of them in the same thermal.

Matt

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> Matt,
>
> I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.
>
> Ramy
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Matt Herron
> >
> >
> > PastedGraphic-4.tiff
> >
> > PastedGraphic-1.tiff
> >
> > PastedGraphic-2.tiff

[David Leonard]

You might want to check the ktrax site that does a FLARM transmit range
analysis using OGN receivers, like the one at Williams. The most recent
report for your glider (at least it might be your glider, if not put in
the correct ICAO code) shows better than average transmit range:

https://ktrax.kisstech.ch/plot?device=A7D668

If your transmit range is good but receive range is bad, you might have
an RF noise maker on board jamming your receiver. Or there could be a
lot of interference from ground transmitters causing you range
degradation. Last time I was at Hobbs, 2019, my FLARM receive range
dropped showing mostly less than 1.5 miles. Out at Nephi the next week
it was up to about 6 miles with no changes other than a lot of driving.
I found a bunch of IGC files from other gliders from those two weeks
that had FLARM data in them that showed even worse while at Hobbs (< 1
mile) and a complete recovery to normal later in the season at other
sites. Kind of deceiving when a lot of gliders had ADS-B and very long
range on the display, but the tip off was how many gliders did not show
up at all until entering the same thermal.

-Dave

On 4/20/2021 4:17 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> Fair enough, but there were 5-6 gliders in the air, including you. I thermaled with many of them in the same thermal.
>
> Matt
>
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>> I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.
>>
>> Ramy
>> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Matt Herron
>>>
>>>
>>> PastedGraphic-4.tiff
>>>
>>> PastedGraphic-1.tiff
>>>
>>> PastedGraphic-2.tiff

[Matt Herron Jr.]

You make a lot of sense Dave. Thanks for the analysis and link. Interference might explain the lopsided reception as well. I have a ferrite sampler kit, but not much experience killing noise in a meaningful systematic way (M.E., not E.E.). I know switching power supplies are a common offender. Any other suggestions from RAS? I have a scope if that helps...

Matt

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 5:41:32 PM UTC-7, Dave Leonard wrote:
> You might want to check the ktrax site that does a FLARM transmit range
> analysis using OGN receivers, like the one at Williams. The most recent
> report for your glider (at least it might be your glider, if not put in
> the correct ICAO code) shows better than average transmit range:
>
> https://ktrax.kisstech.ch/plot?device=A7D668
>
> If your transmit range is good but receive range is bad, you might have
> an RF noise maker on board jamming your receiver. Or there could be a
> lot of interference from ground transmitters causing you range
> degradation. Last time I was at Hobbs, 2019, my FLARM receive range
> dropped showing mostly less than 1.5 miles. Out at Nephi the next week
> it was up to about 6 miles with no changes other than a lot of driving.
> I found a bunch of IGC files from other gliders from those two weeks
> that had FLARM data in them that showed even worse while at Hobbs (< 1
> mile) and a complete recovery to normal later in the season at other
> sites. Kind of deceiving when a lot of gliders had ADS-B and very long
> range on the display, but the tip off was how many gliders did not show
> up at all until entering the same thermal.
>
> -Dave
> On 4/20/2021 4:17 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > Fair enough, but there were 5-6 gliders in the air, including you. I thermaled with many of them in the same thermal.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> >> Matt,
> >>
> >> I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.
> >>
> >> Ramy
> >> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> >>> Hi guys,
> >>>
> >>> I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results.. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Matt Herron
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> PastedGraphic-4.tiff
> >>>
> >>> PastedGraphic-1.tiff
> >>>
> >>> PastedGraphic-2.tiff

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 9:16:13 PM UTC-4, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> You make a lot of sense Dave. Thanks for the analysis and link. Interference might explain the lopsided reception as well. I have a ferrite sampler kit, but not much experience killing noise in a meaningful systematic way (M.E., not E.E.). I know switching power supplies are a common offender. Any other suggestions from RAS? I have a scope if that helps...
>
> Matt
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 5:41:32 PM UTC-7, Dave Leonard wrote:
> > You might want to check the ktrax site that does a FLARM transmit range
> > analysis using OGN receivers, like the one at Williams. The most recent
> > report for your glider (at least it might be your glider, if not put in
> > the correct ICAO code) shows better than average transmit range:
> >
> > https://ktrax.kisstech.ch/plot?device=A7D668

The CORE (I assume the same on Fusion) GPS, on the 9 club PowerFLARMs I maintain, and my own, are usually showing 1.0 m average GPS accuracy in KTrax; yours is 2.3m. Perhaps GPS interference is part of the problem? Maybe swap with another Fusion GPS or CORE owner to see if the GPS accuracy moves to the other glider, or move the GPS until its accuracy improves, then see how the ranges are?

Dan
snow tomorrow - yay

[George Haeh]

I get great results from my Core 1.1 with antennas mounted on the canopy sides of my ASW-27.

I'm not able to view the tiff files. Any hints on viewing these files from https://groups.google.com/g/rec.aviation.soaring?

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 18:16:11 -0700, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:

> You make a lot of sense Dave. Thanks for the analysis and link.
> Interference might explain the lopsided reception as well. I have a
> ferrite sampler kit, but not much experience killing noise in a
> meaningful systematic way (M.E., not E.E.). I know switching power
> supplies are a common offender. Any other suggestions from RAS? I have
> a scope if that helps...
>
Put switch mode power supplies in a metal box rather than a plastic one.
Clip ferrite chokes round lines connected to the box if you're really
keen. Both items are available from electronic parts sources. Some
plastic boxes have a metal lining: these work too and are cheaper/lighter/
easier to drill holes in than metal ones.

Works for me, anyway.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Richard Livingston]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 8:16:13 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> You make a lot of sense Dave. Thanks for the analysis and link. Interference might explain the lopsided reception as well. I have a ferrite sampler kit, but not much experience killing noise in a meaningful systematic way (M.E., not E.E.). I know switching power supplies are a common offender. Any other suggestions from RAS? I have a scope if that helps...
>
> Matt
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 5:41:32 PM UTC-7, Dave Leonard wrote:
> > You might want to check the ktrax site that does a FLARM transmit range
> > analysis using OGN receivers, like the one at Williams. The most recent
> > report for your glider (at least it might be your glider, if not put in
> > the correct ICAO code) shows better than average transmit range:
> >
> > https://ktrax.kisstech.ch/plot?device=A7D668
> >
> > If your transmit range is good but receive range is bad, you might have
> > an RF noise maker on board jamming your receiver. Or there could be a
> > lot of interference from ground transmitters causing you range
> > degradation. Last time I was at Hobbs, 2019, my FLARM receive range
> > dropped showing mostly less than 1.5 miles. Out at Nephi the next week
> > it was up to about 6 miles with no changes other than a lot of driving.
> > I found a bunch of IGC files from other gliders from those two weeks
> > that had FLARM data in them that showed even worse while at Hobbs (< 1
> > mile) and a complete recovery to normal later in the season at other
> > sites. Kind of deceiving when a lot of gliders had ADS-B and very long
> > range on the display, but the tip off was how many gliders did not show
> > up at all until entering the same thermal.
> >
> > -Dave
> > On 4/20/2021 4:17 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > > Fair enough, but there were 5-6 gliders in the air, including you. I thermaled with many of them in the same thermal.
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> > >> Matt,
> > >>
> > >> I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.
> > >>
> > >> Ramy
> > >> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > >>> Hi guys,
> > >>>
> > >>> I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Matt Herron
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> PastedGraphic-4.tiff
> > >>>
> > >>> PastedGraphic-1.tiff
> > >>>
> > >>> PastedGraphic-2.tiff
Matt,

A scope is not likely to help unless an exceptionally fast one. These signals are at 1 GHz.

I can't see your photos on Google Groups. Make sure the antennas are clear of any other objects, including the canopy plastic, especially the ends. Make sure there are no nearby metal objects aligned with the antenna as these will reflect the signal and can cause interference. Check the antenna cable for crimps, these can cause reflections that can seriously degrade the reception. Finally, verify that the antennas are tuned to the correct frequency (902 to 928 MHz in North America).

As for in-cockpit interference, that can be quite difficult to track down and cure. Most commercial instruments are probably safe to assume are OK. Additional commercial items like an iPad, Oudie, cell phone, etc. are possible but unlikely and can be more difficult (Oudie interference on COMM frequencies is a known issue, but I haven't heard of FLARM or ADSB interference from these devices). If you have something like a 12v USB port adapter I would be suspicious of that. Try disconnecting it and see if the situation improves. I've had little luck with ferrite beads because at these frequencies the PCBs themselves can radiate very well, bypassing the wires and beads.

Good luck,

Rich L.

[Richard Livingston]

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 8:32:08 AM UTC-5, Richard Livingston wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 8:16:13 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > You make a lot of sense Dave. Thanks for the analysis and link. Interference might explain the lopsided reception as well. I have a ferrite sampler kit, but not much experience killing noise in a meaningful systematic way (M.E., not E.E.). I know switching power supplies are a common offender. Any other suggestions from RAS? I have a scope if that helps...
> >
> > Matt
> > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 5:41:32 PM UTC-7, Dave Leonard wrote:
> > > You might want to check the ktrax site that does a FLARM transmit range
> > > analysis using OGN receivers, like the one at Williams. The most recent
> > > report for your glider (at least it might be your glider, if not put in
> > > the correct ICAO code) shows better than average transmit range:
> > >
> > > https://ktrax.kisstech.ch/plot?device=A7D668
> > >
> > > If your transmit range is good but receive range is bad, you might have
> > > an RF noise maker on board jamming your receiver. Or there could be a
> > > lot of interference from ground transmitters causing you range
> > > degradation. Last time I was at Hobbs, 2019, my FLARM receive range
> > > dropped showing mostly less than 1.5 miles. Out at Nephi the next week
> > > it was up to about 6 miles with no changes other than a lot of driving.
> > > I found a bunch of IGC files from other gliders from those two weeks
> > > that had FLARM data in them that showed even worse while at Hobbs (< 1
> > > mile) and a complete recovery to normal later in the season at other
> > > sites. Kind of deceiving when a lot of gliders had ADS-B and very long
> > > range on the display, but the tip off was how many gliders did not show
> > > up at all until entering the same thermal.
> > >
> > > -Dave
> > > On 4/20/2021 4:17 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > > > Fair enough, but there were 5-6 gliders in the air, including you. I thermaled with many of them in the same thermal.
> > > >
> > > > Matt
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> > > >> Matt,
> > > >>
> > > >> I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ramy
> > > >> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > > >>> Hi guys,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Matt Herron
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> PastedGraphic-4.tiff
> > > >>>
> > > >>> PastedGraphic-1.tiff
> > > >>>
> > > >>> PastedGraphic-2.tiff
Matt,

One last comment: Make sure the SMA connectors on the FLARM unit are tight.. A loose connector can have significant loss.

Rich L.

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Thanks for the suggestions Rich.

The tops of the dipoles are very close to the canopy plex (by design) and I think one is even touching. How would the non conducting canopy hurt the signal? I think the frame of the canopy is Kevlar/Carbon (anyone know?) Could that cause reflection/interference? Wouldn't it also hurt transmission as well? (which seems to be fine).

[Richard Pfiffner[_2_]]

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 7:49:56 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions Rich.
>
> The tops of the dipoles are very close to the canopy plex (by design) and I think one is even touching. How would the non conducting canopy hurt the signal? I think the frame of the canopy is Kevlar/Carbon (anyone know?) Could that cause reflection/interference? Wouldn't it also hurt transmission as well? (which seems to be fine).

Matt,

Some antenna comments from the Fusion Installation Manual
Ensure that the antennas are not in contact with or close to any other object through which there might be an electrostatic discharge, e.g. the canopy.. When two FLARM antennas are installed, ensure that they are at least 30 cm apart.

The antennas must be mounted vertically since the radio waves are vertically polarized (this is unrelated to the radiation pattern). Up to 15° tilt is normally acceptable.
The antennas must be insulated to protect against electrostatic discharges, e.g. from the human body. Otherwise, the device may be damaged.
When utilizing antenna diversity, ensure that the antennas complement each other in terms of the radiation pattern (fuselage shielding).
Connecting more than one antenna to one RF Port (e.g. via a passive splitter) is not permitted. This will most likely result in signals cancelling themselves out and/or severely degraded range.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[George Haeh]

"The tops of the dipoles are very close to the canopy plex (by design) and I think one is even touching"

Matt, that's a big NO-NO.

I mount my antennas with a (little) finger thickness between the tips and the canopy, which requires a ½" thick block or support between the middle of the antenna and the canopy.

Contact between the antenna tip and canopy tip can damage your unit.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt Herron
>
>
> PastedGraphic-4.tiff
>
> PastedGraphic-1.tiff
>
> PastedGraphic-2.tiff

You can't past images to Google groups, or USENET like this. Can you share the image somewhere, like Google Drive and provide a link to them (and in jpg not TIFF?).

And to be clear you are talking FLARM A and FLARM B antennas? Where is your 1090 MHz antenna?

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Hi Darryl,

Here is a link to the pix. Sadly they are TIFFs: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dhe9415hdmlbza2/AACGQrloyRRG92ZB5VFoQ9eMa?dl=0
Yes, I am talking FLARM A, and B. ADS-B is dead center up high under the glare shield and seems to be working fine. you can find a recent FAA report there as well.

Matt



On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 3:20:17 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Matt Herron
> >
> >
> > PastedGraphic-4.tiff
> >
> > PastedGraphic-1.tiff
> >
> > PastedGraphic-2.tiff
> You can't past images to Google groups, or USENET like this. Can you share the image somewhere, like Google Drive and provide a link to them (and in jpg not TIFF?).
>
> And to be clear you are talking FLARM A and FLARM B antennas? Where is your 1090 MHz antenna?

[Richard Livingston]

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 12:25:49 AM UTC-5, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> Hi Darryl,
>
> Here is a link to the pix. Sadly they are TIFFs: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dhe9415hdmlbza2/AACGQrloyRRG92ZB5VFoQ9eMa?dl=0
> Yes, I am talking FLARM A, and B. ADS-B is dead center up high under the glare shield and seems to be working fine. you can find a recent FAA report there as well.
>
> Matt
> On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 3:20:17 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results.. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Matt Herron
> > >
> > >
> > > PastedGraphic-4.tiff
> > >
> > > PastedGraphic-1.tiff
> > >
> > > PastedGraphic-2.tiff
> > You can't past images to Google groups, or USENET like this. Can you share the image somewhere, like Google Drive and provide a link to them (and in jpg not TIFF?).
> >
> > And to be clear you are talking FLARM A and FLARM B antennas? Where is your 1090 MHz antenna?
Matt,

I'm looking at picture 2 and have a couple of concerns:
-The antenna is not shown in the mounting bracket, but from picture 3 it seems certain that the lower arm would be very close and probably touching the fiberglass frame of the canopy. The upper arm is very likely close or touching the canopy itself.
-If the canopy frame is carbon, mounting so close would definitely affect performance, probably severely.

Even though the plexiglass or polycarbonate canopy is not conducting, they both have a higher dielectric constant than air and will definitely affect the tuning of the antenna. Most likely tuning it to a lower frequency than intended. The suggestion to use a wood mounting block to space the antenna away from the mounting surface is a good idea. I'd suggest trying to move it somewhere where there is at least an inch or two air around the antenna (especially the ends of the arms, the mounting bracket is OK as long as it is only near the middle).

I can't say for sure this will fix your problem. The RF design of these systems assume a considerable amount of attenuation from things like this, but if there is too much attenuation you will definitely see unacceptable range. I would also check the cable for crimps and loose SMA connectors.

Rich L.

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Hi Rich,

You are correct in that the lower portion of the antenna gets very close to the canopy frame. The upper portion does as well. This was done to get as much forward and rearward view for the antenna as possible. I believe moving the antennas inboard 1-2 inches would really hurt my front range, which is important of course. The fact that one antenna is performing much better in range than the other can't be ignored, and leads me to suspect some other root cause than placement. BTW, the system performs better than average in transmission (according to OGN). Is there a way to measure attenuation?

Cable crimps are good, and SMA connections are tight.

> Matt,
>
> I'm looking at picture 2 and have a couple of concerns:
> -The antenna is not shown in the mounting bracket, but from picture 3 it seems certain that the lower arm would be very close and probably touching the fiberglass frame of the canopy. The upper arm is very likely close or touching the canopy itself.
> -If the canopy frame is carbon, mounting so close would definitely affect performance, probably severely.
>
> Even though the plexiglass or polycarbonate canopy is not conducting, they both have a higher dielectric constant than air and will definitely affect the tuning of the antenna. Most likely tuning it to a lower frequency than intended. The suggestion to use a wood mounting block to space the antenna away from the mounting surface is a good idea. I'd suggest trying to move it somewhere where there is at least an inch or two air around the antenna (especially the ends of the arms, the mounting bracket is OK as long as it is only near the middle).
>
> I can't say for sure this will fix your problem. The RF design of these systems assume a considerable amount of attenuation from things like this, but if there is too much attenuation you will definitely see unacceptable range. I would also check the cable for crimps and loose SMA connectors.
>
> Rich L.

[Richard Pfiffner[_2_]]

Matt,

Are you sure the that the Black Mount ABS does not have carbon for a colorant?

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Richard Pfiffner[_2_]]

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:29:43 AM UTC-7, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Are you sure the that the Black Mount ABS does not have carbon for a colorant?
>
> Richard
> www.craggyaero.com

Matt,

I suspect that the colorant in ABS is carbon black.
Make sure there is little to no carbon content, which would seriously alter antenna and system performance. BLACK anything -- including plastics -- is usually the worst, as they often have high carbon content. Think of applying black paint with carbon in it as applying very thin, black tin foil. Would you do that? Of course not. It would be both a shield and reflector, both of which are bad for the antenna (shield), the system connected to it (reflected power, VSWR, etc.), not to mention system performance.

[Richard Pfiffner[_2_]]

Matt

I suspect that the colorant in ABS is carbon black.

Make sure there is little to no carbon content, which would seriously alter antenna and system performance. BLACK anything -- including plastics -- is usually the worst, as they often have high carbon content. Think of applying black paint with carbon in it as applying very thin, black tin foil. Would you do that? Of course not. It would be both a shield and reflector, both of which are bad for the antenna (shield), the system connected to it (reflected power, VSWR, etc.), not to mention system performance.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

Have you tried swapping the two antennas? If the bad performance moves, you have a bad antenna or a bad mount. I have seen two antenna failures in my club; one a club glider, one a privately-owned glider. If you have an OGN receiver nearby, you can use "Glidertracker" to see your received power at the antennna (this is how I diagnose bad FLARMs, and also use a known good antenna to test the antennas); (click on your glider icon, a window pops up showing info including received signal strength at the receiver. In each failure, the power at our OGN station was 20 db lower on the bad antennas (OEM), about 50m away). I have saved shipping two FLARMs for unnecessary diagnosis by discovering bad antennas. Antennas are cheap, and they sometimes arrive dead, or break, particularly if they are often touched/handled/'twanged'. Link for Glidertracker is https://glidertracker.org/#lat=1105585&lon=6428048&z=5 . You can zoom it to your area. OGN stations are inexpensive and very useful for crew wondering how their pilot is doing.

[George Haeh]

I use long antennas ($20 each) on foam blocks:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/tg8GHbnkDu3Lj7t78

Range:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12rMOFICmO5Lvx-0XU1ksUd0kEbeIeb1Z/view?usp=drivesdk

Installing a short antenna next to a conductive item about the size of the antenna can interfere with the antenna performance. I attached a short antenna diagonally on a steel tube in a towplane and got abysmal performance.

[George Haeh]

Oh yes,

Looking at your antenna in the bracket, the lead runs parallel to the antenna when it should run at a 90° angle directly away from the dipole.

You really need to carefully read: FTD-041Â*Application Note FLARM Antenna Installation

https://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/man/FTD-041-Application-Note-FLARM-Antenna-Installation.pdf

[Darryl Ramm]

Matt

Well since there is a PAPR report sitting there I'll bite.

Not that this will cause any FLARM antenna performance issues, but you need to get that ADS-B Out system performing correctly. Seems to be set up for 2020 (aka 14 CFR §91.227) compliance. Is this a TN72 GPS and a Trig TT22? It is not reporting altitudes correctly. It is totally useless as is, the FAA system is ignoring you, not making the glider a TIS-B client for example. And this system would not give you any ADS-B Out airspace privileges.. You are a candidate for a friendly FAA "she not be working, please explain" letter.

Start with what is the firmware version of this transponder and control head. Shown briefly on the LCD screen as the TT22 powers on... take a photo.

The minimal firmware version to support 14 CFR §91.227 compliance is transponder version 2.12 and TC20 Control Head version 1.14. The system must be at least at these levels. Older versions absolutely will not work. There is no advantage at being on transponder software version 2.13, ugt it's fine if you are. Oh and these are simple counting numbers after the decimal point, so say 2.4 is not 2.40 and is not later than 2.12 (this has confused at least two folks recently).

Is the ships static correctly connected to the TC20 control head? Had the transponder passed its biannual tests, including static/alt encoder checks? (and sure as heck, don't normally mess with the alt calibrations in the TT22 ADS-B setup menus). You can email me offline if stuck, there may be another local glider showing similar issues I am helping look at.

---

As for the FLARM antennas, touching the canopy/static concerns are extremely unlikely to be relevant. regardless of what the manual says. As folks have pointed out... get that coax away from the dipole arms, that is a bad setup. If plastic is RF opaque aslo as pointed out that will not be good. I would try just tapping the antennas (and coax lead) on the inside of the canopy and testing.

This may not be a very good location, You are close to metal components, rods, handles in the canopy mechanisms, wishing the RF near field which can significantly affect RF patterns. May be close to carbon in the fuselage canopy edge, even if the canopy frame has itself is RF opaque etc. There are likely no great choices for location, up on the instrument cover area is a conflict between ADS-B GPS antenna sky view, FLARM A and 1090ES so may not be much better. But you are really messing this up now with the coax running close parallel to the antenna. Lets see what the pattern looks like when you undo that.

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 10:25:49 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> Hi Darryl,
>
> Here is a link to the pix. Sadly they are TIFFs: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dhe9415hdmlbza2/AACGQrloyRRG92ZB5VFoQ9eMa?dl=0
> Yes, I am talking FLARM A, and B. ADS-B is dead center up high under the glare shield and seems to be working fine. you can find a recent FAA report there as well.
>
> Matt
> On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 3:20:17 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results.. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Matt Herron
> > >
> > >
> > > PastedGraphic-4.tiff
> > >
> > > PastedGraphic-1.tiff
> > >
> > > PastedGraphic-2.tiff
> > You can't past images to Google groups, or USENET like this. Can you share the image somewhere, like Google Drive and provide a link to them (and in jpg not TIFF?).
> >
> > And to be clear you are talking FLARM A and FLARM B antennas? Where is your 1090 MHz antenna?

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Hi Darryl

Thanks for the ADS-B heads up. I checked the software, and it is at V2.12, FPGA v1.2 The controller is V1.14 so there must be some other problem. You helped me configure the system in the past, to the point where I got a passing grade from the FAA. So something else must have changed. Thoughts? Bad GPS antenna? (seems unlikely) Interference from other equipment? The only change to the panel has been replacing the PFlarm with a Fusion (including GPS antenna).

Matt

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:48:30 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Matt
>
> Well since there is a PAPR report sitting there I'll bite.
>
> Not that this will cause any FLARM antenna performance issues, but you need to get that ADS-B Out system performing correctly. Seems to be set up for 2020 (aka 14 CFR §91.227) compliance. Is this a TN72 GPS and a Trig TT22? It is not reporting altitudes correctly. It is totally useless as is, the FAA system is ignoring you, not making the glider a TIS-B client for example. And this system would not give you any ADS-B Out airspace privileges. You are a candidate for a friendly FAA "she not be working, please explain" letter.
>
> Start with what is the firmware version of this transponder and control head. Shown briefly on the LCD screen as the TT22 powers on... take a photo.
>
> The minimal firmware version to support 14 CFR §91.227 compliance is transponder version 2.12 and TC20 Control Head version 1.14. The system must be at least at these levels. Older versions absolutely will not work. There is no advantage at being on transponder software version 2.13, ugt it's fine if you are. Oh and these are simple counting numbers after the decimal point, so say 2.4 is not 2.40 and is not later than 2.12 (this has confused at least two folks recently).
>
> Is the ships static correctly connected to the TC20 control head? Had the transponder passed its biannual tests, including static/alt encoder checks? (and sure as heck, don't normally mess with the alt calibrations in the TT22 ADS-B setup menus). You can email me offline if stuck, there may be another local glider showing similar issues I am helping look at.
>
> ---
>
> As for the FLARM antennas, touching the canopy/static concerns are extremely unlikely to be relevant. regardless of what the manual says. As folks have pointed out... get that coax away from the dipole arms, that is a bad setup. If plastic is RF opaque aslo as pointed out that will not be good. I would try just tapping the antennas (and coax lead) on the inside of the canopy and testing.
>
> This may not be a very good location, You are close to metal components, rods, handles in the canopy mechanisms, wishing the RF near field which can significantly affect RF patterns. May be close to carbon in the fuselage canopy edge, even if the canopy frame has itself is RF opaque etc. There are likely no great choices for location, up on the instrument cover area is a conflict between ADS-B GPS antenna sky view, FLARM A and 1090ES so may not be much better. But you are really messing this up now with the coax running close parallel to the antenna. Lets see what the pattern looks like when you undo that.
> On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 10:25:49 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > Hi Darryl,
> >
> > Here is a link to the pix. Sadly they are TIFFs: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dhe9415hdmlbza2/AACGQrloyRRG92ZB5VFoQ9eMa?dl=0
> > Yes, I am talking FLARM A, and B. ADS-B is dead center up high under the glare shield and seems to be working fine. you can find a recent FAA report there as well.
> >
> > Matt
> > On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 3:20:17 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > > > Hi guys,
> > > >
> > > > I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Matt Herron
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > PastedGraphic-4.tiff
> > > >
> > > > PastedGraphic-1.tiff
> > > >
> > > > PastedGraphic-2.tiff
> > > You can't past images to Google groups, or USENET like this. Can you share the image somewhere, like Google Drive and provide a link to them (and in jpg not TIFF?).
> > >
> > > And to be clear you are talking FLARM A and FLARM B antennas? Where is your 1090 MHz antenna?

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Another thought on ADS-B. I did an annual a month ago, and the seat pan had to come out. The antenna lead runs under it. Crushed coax? Also, to replace the Fusion, I had to unplug the Trig box. I will check for good connection, bent pins etc.

Matt

[Matt Herron Jr.]

All connections and pins look good on the trig setup...

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:41:44 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> Another thought on ADS-B. I did an annual a month ago, and the seat pan had to come out. The antenna lead runs under it. Crushed coax? Also, to replace the Fusion, I had to unplug the Trig box. I will check for good connection, bent pins etc.
>
> Matt

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Interestingly, Andy B (9B) had the same altitude errors on the same day I did. See the report here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yzst4lmpri6iqup/PAPR_20210417_A48072_451948690.pdf?dl=0

Possible GPS TESTING/JAMMNG?

Matt

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:41:44 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> Another thought on ADS-B. I did an annual a month ago, and the seat pan had to come out. The antenna lead runs under it. Crushed coax? Also, to replace the Fusion, I had to unplug the Trig box. I will check for good connection, bent pins etc.
>
> Matt

OK great it's not a firmware version. It's unlikely to be any thing to to with the antenna or transponder/ADS-B Output RF side of things if it was you'd see other failures. And your report is very clean except for 100% failure on the GPS and pressure altitude data.

I forgot I'd helped on your setup before. It's hard to see what will cause GPS Altitude and Pressure Altitude to fail, esp. if nothing has changed. BTW the ADS-B settings are actually stored in the TC20 control head, so if that's ever replaced the settings are lost and need to be redone--but I'm at a loss because there is no config setting that I can think of that could cause both these altitudes to not report. Failing pressure altitude alone might be caused by things like having the pitot connected to the TC20 head static line. And other unrelated problems might explain a GPS Altitude problem.. But regardless of what that does and what the system might interpret is bad with pressure altitude it should still separately transmit the GPS Altitude, they are sent across different position reports, some with pressure alt, some with GPS alt. And it's hard to see how a data wiring problem could cause this but not other issues.

Maybe the easiest thing to is pull an PAPR report for a different recent flight and see if that is also failing. And when the FAA email that to you (or for this one here) just reply to the email and ask for a detailed kmz (Google Earth) and spreadsheet data reports. Eyeballing the data may give clues... although you don't actually see the real raw data, it's all unfortunately processed a bit).

Another simple thing to check is what FL is being shown in the transponder display during flight (or pull a slight vacuum on the static and see the FL climb to just confirm that the transponder encoder in the TC20 head is working at all.

Failing that I'm already looking with Andy at his JS3 which as you noted has some ADS-B Out weirdness also showing GPS Alt and Pressure Alt fails, but also has other issues, and if that turns up anything I'll be in touch.

No, GPS Jamming or anything else related to RF signal will not explain the lack of pressure altitude data. (And GPS jamming would need to be very sophisticated to just trash GPS Altitude, the average idiot with a cheap jammer purchased off EBay can't do anything like this even if hacked with high output power). I'd suspect a fault with say the FAA ground system or PAPR report if multiple aircraft experienced this at the same time... were other gliders with ADS-B Out or TABS flying at the same time... we can pull PAPR reports for them as well. If you reply to the FAA PAPR email and ask for those detailed reports you might mention the altitude failures and how that's difficult to explain and ask if other flights in the area were experiencing GPS Alt and Pressure Alt data problems... those emails seem to be read by humans.

---

Oh the frustrations with ADS-B, nothing today really uses GPS altitude AFAIK -- and this came up recently in the NTSB report on the Ketchikan Alaska fatal mid air collision where pilots did not receive ADS-B traffic collision warning because the ADS-B Out in one aircraft was not getting pressure altitude data, but *was* getting and transmitting GPS altitude data... but the other ADS-B-In completely ignored the GPS Altitude and did not issue a traffic warning. A failure of design, and more a failure of maintenance and company processes, including the basic failure to obtain a PAPR report to validate ADS-B Out is working after maintenance... may not necessarily be required but damn common sense to do so. NTSB info here: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2021-CEN19MA141AB-BMG.aspx. And to show the value of periodically checking with a PAPR report, in this case of Matt's glider if the altitude reporting problems are real we know that no other aircraft are getting ADS-B based traffic alerts from this glider, and ATC is not going to be seeing the glider via ADS-B (and maybe not transponder either) traffic (If this has happened for a while the glider will have been black-listed by the FAA as non-compliant and will be totally ignored).

[Matt Herron Jr.]

ads-b update

I looked at the FAA report for two other pilots that flew out of the Williams area on Friday 4/16, Ramy ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7wgkinoruo4ah4/PAPR_20210416_A831C0_451855266.pdf?dl=0 ) and Peter Deane ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vkprmv4guiqzqo/PAPR_20210416_ACB35C_451857927.pdf?dl=0 ). They both had pretty identical long flights all the way around the top of the valley to Trinity Center and back down the Eastern edge of the valley, then back to Williams. Ramy showed a normal report, while Peter showed 48.01% fail on Baro., and 48.01% on GPS. alt. Why are these two 48.01% numbers identical? Bad ground station for part of the flight? If so why did Ramy have no issues with Baro. or GPS Alt.?

Matt

[Richard Pfiffner[_2_]]

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:51:57 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> ads-b update
>
> I looked at the FAA report for two other pilots that flew out of the Williams area on Friday 4/16, Ramy ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7wgkinoruo4ah4/PAPR_20210416_A831C0_451855266.pdf?dl=0 ) and Peter Deane ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vkprmv4guiqzqo/PAPR_20210416_ACB35C_451857927.pdf?dl=0 ). They both had pretty identical long flights all the way around the top of the valley to Trinity Center and back down the Eastern edge of the valley, then back to Williams. Ramy showed a normal report, while Peter showed 48.01% fail on Baro., and 48.01% on GPS. alt. Why are these two 48.01% numbers identical? Bad ground station for part of the flight? If so why did Ramy have no issues with Baro. or GPS Alt.?
>
> Matt

Matt,

Performance report user guide.
https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRUsersGuide.pdf


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:51:57 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> ads-b update
>
> I looked at the FAA report for two other pilots that flew out of the Williams area on Friday 4/16, Ramy ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7wgkinoruo4ah4/PAPR_20210416_A831C0_451855266.pdf?dl=0 ) and Peter Deane ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vkprmv4guiqzqo/PAPR_20210416_ACB35C_451857927.pdf?dl=0 ). They both had pretty identical long flights all the way around the top of the valley to Trinity Center and back down the Eastern edge of the valley, then back to Williams. Ramy showed a normal report, while Peter showed 48.01% fail on Baro., and 48.01% on GPS. alt. Why are these two 48.01% numbers identical? Bad ground station for part of the flight? If so why did Ramy have no issues with Baro. or GPS Alt.?
>
> Matt

I cannot guess. But as mentioned before getting the detailed kmz and csv data from the FAA might show something. Just email them to me if you have them. Yes it say might be possible that the Willows ADS-B tower has a problem and the Redding one was working fine and Ramy flew in the Redding tower airspace part of that time and the rest of you did not. That would stand out clearly in the detailed reports. I'm happy to follow up with the FAA if it looks like there was a site problem, but the detailed reports would help.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:51:57 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> ads-b update
>
> I looked at the FAA report for two other pilots that flew out of the Williams area on Friday 4/16, Ramy ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7wgkinoruo4ah4/PAPR_20210416_A831C0_451855266.pdf?dl=0 ) and Peter Deane ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vkprmv4guiqzqo/PAPR_20210416_ACB35C_451857927.pdf?dl=0 ). They both had pretty identical long flights all the way around the top of the valley to Trinity Center and back down the Eastern edge of the valley, then back to Williams. Ramy showed a normal report, while Peter showed 48.01% fail on Baro., and 48.01% on GPS. alt. Why are these two 48.01% numbers identical? Bad ground station for part of the flight? If so why did Ramy have no issues with Baro. or GPS Alt.?
>
> Matt

I cannot guess, again detailed kmz and csv reports would help. I also have no idea when/if ever the other glider ADS-B out systems ever passed a PAPR.. Instead of doing this publicity, why don't the glider pilots email me the detailed kmz and csv reports (whoever requested the PAPR reports reply to those FAA PAPR emails asking for the detailed reports). And I can take a look. I have all the detailed reports from Andy already.

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Darryl

I don't have your current email. Please email me at matt (at) digital shorts (dot) com.

MattOn Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 5:07:51 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:51:57 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > ads-b update
> >
> > I looked at the FAA report for two other pilots that flew out of the Williams area on Friday 4/16, Ramy ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7wgkinoruo4ah4/PAPR_20210416_A831C0_451855266.pdf?dl=0 ) and Peter Deane ( https://www..dropbox.com/s/8vkprmv4guiqzqo/PAPR_20210416_ACB35C_451857927.pdf?dl=0 ). They both had pretty identical long flights all the way around the top of the valley to Trinity Center and back down the Eastern edge of the valley, then back to Williams. Ramy showed a normal report, while Peter showed 48.01% fail on Baro., and 48.01% on GPS. alt. Why are these two 48.01% numbers identical? Bad ground station for part of the flight? If so why did Ramy have no issues with Baro. or GPS Alt.?
> >
> > Matt
> I cannot guess, again detailed kmz and csv reports would help. I also have no idea when/if ever the other glider ADS-B out systems ever passed a PAPR. Instead of doing this publicity, why don't the glider pilots email me the detailed kmz and csv reports (whoever requested the PAPR reports reply to those FAA PAPR emails asking for the detailed reports). And I can take a look. I have all the detailed reports from Andy already.

[Semantics Michael]

Just remember, your FLARM doesn't alert you unless you're on a collision course.

https://i.imgur.com/QLpwpVu.gifv

[Ramy[_2_]]

That’s not accurate. Flarm alerts you of any traffic within the range you specify, both visually and audio alerts. It will sound loud alarm only when you are on a collision course. This is not the same as alerting you.. All these can be configured in powerflarm and in the display so make sure you configure your devices correctly. This is not related do the range analysis that Matt is referring to.


Ramy

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 7:53:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Just remember, your FLARM doesn't alert you unless you're on a collision course.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/QLpwpVu.gifv

[Ramy[_2_]]

Those reports rarely come completely clean. My guess it is since we cranking and banking or out of range. Some of my reports came completely clean, some have few red marks but usually less than 1% error so I stopped looking at those. I am only concerned if the failure % is significant. I did find a configuration error once which resulted in 100% failure and I was black listed until I corrected this but never received a letter from the FAA.

Ramy

On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 5:07:51 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:51:57 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > ads-b update
> >
> > I looked at the FAA report for two other pilots that flew out of the Williams area on Friday 4/16, Ramy ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7wgkinoruo4ah4/PAPR_20210416_A831C0_451855266.pdf?dl=0 ) and Peter Deane ( https://www..dropbox.com/s/8vkprmv4guiqzqo/PAPR_20210416_ACB35C_451857927.pdf?dl=0 ). They both had pretty identical long flights all the way around the top of the valley to Trinity Center and back down the Eastern edge of the valley, then back to Williams. Ramy showed a normal report, while Peter showed 48.01% fail on Baro., and 48.01% on GPS. alt. Why are these two 48.01% numbers identical? Bad ground station for part of the flight? If so why did Ramy have no issues with Baro. or GPS Alt.?
> >
> > Matt
> I cannot guess, again detailed kmz and csv reports would help. I also have no idea when/if ever the other glider ADS-B out systems ever passed a PAPR. Instead of doing this publicity, why don't the glider pilots email me the detailed kmz and csv reports (whoever requested the PAPR reports reply to those FAA PAPR emails asking for the detailed reports). And I can take a look. I have all the detailed reports from Andy already.

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Ramy,

How do you find out if you are blacklisted?

Matt

On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 8:43:18 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> Those reports rarely come completely clean. My guess it is since we cranking and banking or out of range. Some of my reports came completely clean, some have few red marks but usually less than 1% error so I stopped looking at those. I am only concerned if the failure % is significant. I did find a configuration error once which resulted in 100% failure and I was black listed until I corrected this but never received a letter from the FAA.
>
> Ramy
> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 5:07:51 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:51:57 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > > ads-b update
> > >
> > > I looked at the FAA report for two other pilots that flew out of the Williams area on Friday 4/16, Ramy ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7wgkinoruo4ah4/PAPR_20210416_A831C0_451855266.pdf?dl=0 ) and Peter Deane ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vkprmv4guiqzqo/PAPR_20210416_ACB35C_451857927.pdf?dl=0 ). They both had pretty identical long flights all the way around the top of the valley to Trinity Center and back down the Eastern edge of the valley, then back to Williams. Ramy showed a normal report, while Peter showed 48..01% fail on Baro., and 48.01% on GPS. alt. Why are these two 48.01% numbers identical? Bad ground station for part of the flight? If so why did Ramy have no issues with Baro. or GPS Alt.?
> > >
> > > Matt
> > I cannot guess, again detailed kmz and csv reports would help. I also have no idea when/if ever the other glider ADS-B out systems ever passed a PAPR. Instead of doing this publicity, why don't the glider pilots email me the detailed kmz and csv reports (whoever requested the PAPR reports reply to those FAA PAPR emails asking for the detailed reports). And I can take a look. I have all the detailed reports from Andy already.

[Dan Marotta]

My first test flight in my Stemme a couple of years ago failed. That
was a 3+ hour flight with a lot of cranking around. The next day I made
a simple race track flight just above 10K' AGL and close to the airport.
After 30 minutes I landed. Passed 100%.

Dan
5J

On 4/25/21 9:43 AM, Ramy wrote:
> Those reports rarely come completely clean. My guess it is since we cranking and banking or out of range. Some of my reports came completely clean, some have few red marks but usually less than 1% error so I stopped looking at those. I am only concerned if the failure % is significant. I did find a configuration error once which resulted in 100% failure and I was black listed until I corrected this but never received a letter from the FAA.
>
> Ramy
>
> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 5:07:51 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:51:57 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
>>> ads-b update
>>>
>>> I looked at the FAA report for two other pilots that flew out of the Williams area on Friday 4/16, Ramy ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7wgkinoruo4ah4/PAPR_20210416_A831C0_451855266.pdf?dl=0 ) and Peter Deane ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vkprmv4guiqzqo/PAPR_20210416_ACB35C_451857927.pdf?dl=0 ). They both had pretty identical long flights all the way around the top of the valley to Trinity Center and back down the Eastern edge of the valley, then back to Williams. Ramy showed a normal report, while Peter showed 48.01% fail on Baro., and 48.01% on GPS. alt. Why are these two 48.01% numbers identical? Bad ground station for part of the flight? If so why did Ramy have no issues with Baro. or GPS Alt.?
>>>
>>> Matt
>> I cannot guess, again detailed kmz and csv reports would help. I also have no idea when/if ever the other glider ADS-B out systems ever passed a PAPR. Instead of doing this publicity, why don't the glider pilots email me the detailed kmz and csv reports (whoever requested the PAPR reports reply to those FAA PAPR emails asking for the detailed reports). And I can take a look. I have all the detailed reports from Andy already.

[Ramy[_2_]]

Matt, it will show up in a clear red comment on top saying something like you are on a no service list. I never received any notification so once I fixed the issue I contacted the FAA with a copy of clean report and after a month or so they removed me from the list.

Ramy

On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 10:01:37 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> Ramy,
>
> How do you find out if you are blacklisted?
>
> Matt
> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 8:43:18 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> > Those reports rarely come completely clean. My guess it is since we cranking and banking or out of range. Some of my reports came completely clean, some have few red marks but usually less than 1% error so I stopped looking at those. I am only concerned if the failure % is significant. I did find a configuration error once which resulted in 100% failure and I was black listed until I corrected this but never received a letter from the FAA.
> >
> > Ramy
> > On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 5:07:51 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:51:57 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > > > ads-b update
> > > >
> > > > I looked at the FAA report for two other pilots that flew out of the Williams area on Friday 4/16, Ramy ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7wgkinoruo4ah4/PAPR_20210416_A831C0_451855266.pdf?dl=0 ) and Peter Deane ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vkprmv4guiqzqo/PAPR_20210416_ACB35C_451857927.pdf?dl=0 ). They both had pretty identical long flights all the way around the top of the valley to Trinity Center and back down the Eastern edge of the valley, then back to Williams. Ramy showed a normal report, while Peter showed 48.01% fail on Baro., and 48.01% on GPS. alt. Why are these two 48.01% numbers identical? Bad ground station for part of the flight? If so why did Ramy have no issues with Baro. or GPS Alt.?
> > > >
> > > > Matt
> > > I cannot guess, again detailed kmz and csv reports would help. I also have no idea when/if ever the other glider ADS-B out systems ever passed a PAPR. Instead of doing this publicity, why don't the glider pilots email me the detailed kmz and csv reports (whoever requested the PAPR reports reply to those FAA PAPR emails asking for the detailed reports). And I can take a look. I have all the detailed reports from Andy already.

[Darryl Ramm]

There is the formal no service list... and there is whether you'll get service even if not on the naughty list (e.g. TIS-B/ADS-R services and wether ATC can see you via ADS-B) at any particular time... with no altitude data being seen by the FAA ADS-B system (whether the transmitter or their side is faulty or not)... you won't be getting service with reports like the one that started this. A clue to that is the 0% TIS-B client stats... near Williams you should be a TIS-B client most of the time. TIS-B client % in the PAPR report is a good stat for folks to look at who are playing with the FLARM ADS-R/TIS-B option... it cuts through all the other junk and just shows whether your glider is actually being treated as an ADS-B service client.

On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 11:35:14 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> Matt, it will show up in a clear red comment on top saying something like you are on a no service list. I never received any notification so once I fixed the issue I contacted the FAA with a copy of clean report and after a month or so they removed me from the list.
>
> Ramy
> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 10:01:37 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > Ramy,
> >
> > How do you find out if you are blacklisted?
> >
> > Matt
> > On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 8:43:18 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> > > Those reports rarely come completely clean. My guess it is since we cranking and banking or out of range. Some of my reports came completely clean, some have few red marks but usually less than 1% error so I stopped looking at those. I am only concerned if the failure % is significant. I did find a configuration error once which resulted in 100% failure and I was black listed until I corrected this but never received a letter from the FAA.
> > >
> > > Ramy
> > > On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 5:07:51 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:51:57 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> > > > > ads-b update
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked at the FAA report for two other pilots that flew out of the Williams area on Friday 4/16, Ramy ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7wgkinoruo4ah4/PAPR_20210416_A831C0_451855266.pdf?dl=0 ) and Peter Deane ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vkprmv4guiqzqo/PAPR_20210416_ACB35C_451857927.pdf?dl=0 ). They both had pretty identical long flights all the way around the top of the valley to Trinity Center and back down the Eastern edge of the valley, then back to Williams. Ramy showed a normal report, while Peter showed 48.01% fail on Baro., and 48.01% on GPS. alt. Why are these two 48.01% numbers identical? Bad ground station for part of the flight? If so why did Ramy have no issues with Baro. or GPS Alt.?
> > > > >
> > > > > Matt
> > > > I cannot guess, again detailed kmz and csv reports would help. I also have no idea when/if ever the other glider ADS-B out systems ever passed a PAPR. Instead of doing this publicity, why don't the glider pilots email me the detailed kmz and csv reports (whoever requested the PAPR reports reply to those FAA PAPR emails asking for the detailed reports). And I can take a look. I have all the detailed reports from Andy already.