Flarm in the US this summer

[Ramy]

I don't recall seeing this mentioned here but apparently Flarms are
now available in the US.
See discussion on Williams Forum:
http://www.soaringnet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2404

From Rex Mayes:

We would like to examine the level of interest in using FLARM in
gliders flying at WSC to improve safety with collision avoidance
technology.

Learn about FLARM.

http://www.flarm.org/index_en.html

Flarm is being introduced to the US market this Summer. It is an $800
alternative to a $3000+ transponder/ PCAS system.

The downside is that Flarm will only interact with other flarm units.
It will not see tansponder signals. Tcas and Pcas will not see Flarm
so it does not solve Glider/ GA or Glider/ airliner conflicts.

Flarm does however help with the more likely event of Glider to Glider
mid air potential in gaggle flying or ridge soaring on the Whites and
the great convergence of the Mendos.

Flarm also offers the ability to see what other gliders are doing. It
will locate a glider and indicate that gliders rate of climb. Thus
possibly reducing the need to query another pilot on the radio as
often.

Flarm also has IGC approved flight recording capability.

We have been following the development of FLARM since our visit to the
AERO in 2005. Since then, it has become mandatory in several countries
and in many others, it is widely used and encouraged. We think it is
time for all glider pilots to consider their traffic collision
exposure and what they are doing to mitigate it.

We are not convinced that FLARM is the answer but we are considering
installing FLARM in the WSC Fleet including towplanes.

It only makes sense to install FLARM if everybody does it.

Please take time to learn about FLARM and let WSC know your opinion
either on this forum or privately to .

We are very interested in hearing from every pilot who flies in this
region.

Thanks for reading this and for your careful consideration.

Rex Mayes and the Staff at Williams Soaring Center

[Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:
> I don't recall seeing this mentioned here but apparently Flarms are
> now available in the US.
> See discussion on Williams Forum:
> http://www.soaringnet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2404
>
> From Rex Mayes:
>
> We would like to examine the level of interest in using FLARM in
> gliders flying at WSC to improve safety with collision avoidance
> technology.
>
> Learn about FLARM.
>
> http://www.flarm.org/index_en.html
>
> Flarm is being introduced to the US market this Summer. It is an $800
> alternative to a $3000+ transponder/ PCAS system.
>
> The downside is that Flarm will only interact with other flarm units.
> It will not see tansponder signals. Tcas and Pcas will not see Flarm
> so it does not solve Glider/ GA or Glider/ airliner conflicts.

I think promoting it as an IGC recorder with collision avoidance
technology would be an easy sell to pilots that want an IGC recorder.
For $800, you are getting the avoidance capability almost free.

Still, that would make it's installation in gliders go at a slow pace,
since so many of us already have IGC recorders. Personally, I have no
interest in one unless I were to fly at a very busy glider area like
Minden (I already have an IGC recorder, transponder, and PCAS). Perhaps
the commercial soaring operators and clubs in those areas could rent
FLARMS to visiting pilots, even make them mandatory for getting a tow.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Mike Schumann]

FLARM is a major distraction in the US for people who are concerned about
collision avoidance. Unlike Europe, the biggest threat to gliders in the US
is other VFR or IFR traffic. If you want to upgrade your glider to minimize
these threats, you need to use a technology that is compatible with the US
ATC system; either conventional transponders and/or PCAS systems or
hopefully in the not too distant future ADS-B.

Mike Schumann

"Ramy" > wrote in message
...
>I don't recall seeing this mentioned here but apparently Flarms are
> now available in the US.
> See discussion on Williams Forum:
> http://www.soaringnet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2404
>
> From Rex Mayes:
>
> We would like to examine the level of interest in using FLARM in
> gliders flying at WSC to improve safety with collision avoidance
> technology.
>
> Learn about FLARM.
>
> http://www.flarm.org/index_en.html
>
> Flarm is being introduced to the US market this Summer. It is an $800
> alternative to a $3000+ transponder/ PCAS system.
>
> The downside is that Flarm will only interact with other flarm units.
> It will not see tansponder signals. Tcas and Pcas will not see Flarm
> so it does not solve Glider/ GA or Glider/ airliner conflicts.
>
> Flarm does however help with the more likely event of Glider to Glider
> mid air potential in gaggle flying or ridge soaring on the Whites and
> the great convergence of the Mendos.
>
> Flarm also offers the ability to see what other gliders are doing. It
> will locate a glider and indicate that gliders rate of climb. Thus
> possibly reducing the need to query another pilot on the radio as
> often.
>
> Flarm also has IGC approved flight recording capability.
>
> We have been following the development of FLARM since our visit to the
> AERO in 2005. Since then, it has become mandatory in several countries
> and in many others, it is widely used and encouraged. We think it is
> time for all glider pilots to consider their traffic collision
> exposure and what they are doing to mitigate it.
>
> We are not convinced that FLARM is the answer but we are considering
> installing FLARM in the WSC Fleet including towplanes.
>
> It only makes sense to install FLARM if everybody does it.
>
> Please take time to learn about FLARM and let WSC know your opinion
> either on this forum or privately to .
>
> We are very interested in hearing from every pilot who flies in this
> region.
>
> Thanks for reading this and for your careful consideration.
>
> Rex Mayes and the Staff at Williams Soaring Center

[Al Eddie[_3_]]

At 10:36 22 July 2009, Mike Schumann wrote:
>FLARM is a major distraction in the US for people who are concerned about

>collision avoidance. Unlike Europe, the biggest threat to gliders in
the
>US
>is other VFR or IFR traffic. If you want to upgrade your glider to
>minimize
>these threats, you need to use a technology that is compatible with the
US
>
>ATC system; either conventional transponders and/or PCAS systems or
>hopefully in the not too distant future ADS-B.
>
>Mike Schumann


That's the kind of ass-munch BS that we'd expect from some f*wit at the
FAA/CAA/EASA.

Please tell me you're not - then we might be able to educate you.

;o)

[JS]

Please, no rec.aviation.fistfight!

Thanks for posting that, Ramy and for bringing this up, Rex.
FLARM would be absolutely fantastic in areas like the Inyo and White
Mountains, the Sierra Nevada, the Wasatch, the Appalachian chain,
under big cloud streets, in glider contests... Since we never fly in
any of those places, it's not much use at all really.
A while ago Bob Semans came up with "Procedure Alpha" to use on the
Whites. While serving to make people more aware of other traffic, the
constant stream of position reports on a typical weekend afternoon
makes for too much noise in the cockpit. Every time I run the Whites,
I think about how much better it would be with FLARM in every glider.
We all understand that glider pilots are attracted to the same lines
of lift. Having used FLARM for a few years in Australia, I'd say it is
a great tool. FLARM is a logger too! You can attach a FLARM-NAV,
Butterfly Display or PDA to it and have a complete logger, nav and
collision avoidance system for about 1500 dollars. Here's a link to
FLARM-NAV and Butterfly, in case they're new to you.
http://www.swiftavionics.com.au/product_category/1/Sailplanes/
Unlike transponder-based collision avoidance, FLARM doesn't panic
when you're on tow, flying "lead and follow" with another glider and
doesn't ignore signals from near enough to actually cause a collision.
I own a transponder, which is very nice to have around Minden or Jean.
Haven't found a PCAS that I'd install yet.
Think of how many times you've seen another aircraft up close. What
percentage of those were NOT gliders? I'm guessing that if you
actually remember how many gliders you came close to, that number is
pretty low. But we're so used to seeing other gliders that we tend
forget about them after they pass.
Could somebody please post the total number of glider mid-air
collisions in the USA, with a tally of glider/glider versus glider/
other? Anyone would think that a certain AS and Hawker collision
represented 100% of all accidents.
Jim

[Jim[_18_]]

On Jul 22, 3:36*am, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> FLARM is a major distraction in the US for people who are concerned about
> collision avoidance. *Unlike Europe, the biggest threat to gliders in the US
> is other VFR or IFR traffic. *If you want to upgrade your glider to minimize
> these threats, you need to use a technology that is compatible with the US
> ATC system; *either conventional transponders and/or PCAS systems or
> hopefully in the not too distant future ADS-B.
>
> Mike Schumann
>

General aviation and airline traffic is a serious concern in the U.S.
and my glider has a transponder and pcas unit.

Glider traffic is also a problem as sailplanes want to fly in the same
location, flying the busy white and inyo mountains can be scary with
all the hard to see gliders flying fast down the cloud streets, head
on closure rates well over 200 knots give you little time to see and
avoid.

Having flown in Australia with flarm, I believe that flarm is useful
tool and greatly enhances safety.

I understand that you can incorporate flam in your see you mobile
display, so you wouldn't have to add more clutter in the cockpit.

Jim

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

At 10:36 22 July 2009, Mike Schumann wrote:
FLARM is a major distraction in the US for people who are concerned about
collision avoidance. Unlike Europe, the biggest threat to gliders in the
US is other VFR or IFR traffic. If you want to upgrade your glider to
minimize these threats, you need to use a technology that is compatible
with the US
ATC system; either conventional transponders and/or PCAS systems or
hopefully in the not too distant future ADS-B.

Mike Schumann
>
Experiences certainly vary. I have had four close calls. ALL with other
gliders. Two with the same plane. Two were in thermals (one, my bad
entry, the other, someone elses less than optimum entry), the other two
were head on, 2000 feet or more below cloudbase. I was westbound on both
of the near head-ons. And they were both less than 20 feet off of direct
head-on, and less than 100 feet vertical as we passed after push or pull
to avoid. The good news is, the second person saw the first to respond
and responded in the opposite direction. First time, I saw him above me
and I pushed. The second time, I saw his wings bending down, so I pulled.
These were two years apart and both at National soaring contests.

Yes, FLARM doesn't talk to transponders. But for the flying I do most, I
need to know about gliders more than I need to know about powered traffic.
So, I would rather have a FLARM and work to getting my friends to have them
too. I can move a FLARM around in my fleet much easier than I can move a
transponder, encoder, and PCAS. And I can do it legally without having to
get the installation recertified every time I go to fly a new plane.

And if you look at the mid-airs involving gliders, most are glider to
glider. There are a few glider and towplane, several glider-jet ones
(LS-4 and A7, F4 and 2-32, and of course, ASG-29 and Hawker). Not to say
there haven't been many close calls (they aren't "near misses" as
everyone talks about. They are "near hits".)

Get what you want, but try to keep your eyes outside!

Steve Leonard

[Guy[_7_]]

I feel FLARM is the wrong instrument for use in the USA. We are being
looked at very closely by the FAA because of some mid-airs and the
complaints by commercial pilots. Transponders and PCAS give us the
anti-collision info for ALL AIRCRAFT, not just the few gliders that
have FLARM.

I have flown in the Alps for three years now. At St. Auban all of the
gliders in their fleet have FLARM. Flying in the area close to the
airfield the FLARM system gives you virtually 100% warnings about
surrounding gliders. BUT, get 20 miles away from the field and a high
number of gliders do not have FLARM. I have had a couple of near
misses because I was trying to identify a FLARM warning for a plane on
my left when a glider without FLARM was bearing down on me from the
right.

I don't believe FLARM will ever have enough penetration in the fleet
to be worth the cost and cockpit work load. Just read all the
procratinators who won't install a transponder now because ADS-B is
the future. I think the evidence is that ADS-B is a looooooooooong
way off. Of course, even when ADS-B is available it will be more
expensive than a transponder is now. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Again, transponders and PCAS come much closer in the USA.

Ok....burn me.

Guy Acheson "DDS"

[Mike Schumann]

ADS-B, when it is available, will have all the capabilities of FLARM and
will be cheaper than conventional transponders. Just like FLARM, ADS-B is
not a panacea. Unlike FLARM, it will warn you about all ADS-B and
transponder equipped aircraft in your area, if you have the transceiver
connected to a flight computer or other moving map display and you are
within range of an ADS-B ground station. However, just like FLARM, the GPS
resolution and update rates are not sufficient to be able to rely on this
device for collision avoidance in a gaggle.

Mike Schumann

"Guy" > wrote in message
...
>I feel FLARM is the wrong instrument for use in the USA. We are being
> looked at very closely by the FAA because of some mid-airs and the
> complaints by commercial pilots. Transponders and PCAS give us the
> anti-collision info for ALL AIRCRAFT, not just the few gliders that
> have FLARM.
>
> I have flown in the Alps for three years now. At St. Auban all of the
> gliders in their fleet have FLARM. Flying in the area close to the
> airfield the FLARM system gives you virtually 100% warnings about
> surrounding gliders. BUT, get 20 miles away from the field and a high
> number of gliders do not have FLARM. I have had a couple of near
> misses because I was trying to identify a FLARM warning for a plane on
> my left when a glider without FLARM was bearing down on me from the
> right.
>
> I don't believe FLARM will ever have enough penetration in the fleet
> to be worth the cost and cockpit work load. Just read all the
> procratinators who won't install a transponder now because ADS-B is
> the future. I think the evidence is that ADS-B is a looooooooooong
> way off. Of course, even when ADS-B is available it will be more
> expensive than a transponder is now. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
> Again, transponders and PCAS come much closer in the USA.
>
> Ok....burn me.
>
> Guy Acheson "DDS"

[jcarlyle]

Given where I fly and my limited panel space, I would only buy a Flarm
if it offered the capabilities of a Zaon MRX as well. Perhaps Flarm
and Zaon should get together and discuss building a single, small
device that detects Flarm mode, A/C/S transponder modes, and ADS-B
mode?

-John

[Mike Schumann]

An ADS-B transceiver will not necessarily require any panel space. It is a
black box with a GPS antenna, a radio antenna, and an interface to your GPS
/ Flight Computer. All of the traffic information is displayed on whatever
navigation device that you already have in your glider.

Once the ADS-B ground station rollout is complete (which should occur ~
2013), an ADS-B transceiver will see all Mode C transponder equipped
traffic, so a transponder mode will not be necessary. The only gottcha is
that ADS-B equipped aircraft will not be visible to TCAS unless they also
have Mode C/S transponders.

Mike Schumann

"jcarlyle" > wrote in message
...
> Given where I fly and my limited panel space, I would only buy a Flarm
> if it offered the capabilities of a Zaon MRX as well. Perhaps Flarm
> and Zaon should get together and discuss building a single, small
> device that detects Flarm mode, A/C/S transponder modes, and ADS-B
> mode?
>
> -John

[jcarlyle]

I know, Mike. Three things, though: (1) The ADS-B black box won't
detect Flarm signals, (2) the price of the ADS-B black box currently
ranges between outrageous and highway robbery, and (3) the amperage
requirements of the ADS-B black box is not currently battery friendly.
That's why I say it would be good if Flarm and Zaon got together -
they built small, affordable, battery friendly detection devices.

-John

On Jul 23, 9:26 am, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> An ADS-B transceiver will not necessarily require any panel space. It is a
> black box with a GPS antenna, a radio antenna, and an interface to your GPS
> / Flight Computer. All of the traffic information is displayed on whatever
> navigation device that you already have in your glider.
>
> Once the ADS-B ground station rollout is complete (which should occur ~
> 2013), an ADS-B transceiver will see all Mode C transponder equipped
> traffic, so a transponder mode will not be necessary. The only gottcha is
> that ADS-B equipped aircraft will not be visible to TCAS unless they also
> have Mode C/S transponders.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "jcarlyle" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Given where I fly and my limited panel space, I would only buy a Flarm
> > if it offered the capabilities of a Zaon MRX as well. Perhaps Flarm
> > and Zaon should get together and discuss building a single, small
> > device that detects Flarm mode, A/C/S transponder modes, and ADS-B
> > mode?
>
> > -John

[Mike Schumann]

The only ADS-B UAT box currently on the market is the Garmin unit, which is
10 year old technology. This is clearly not appropriate or cost effective
for gliders.

You need to look at the low cost units that have been developed by MITRE.
The parts cost of their transceiver is ~$400. It's basically the same
hardware as what is in FLARM, but ADS-B compatible. The unit is about the
size of a cigarette pack, and runs for 5-6 hours on a built-in LI-ION
battery. Their ADS-B out only transmitter runs on 4 AA batteries for 24 hrs
and has a parts cost of ~$150. The power consumption of both of these units
is much lower than modern Mode C transponders. The big challenge is to get
these units certified by the FAA so they can be commercialized. I am
confident that this will happen.

As far as FLARM compatibility, in the US this is completely irrelevant.
FLARM does not exist here. I find it highly questionable that anyone who
has looked at this issue closely will make an investment in this technology
here.

Mike Schumann

"jcarlyle" > wrote in message
...
>I know, Mike. Three things, though: (1) The ADS-B black box won't
> detect Flarm signals, (2) the price of the ADS-B black box currently
> ranges between outrageous and highway robbery, and (3) the amperage
> requirements of the ADS-B black box is not currently battery friendly.
> That's why I say it would be good if Flarm and Zaon got together -
> they built small, affordable, battery friendly detection devices.
>
> -John
>
> On Jul 23, 9:26 am, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
> nospam.com> wrote:
>> An ADS-B transceiver will not necessarily require any panel space. It is
>> a
>> black box with a GPS antenna, a radio antenna, and an interface to your
>> GPS
>> / Flight Computer. All of the traffic information is displayed on
>> whatever
>> navigation device that you already have in your glider.
>>
>> Once the ADS-B ground station rollout is complete (which should occur ~
>> 2013), an ADS-B transceiver will see all Mode C transponder equipped
>> traffic, so a transponder mode will not be necessary. The only gottcha
>> is
>> that ADS-B equipped aircraft will not be visible to TCAS unless they also
>> have Mode C/S transponders.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> "jcarlyle" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Given where I fly and my limited panel space, I would only buy a Flarm
>> > if it offered the capabilities of a Zaon MRX as well. Perhaps Flarm
>> > and Zaon should get together and discuss building a single, small
>> > device that detects Flarm mode, A/C/S transponder modes, and ADS-B
>> > mode?
>>
>> > -John
>

[JS]

Good points, John.
But there's a 4th thing. The original post is about this summer, not
2013 or so. The feds are involved in ADS-B, so 2013 is likely a dream
and "outrageous" costs by roll-out time will seem luxurious.
In order to compare what's available, proponents of any systems
please give the cost to get it operational in glider cockpits now, not
in some future time after budget overruns and inevitable delays.
Price (if a transponder is required, include that).
Present availability of the entire system.
Power requirements for the entire system.
Installation process.
Certification process.
There must be other things.
And to compare apples to apples (or is it now macs to macs), if all
aircraft were equipped with similar devices, let's look at the pros
and cons.
Jim

On Jul 23, 7:09*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> I know, Mike. Three things, though: *(1) The ADS-B black box won't
> detect Flarm signals, (2) the price of the ADS-B black box currently
> ranges between outrageous and highway robbery, and (3) the amperage
> requirements of the ADS-B black box is not currently battery friendly.
> That's why I say it would be good if Flarm and Zaon got together -
> they built small, affordable, battery friendly detection devices.
>
> -John
>
> On Jul 23, 9:26 am, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
>
> nospam.com> wrote:
> > An ADS-B transceiver will not necessarily require any panel space. *It is a
> > black box with a GPS antenna, a radio antenna, and an interface to your GPS
> > / Flight Computer. *All of the traffic information is displayed on whatever
> > navigation device that you already have in your glider.
>
> > Once the ADS-B ground station rollout is complete (which should occur ~
> > 2013), an ADS-B transceiver will see all Mode C transponder equipped
> > traffic, so a transponder mode will not be necessary. *The only gottcha is
> > that ADS-B equipped aircraft will not be visible to TCAS unless they also
> > have Mode C/S transponders.
>
> > Mike Schumann
>

[Ramy]

On Jul 23, 9:56*am, JS > wrote:
> Good points, John.
> * But there's a 4th thing. The original post is about this summer, not
> 2013 or so. The feds are involved in ADS-B, so 2013 is likely a dream
> and "outrageous" costs by roll-out time will seem luxurious.
> * In order to compare what's available, proponents of any systems
> please give the cost to get it operational in glider cockpits now, not
> in some future time after budget overruns and inevitable delays.
> Price (if a transponder is required, include that).
> Present availability of the entire system.
> Power requirements for the entire system.
> Installation process.
> Certification process.
> There must be other things.
> * And to compare apples to apples (or is it now macs to macs), if all
> aircraft were equipped with similar devices, let's look at the pros
> and cons.
> Jim
>
> On Jul 23, 7:09*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I know, Mike. Three things, though: *(1) The ADS-B black box won't
> > detect Flarm signals, (2) the price of the ADS-B black box currently
> > ranges between outrageous and highway robbery, and (3) the amperage
> > requirements of the ADS-B black box is not currently battery friendly.
> > That's why I say it would be good if Flarm and Zaon got together -
> > they built small, affordable, battery friendly detection devices.
>
> > -John
>
> > On Jul 23, 9:26 am, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
>
> > nospam.com> wrote:
> > > An ADS-B transceiver will not necessarily require any panel space. *It is a
> > > black box with a GPS antenna, a radio antenna, and an interface to your GPS
> > > / Flight Computer. *All of the traffic information is displayed on whatever
> > > navigation device that you already have in your glider.
>
> > > Once the ADS-B ground station rollout is complete (which should occur ~
> > > 2013), an ADS-B transceiver will see all Mode C transponder equipped
> > > traffic, so a transponder mode will not be necessary. *The only gottcha is
> > > that ADS-B equipped aircraft will not be visible to TCAS unless they also
> > > have Mode C/S transponders.
>
> > > Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think the discussion was focused too much on Flarm vs transponder/
pcas due to the comment on my original posting suggesting Flarm as an
alternative. I don't think it should be positioned as alternative to
transponders, not in the US. It also shouldn't be considered as
alternative to ADS-B since ADS-B will not be available for at least 5
years, and even then it is not clear how effordable it will be. It
should be considered as an addition and the only available solution
for glider to glider alert for the next 5 years or more. And 5 years
is a life time for many electronic gadgets nowadays anyway.

Ramy

[jcarlyle]

Mike,

At lunch someone made me aware of a $1500 UAT, the ADS600 made by
NavWorx ( http://www.navworx.com/ads600.html ). It's still a current
hog (570 mA) and big (6" x 6" x 2"), and it isn't TSOed, but the price
is getting right.

If I remember correctly, the Mitre unit is still in the demo stage. I
agree that the cost, size and battery friendly nature of Mitre unit
are great, better than the NavWorx.

I also agree that Flarm missed the boat. They worried about the
potential of US lawsuits so long that Zaon and manufacturers of Modes
S transponders with built-in altitude encoders and extended squitters
have made them irrelevant to the US market.

-John

On Jul 23, 12:42 pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> The only ADS-B UAT box currently on the market is the Garmin unit, which is
> 10 year old technology. This is clearly not appropriate or cost effective
> for gliders.
>
> You need to look at the low cost units that have been developed by MITRE.
> The parts cost of their transceiver is ~$400. It's basically the same
> hardware as what is in FLARM, but ADS-B compatible. The unit is about the
> size of a cigarette pack, and runs for 5-6 hours on a built-in LI-ION
> battery. Their ADS-B out only transmitter runs on 4 AA batteries for 24 hrs
> and has a parts cost of ~$150. The power consumption of both of these units
> is much lower than modern Mode C transponders. The big challenge is to get
> these units certified by the FAA so they can be commercialized. I am
> confident that this will happen.
>
> As far as FLARM compatibility, in the US this is completely irrelevant.
> FLARM does not exist here. I find it highly questionable that anyone who
> has looked at this issue closely will make an investment in this technology
> here.

[jcarlyle]

Jim,

You also make some good points. But I think you left out the most
important point of all, which is: what will the proposed device
protect me against?

Flarm may go on sale in the USA this summer, but as others have said
in this thread, it won't provide protection against SEL and MEL
aircraft in the USA. For that, as stated before, one needs a
transponder and a PCAS. Also, there is going to be a time period for
adoption of Flarm - how long will it take to get enough Flarms out
there to make a significant difference? A year? Two years? As was said
earlier in this thread, even in Europe where Flarm has had years to
make inroads, once you get away from the high glider traffic areas
there a many gliders without Flarm. It seems it would be much faster
to get a new mode S transponder with integral altitude encoder and
extended squitter, plus a Zaon MRS.

Let's suppose for argument that like you said, everyone in areas like
the Inyo and White Mountains, the Sierra Nevada, the Wasatch, and the
Appalachians agree to buy Flarms (and ignore the SEL and MEL threat).
I'm sure that would be helpful (eventually), but how about contests?
The competitors are looking for every advantage they can get, do you
think that they will fly with their Flarms turned on to broadcast
their position? I know, the same could be said for transponders...

As I said in my original post in this thread, my conclusion is that
given where I fly my best bet is a transponder and MRX.

-John

On Jul 23, 12:56 pm, JS > wrote:
> Good points, John.
> But there's a 4th thing. The original post is about this summer, not
> 2013 or so. The feds are involved in ADS-B, so 2013 is likely a dream
> and "outrageous" costs by roll-out time will seem luxurious.
> In order to compare what's available, proponents of any systems
> please give the cost to get it operational in glider cockpits now, not
> in some future time after budget overruns and inevitable delays.
> Price (if a transponder is required, include that).
> Present availability of the entire system.
> Power requirements for the entire system.
> Installation process.
> Certification process.
> There must be other things.
> And to compare apples to apples (or is it now macs to macs), if all
> aircraft were equipped with similar devices, let's look at the pros
> and cons.

[johngalloway[_2_]]

I think that it helps to think of Flarm as being the algorithm and
radio transmission protocol and not the hardware. The unique feature
of Flarm is that it broadcasts predictions of a glider's flight path
based on the characteristics of glider flight (i.e including a lot of
turning and circling flight) and compares its own prediction with
those of the other received broadcasts. Given the agreed close
proximity of a lot of glider flying (eg circuits, thermalling, ridge
soaring, cruising on shared task etc) then without a proven and
common glider specific predictive algorithm any hardware technology
would be unusable for inter-glider collision avoidance because of
excessive alerts generated by proximities and paths that would be
unacceptable to general and commercial aviation.

If a transponder or ADSB equipment manufacturer wanted to make his
product useful for glider/glider or glider/low speed power collision
avoidance than he would need to include glider specific predictive
algorithm. He could then either license and use the proprietary and
proven Flarm algorithm or develop another one. The latter course
would have the 3 serious disadvantages of significant extra
development costs, development time delay, and a reduction of
performance as different algorithms in different gliders might result
in one glider pilot receiving a collision alert the other not.

The obvious way forward for transpdonder/ADSB manufacturers is that
which is being developed in Europe i.e. a common display that will
show inputs from Flarm units and transponder/ADSB.

Flarm functionality is already included in numerous other products
(varios and data recorders) and there is no reason why it should not
be included in future US or European transponder or ADSB boxes if the
market were sufficient.

Ergo the whole discussion based on the idea that Flarm and ADSB are
alternatives to one another is based on a misconception that, I have
to say, persists in the minds of many UK as well as US glider pilots.

John Galloway

( co-author of the 2007 Scottish Gliding Union Flarm trial report:
http://www.flarm.com/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf )

[Peter Scholz[_2_]]

jcarlyle wrote:
> ..., but how about contests?
> The competitors are looking for every advantage they can get, do you
> think that they will fly with their Flarms turned on to broadcast
> their position? I know, the same could be said for transponders...
>

FLARM has a so called privacy or stealth mode, which you can activate
temporarily or permanently. With stealth mode activated, your ID is
hidden, and position/lift data are not transmitted. Only collision
warning is active in stealth mode.

--
Peter Scholz
SW 24 JEB

[Peter Scholz[_2_]]

jcarlyle wrote:
> ..., but how about contests?
> The competitors are looking for every advantage they can get, do you
> think that they will fly with their Flarms turned on to broadcast
> their position? I know, the same could be said for transponders...
>

FLARM has a so called privacy or stealth mode, which you can activate
temporarily or permanently. With stealth mode activated, your ID is
hidden, and position/lift data are not transmitted. Only collision
warning is active in stealth mode.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW 24 JEB

[Mike Schumann]

ADS-B transceivers do not include any collission avoidance logic. They
purely send and receive aircraft type information along with possition and
velocity vector information.

Traffic information that is received by an ADS-B transeiver, either from
another ADS-B transmitter or from an ADS-B ground station is passed to
whatever display device the user wants to interface to the unit. This can
be another GPS display, an IPAQ running a navigation program like See You
Mobile, or even an iPhone running a custom app to display aircraft possition
data.

There is nothing stopping anyone from developing the same or more
sophisticated traffic warning logic in these attached devices that are
currently available with FLARM. Personally, I believe that an audio alert
that gives you traffic warnings relative to your current heading and
altitude (i.e. "Traffic closing at 100 knots, 1/2 mile 3 o'clock, 100 ft low
and climbing") would be very useful for glider applications. I can imagine
that software vendors would add these functions to their offerings, or
someone could start an open source software effort to develop these types of
applications. Once the raw data is available, and ADS-B units are being
deployed in volume, inovation in this area is bound to be very rapid.

Mike Schumann

"johngalloway" > wrote in message
...
>I think that it helps to think of Flarm as being the algorithm and
> radio transmission protocol and not the hardware. The unique feature
> of Flarm is that it broadcasts predictions of a glider's flight path
> based on the characteristics of glider flight (i.e including a lot of
> turning and circling flight) and compares its own prediction with
> those of the other received broadcasts. Given the agreed close
> proximity of a lot of glider flying (eg circuits, thermalling, ridge
> soaring, cruising on shared task etc) then without a proven and
> common glider specific predictive algorithm any hardware technology
> would be unusable for inter-glider collision avoidance because of
> excessive alerts generated by proximities and paths that would be
> unacceptable to general and commercial aviation.
>
> If a transponder or ADSB equipment manufacturer wanted to make his
> product useful for glider/glider or glider/low speed power collision
> avoidance than he would need to include glider specific predictive
> algorithm. He could then either license and use the proprietary and
> proven Flarm algorithm or develop another one. The latter course
> would have the 3 serious disadvantages of significant extra
> development costs, development time delay, and a reduction of
> performance as different algorithms in different gliders might result
> in one glider pilot receiving a collision alert the other not.
>
> The obvious way forward for transpdonder/ADSB manufacturers is that
> which is being developed in Europe i.e. a common display that will
> show inputs from Flarm units and transponder/ADSB.
>
> Flarm functionality is already included in numerous other products
> (varios and data recorders) and there is no reason why it should not
> be included in future US or European transponder or ADSB boxes if the
> market were sufficient.
>
> Ergo the whole discussion based on the idea that Flarm and ADSB are
> alternatives to one another is based on a misconception that, I have
> to say, persists in the minds of many UK as well as US glider pilots.
>
> John Galloway
>
> ( co-author of the 2007 Scottish Gliding Union Flarm trial report:
> http://www.flarm.com/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf )

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

On Jul 24, 3:05*am, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
[snip] There is nothing stopping anyone from developing the same or
more
> sophisticated traffic warning logic in these attached devices

AIUI, Flarm broadcasts the projected path of its host glider. I think
it recognises the difference betaween thermalling (circles) and
cruising.

Would "these attached devices" be able to transmit that?

Similarly, a Flarm receiving such broadcasts compares them with its
host glider predicted path, and alerts if collision likely, and if not
simply displays what is the nearst unit.

[snip] " . . . I believe that an audio alert that gives you traffic
warnings relative to your current heading and altitude (i.e. "Traffic
closing at 100 knots, 1/2 mile 3 o'clock, 100 ft low and climbing")
would be very useful for glider applications."

Flarm gives indications relative to track, not heading. It does not
know which way the glider is pointing, it only knows the history of
its GPS positions. Mostly this is not a big difference, but ridge or
wave soaring in strong winds make a huge diference. I expect many
pilots have experienced track at almost 90 degrees to heading, and
even 180 degrees in high wave (i.e. flying too slowly! - I certainly
have). I am told, by people who use Flarm in these conditions, that
you get used to the indications being relative to track.(I have had my
Flarm for too short a time to yet experience this.)

What sort of device would be able to indicate relative to heading? Is
anyone going to develop such a device?

On the general point, I have been engaged in dialogue and
correspondence in the UK about Flarm and PCAS. My own conclusions are
that:

In some places, glider-glider (or glider-tug) collisons are far more
likely than glider-unrelated power. For those, if you can only fit
one, fit Flarm. In the UK that is true for almost all gliding clubs.
Most UK glider-glider collisons are over or close to the gliding site
they both took off from. Therefore, it does not take the whole country
fitting them to provide a benefit for the individual pilot - if all
your mates have them, they are the most likely ones for you to collide
with, so it helps with the biggest scenario of risk you have. It could
be beneficially done club by club.

There may be places where glider-unrelated power collisions are a
significant risk. For those, if the unrelated power is likely to have
a transponder, then PCAS provides a degree of assistance. You don't
need a transponder yourself, if you can detect a threat and take
avoiding actions. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK, 3 of the
5 such collisions over the last 39 years were also near or immediately
over the gliding site of the gliding participant. They are also more
likely to incur fatalities - 6 people died in the 5 UK collisions. Too
many winch launch sites have overflights of unrelated powered
aircraft, at or below winch launch heights, and they are sometimes
seen too late by ground crews when a winch launch is taking place -
one of the 5 UK collisions killed two glider pilots while winch
launching. So I think such sites would benefit from having a PCAS on
the ground, at the launch point, too. Mine, when on the ground, has
alerted an overflying airctaft, and has indicated the presence of
approaching ones long before the eye can pick them up.

So if you can afford two units, and the glider can accommodate them, I
think Flarm + PCAS is becoming the best answer. Yes, it needs Flarm to
be widely adopted - but as I said, that can be on a club-by-club
basis.

There may be places where a glider really needs, or at least can
benefit from, having a transponder too. I gather that applies in parts
of the USA. It is not very obvious than it would help most UK glider
pilots to any great extent, but I would have fitted one by now if I
could. Unfortunately, the EASA regulatory regime under which most UK
gliders now operate prevents many, including mine, easily, legally, or
economically doing it. (I am not going to get into the details here -
believe it or not as you wish, but it is a fact.)

I think everybody realises that transponders alone provide no
anticollision protection. They only do so if combined with one or more
of: ATC providing a radar service; TCAS; and/or PCAS or similar. In
the USA, perhaps you can always get radar service, maybe glider pilots
tolerate the workload it takes, and use ATC frequencies instead of
dedicated gliding channels. That is certainly not the case in the UK,
except in a few places where using ATC really helps. Most of us, most
of the time, keep away from airspace where ATC has to be contacted,
and use the radio if at all only on gliding channels.

In the long term, ADS-B may provide a solution that make everything
interoperable with everything else. I suspect that is 10 or more years
away. meanwhile, I would like to see a significant reduction in the
annual death toll of colliding glider pilots. I particularly don't
want to be a statistic myself, while waiting for the dream solution.
So I bought Flarm and PCAS. I think that wowuld bring big benefits to
most glider pilots. If only one, choose the one that addresses the
risk you most encounter, based on accident figures for the sort of
place you mostly fly. (Does anybody have the USA data for glider
collisions, how many and what sort of place?) If you can afford, and
the glider can accommodate, all three, then go for the transponder
too.

IMHO.

Chris N.

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

On Jul 24, 3:05 am, "Mike Schumann"
<mike-nos...@traditions- nospam.com> wrote:


[snip] There is nothing stopping anyone from developing the same or
more
> sophisticated traffic warning logic in these attached devices


AIUI, Flarm broadcasts the projected path of its host glider. I think
it recognises the difference between thermalling (circles) and
cruising.

Would "these attached devices" be able to transmit that?


Similarly, a Flarm receiving such broadcasts compares them with its
host glider predicted path, and alerts if collision likely, and if not
simply displays what is the nearest unit.


[snip] " . . . I believe that an audio alert that gives you traffic
warnings relative to your current heading and altitude (i.e. "Traffic
closing at 100 knots, 1/2 mile 3 o'clock, 100 ft low and climbing")
would be very useful for glider applications."


Flarm gives indications relative to track, not heading. It does not
know which way the glider is pointing; it only knows the history of
its GPS positions. Mostly this is not a big difference, but ridge or
wave soaring in strong winds make a huge difference. I expect many
pilots have experienced track at almost 90 degrees to heading, and
even 180 degrees in high wave (i.e. flying too slowly! - I certainly
have). I am told, by people who use Flarm in these conditions, that
you get used to the indications being relative to track.(I have had my
Flarm for too short a time to yet experience this.)


What sort of device would be able to indicate relative to heading? Is
anyone going to develop such a device?


On the general point, I have been engaged in dialogue and
correspondence in the UK about Flarm and PCAS. My own conclusions are
that:


In some places, glider-glider (or glider-tug) collisions are far more
likely than glider-unrelated power. For those, if you can only fit
one, fit Flarm. In the UK that is true for almost all gliding clubs.
Most UK glider-glider collisions are over or close to the gliding site
they both took off from. Therefore, it does not take the whole country
fitting them to provide a benefit for the individual pilot - if all
your mates have them, they are the most likely ones for you to collide
with, so it helps with the biggest scenario of risk you have. It could
be beneficially done club by club.


There may be places where glider-unrelated power collisions are a
significant risk. For those, if the unrelated power is likely to have
a transponder, then PCAS provides a degree of assistance. You don't
need a transponder yourself, if you can detect a threat and take
avoiding actions. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK, 3 of the
5 such collisions over the last 39 years were also near or immediately
over the gliding site of the gliding participant. They are also more
likely to incur fatalities - 6 people died in the 5 UK collisions. Too
many winch launch sites have overflights of unrelated powered
aircraft, at or below winch launch heights, and they are sometimes
seen too late by ground crews when a winch launch is taking place -
one of the 5 UK collisions killed two glider pilots while winch
launching. So I think such sites would benefit from having a PCAS on
the ground, at the launch point, too. Mine, when on the ground, has
alerted an overflying aircraft, and has indicated the presence of
approaching ones long before the eye can pick them up.


So if you can afford two units, and the glider can accommodate them, I
think Flarm + PCAS is becoming the best answer. Yes, it needs Flarm to
be widely adopted - but as I said, that can be on a club-by-club
basis.


There may be places where a glider really needs, or at least can
benefit from, having a transponder too. I gather that applies in parts
of the USA. It is not very obvious than it would help most UK glider
pilots to any great extent, but I would have fitted one by now if I
could. Unfortunately, the EASA regulatory regime under which most UK
gliders now operate prevents many, including mine, easily, legally, or
economically doing it. (I am not going to get into the details here -
believe it or not as you wish, but it is a fact.)


I think everybody realises that transponders alone provide no anti-
collision protection. They only do so if combined with one or more of:
ATC providing a radar service; TCAS; and/or PCAS or similar. In the
USA, perhaps you can always get radar service, maybe glider pilots
tolerate the workload it takes, and use ATC frequencies instead of
dedicated gliding channels. That is certainly not the case in the UK,
except in a few places where using ATC really helps. Most of us, most
of the time, keep away from airspace where ATC has to be contacted,
and use the radio if at all only on gliding channels.



In the long term, ADS-B may provide a solution that makes everything
interoperable with everything else. I suspect that is 10 or more years
away. Meanwhile, I would like to see a significant reduction in the
annual death toll of colliding glider pilots. I particularly don't
want to be a statistic myself, while waiting for the dream solution.
So I bought Flarm and PCAS. I think that would bring big benefits to
most glider pilots. If only one, choose the one that addresses the
risk you most encounter, based on accident figures for the sort of
place you mostly fly. (Does anybody have the USA data for glider
collisions, how many and what sort of place?) If you can afford, and
the glider can accommodate, all three, then go for the transponder
too.


IMHO.


Chris N.

[Mike Schumann]

My comments about FLARM vs ADS-B only apply to the US. Obviously in Europe,
where FLARM is very entrenched, the situation is very different.

ADS-B not only transmits the current aircraft position, but also the
aircraft type and the velocity vectors. Like FLARM, the basic ADS-B UAT
boxes like what MITRE has developed have built in GPS units and do not know
the pilot's intent. As a result the 3D velocity vector is derived from what
the aircraft is doing at the time of the transmission (which is updated each
second). More sophisticated ADS-B boxes used on airlines may transmit more
accurate velocity vectors using data received from Flight Management
Systems.

Whatever box is attached to the ADS-B transceiver is responsible for
interpreting the traffic data that is received. On advantage is that the
receiver knows what kind of aircraft is being observed. Power aircraft tend
to go in straight lines. Gliders are completely unpredictable. As a
result, you can design collision detection algorithms that are smart about
ignoring threats that are of minor consequence.

At the AOPA Expo in San Diego, MITRE demonstrated their low cost ADS-B UAT
transceiver hooked up to an iPhone to display traffic data. The latest
iPhone 3G has a compass capability built in. Using this functionality, you
could develop a collision detection program that actually identifies threats
by heading, not track. My personal feeling is that this would be incredibly
useful in a glider, particularly while you are circling in a thermal.

One of the really nice things about ADS-B is that the display / collision
detection function is separate from the actual transceiver. This provides
the potential for innovative software solutions, either as commercial
products, or as open source collaborative development efforts. Note: This
is obviously only applicable to VFR applications. Any equipment like this
for IFR use would be subject to FAA certification standards.

Mike Schumann


"Chris Nicholas" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 24, 3:05 am, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
[snip] There is nothing stopping anyone from developing the same or
more
> sophisticated traffic warning logic in these attached devices

AIUI, Flarm broadcasts the projected path of its host glider. I think
it recognises the difference betaween thermalling (circles) and
cruising.

Would "these attached devices" be able to transmit that?

Similarly, a Flarm receiving such broadcasts compares them with its
host glider predicted path, and alerts if collision likely, and if not
simply displays what is the nearst unit.

[snip] " . . . I believe that an audio alert that gives you traffic
warnings relative to your current heading and altitude (i.e. "Traffic
closing at 100 knots, 1/2 mile 3 o'clock, 100 ft low and climbing")
would be very useful for glider applications."

Flarm gives indications relative to track, not heading. It does not
know which way the glider is pointing, it only knows the history of
its GPS positions. Mostly this is not a big difference, but ridge or
wave soaring in strong winds make a huge diference. I expect many
pilots have experienced track at almost 90 degrees to heading, and
even 180 degrees in high wave (i.e. flying too slowly! - I certainly
have). I am told, by people who use Flarm in these conditions, that
you get used to the indications being relative to track.(I have had my
Flarm for too short a time to yet experience this.)

What sort of device would be able to indicate relative to heading? Is
anyone going to develop such a device?

On the general point, I have been engaged in dialogue and
correspondence in the UK about Flarm and PCAS. My own conclusions are
that:

In some places, glider-glider (or glider-tug) collisons are far more
likely than glider-unrelated power. For those, if you can only fit
one, fit Flarm. In the UK that is true for almost all gliding clubs.
Most UK glider-glider collisons are over or close to the gliding site
they both took off from. Therefore, it does not take the whole country
fitting them to provide a benefit for the individual pilot - if all
your mates have them, they are the most likely ones for you to collide
with, so it helps with the biggest scenario of risk you have. It could
be beneficially done club by club.

There may be places where glider-unrelated power collisions are a
significant risk. For those, if the unrelated power is likely to have
a transponder, then PCAS provides a degree of assistance. You don't
need a transponder yourself, if you can detect a threat and take
avoiding actions. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK, 3 of the
5 such collisions over the last 39 years were also near or immediately
over the gliding site of the gliding participant. They are also more
likely to incur fatalities - 6 people died in the 5 UK collisions. Too
many winch launch sites have overflights of unrelated powered
aircraft, at or below winch launch heights, and they are sometimes
seen too late by ground crews when a winch launch is taking place -
one of the 5 UK collisions killed two glider pilots while winch
launching. So I think such sites would benefit from having a PCAS on
the ground, at the launch point, too. Mine, when on the ground, has
alerted an overflying airctaft, and has indicated the presence of
approaching ones long before the eye can pick them up.

So if you can afford two units, and the glider can accommodate them, I
think Flarm + PCAS is becoming the best answer. Yes, it needs Flarm to
be widely adopted - but as I said, that can be on a club-by-club
basis.

There may be places where a glider really needs, or at least can
benefit from, having a transponder too. I gather that applies in parts
of the USA. It is not very obvious than it would help most UK glider
pilots to any great extent, but I would have fitted one by now if I
could. Unfortunately, the EASA regulatory regime under which most UK
gliders now operate prevents many, including mine, easily, legally, or
economically doing it. (I am not going to get into the details here -
believe it or not as you wish, but it is a fact.)

I think everybody realises that transponders alone provide no
anticollision protection. They only do so if combined with one or more
of: ATC providing a radar service; TCAS; and/or PCAS or similar. In
the USA, perhaps you can always get radar service, maybe glider pilots
tolerate the workload it takes, and use ATC frequencies instead of
dedicated gliding channels. That is certainly not the case in the UK,
except in a few places where using ATC really helps. Most of us, most
of the time, keep away from airspace where ATC has to be contacted,
and use the radio if at all only on gliding channels.

In the long term, ADS-B may provide a solution that make everything
interoperable with everything else. I suspect that is 10 or more years
away. meanwhile, I would like to see a significant reduction in the
annual death toll of colliding glider pilots. I particularly don't
want to be a statistic myself, while waiting for the dream solution.
So I bought Flarm and PCAS. I think that wowuld bring big benefits to
most glider pilots. If only one, choose the one that addresses the
risk you most encounter, based on accident figures for the sort of
place you mostly fly. (Does anybody have the USA data for glider
collisions, how many and what sort of place?) If you can afford, and
the glider can accommodate, all three, then go for the transponder
too.

IMHO.

Chris N.

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Mike, thanks. That is interesting stuff about ADS-B.

It is, of course, up to you guys in the USA to choose whatever is best
in the meantime. I still think that a wise choice should depend upon
the risk data, and I don’t see anybody answering the question about
the USA data for glider collisions, how many and what sort of place.

Until we looked at the UK accident reports over a long period, some
people had thought that cloud street running was likely to feature
prominently in our collisions. Turned out not so – not a single such
collision. As I wrote above, most are over or near the home site of
the gliding operators (glider, tug, motor glider). Some were in the
circuit (pattern, I believe, in US terminology), some thermalling. A
very small number were elsewhere, thermalling.

Chris N.

[cernauta]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:49:39 -0700 (PDT), jcarlyle
> wrote:

>Perhaps Flarm
>and Zaon should get together and discuss building a single, small
>device that detects Flarm mode, A/C/S transponder modes, and ADS-B
>mode?

Zaon is not involved, AFAIK, but you're looking for what's called a
"PowerFlarm". You can upgrade your existing Flarm unit with a
"bluebox" and a display, or buy the PowerFlarm.
I suspect it only works with ModeS xpdrs, not mode a/c.

Aldo

>
>-John

[jcarlyle]

Hi, Aldo,

Thanks for posting this. I checked the site for details (
http://www.powerflarm.com/details.html ), and ran it though Babelfish
so I could get the gist of it. It does seem to claim to only detect
Mode S, as you say. I'd think that this means that it's parsing
extended squitter position information only, and not parsing TIS-B
(Traffic Information Service - Broadcast), because then they'd also
get Mode C transponder data. Unfortunately, where I fly I'd need TIS-B
to see all the General Aviation aircraft, so for now I'll stick to a
transponder and PCAS.

-John

On Jul 25, 7:30 am, cernauta > wrote:
> Zaon is not involved, AFAIK, but you're looking for what's called a
> "PowerFlarm". You can upgrade your existing Flarm unit with a
> "bluebox" and a display, or buy the PowerFlarm.
> I suspect it only works with ModeS xpdrs, not mode a/c.
>
> Aldo
>
>
>
> >-John

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 25, 10:22*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Hi, Aldo,
>
> Thanks for posting this. I checked the site for details (http://www.powerflarm.com/details.html), and ran it though Babelfish
> so I could get the gist of it. It does seem to claim to only detect
> Mode S, as you say. I'd think that this means that it's parsing
> extended squitter position information only, and not parsing TIS-B
> (Traffic Information Service - Broadcast), because then they'd also
> get Mode C transponder data. Unfortunately, where I fly I'd need TIS-B
> to see all the General Aviation aircraft, so for now I'll stick to a
> transponder and PCAS.
>
> -John
>
> On Jul 25, 7:30 am, cernauta > wrote:
>
> > Zaon is not involved, AFAIK, but you're looking for what's called a
> > "PowerFlarm". You can upgrade your existing Flarm unit with a
> > "bluebox" and a display, or buy the PowerFlarm.
> > I suspect it only works with ModeS xpdrs, not mode a/c.
>
> > Aldo
>
> > >-John

You will likely need TIS-B as mentioned, and in the USA ADS-R (to
relay UAT based devices to 1090ES). As pointed out before in other
threads the ADS-B ground stations rely on knowledge of the ADS-B
devices in the aircraft to determine what traffic information to
transmit, so receive only ADS-B devices may have problems. Those
problems might be mitigated if the PowerFlarm was used in an aircraft
equipped with a Mode-S transponder with 1090ES (that stack of Mode-S
transponder, GPS to feed the 1090ES and PowerFlarm would currently be
~US$10k). It seems the PowerFlarm only detects ADS-B over 1090ES and
not the actual transponder with a PCAS like approach so the bulk of
Mode-S transponders (all those new Gamins' etc.) in the USA fleet
that might support 1090ES expansion but don't yet actually talk 1090ES
will be invisible.

I think Flarm offers some useful benefits and could be useful in
places where we have opposing traffic on mountain ridges etc. but I
also fly in areas where we have intense airline and fast jet traffic
and in those areas (like around Reno) we need gliders to adopt Mode-C
or Mode-S transponders today, and specifically for Reno to communicate
with ATC (there are procedures developed by glider pilots with Reno
TRACON to help do this). That type of traffic density/conflict is
pretty unusual and needs elsewhere will be quite different.

Outside of that I think in general that long term traffic awareness
systems will be based on ADS-B technology. Longer term, what is
available to glider pilots in the USA will be driven by wider market
dynamics in the GA and experimental aircraft market, companies like
Zaon will have to deliver those ADS-B based products (or go out of
business). Still it may be interesting and useful to see Flarm
technology added to those devices (like the PowerFlarm unit mentioned
above is starting to do - even if its current ADS-B capabilities may
have too many issues esp. the USA market).


Darryl