Did I strike a nerve????

If you want to talk about BS, then lets look at your claim that FLARM is
the world wide leader in collision avoidance for glider - glider
threats. No one denies that this is the case in Europe and elsewhere in
the world. In the US, FLARM currently does not exist, so it is
currently not a factor.

You make a very good case about how screwed up the FAA is and how the
ADS-B scene has been complicated by the dual link architecture, etc.....
No one disagrees with this assessment. The obvious question is how do
we improve this situation by introducing a 3rd incompatible option?????

Conversely to your insulting posting, I am not blindly advocating UAT
over all other alternatives. What I am suggesting is that we need a low
cost ADS-B solution so that it will be widely deployed, quickly. Given
that UAT has apparently stalled out, and that there seems to be
increasingly competitive 1090ES solutions coming on the market, maybe
that should be the technical solution we should get on board with,
particularly so we can get TCAS visibility.

What is very frustrating for me to witness is the lack of any strategic
focus on getting the FAA and glider specific avionics manufacturers to
come up with a unified ADS-B strategy so that we have equipment that
will take advantage of the national ground station system that will be
fully deployed by the end of 2012.

Instead, we have everyone drinking the FLARM koolaid, and disparaging
any other alternative viewpoints. This isn't going to help get anyone
to install FLARM or transponders.

There are some pockets where people are moving ahead (contests, Minden,
etc.). But there are a LOT of gliders flying very close to or under
Class B airspaces in the US that are not transponder equipped. It's not
that people categorically won't make the investment, but that they
aren't going to spend the money until they see a clear roadmap, so that
their investments are just throwing money down a rat hole.

Mike Schumann



On 10/16/2010 1:24 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 14, 11:43 am, Mike Schumannmike-nos...@traditions-
[snip]

The "ultimate" technology for glider to glider or glider to towplane
collision avoidance is NOT Flarm, at least in the US. For FLARM to be
effective, everyone has to install. You may get this to happen in US
contests, but it is a pipedream that there is going to be widespread
FLARM deployment outside of that limited environment.

The "ultimate" technology in the US will be ADS-B. We can debate about
whether this will be UAT or 1090ES. FLARM is just a distraction that is
confusing the issue and doesn't really address the fundamental problem
most of us face, which is collision threats with jets and other GA
(non-glider) aircraft.

--
Mike Schumann

Oh God spare us this grand standing for ADS-B and UAT technology. If
it wasn't actually important saftey issue I'd let this troll like
behavior go, but because it is I'll reply, and most of these points
are just the same I've made before. Points apparently that Mike
Schumann seems unable to comprehend or challenge in a cogent way. So
apologies to the Europeans and others for dragging this off to a non-
airline-on-glider and USA centric direction. I'll try to keep this to
the glider-glider scenario but I know I'll wander in places.

---

I'm trying to follow Mike Schumann's loopy logic here....

1. He claims ADS-B is better for glider-glider collision avoidance
than Flarm because all gliders have to install a Flarm device? -- like
WTF is he smoking? All gliders would have to install ADS-B for that to
work as well. And even if they did why would ADS-B be better at glider-
glider scenarios than the Flarm technology developed precisely for
doing that and proven in use worldwide by thousands of glider pilots
in challenging situations including busy contests.

2. He claims the fundamental problem most of us face is collision
threats with jets and other GA (non-glider) aircraft. -- That is just
obvious bull****, we all know of several collisions between gliders
and gliders and tow-planes in the USA in the last several years and
several overseas -- who here thinks collision risk with GA is more of
a blanket serious issue across the USA glider fleet? Where are all
those past collisions then? Risks scenarios will vary by location and
there will be locations where risk of a GA or airline collision may be
the main concern but it is ridiculous to claim that GA collision are
a larger risk on average for a USA glider pilot. The risk for
airliner collision is concentrated at certain locations and is a
concern mostly because the consequence x risk product is so large.

---

There is no ADS-B carriage mandate for gliders in the USA. I expect
lots (several hundreds) of gliders in the USA are going to have
PowerFLARM installed within the next year or so. Effectively none will
have ADS-B data-out. I expect the USA contest scene to rapidly get to
significant PowerFLARM adaption, helped by purchases and rental
programs that seem to be coming together. But most pre-orders and
interest in purchases that I have seen locally of PowerFLARM is from
recreational XC not contest glider pilots. And I expect to see FBOs
and clubs equipping there fleets including tow planes--at least one
local operation seems pretty committed to do that asap. It is on a
roll. But there will still be lots of people who choose not to install
Flarm products and I expect those same people would also not (because
they don't want to and/or cannot afford to) install ADS-B products,
especially ones costing significantly more.

Meanwhile ADS-B is happening so slowly it might as well be dead in the
water as far as any use in the near term is concerned for ADS-B data-
out in gliders (data-in is more doable but has serious restrictions in
the USA due to dual-link). ADS-B data-out and data-in *are*
interesting to think about on a 5-10 year scale evolution for
compatibility with GA and other traffic systems but ADS-B data-out and
data-in are *not* interesting competitively with Flarm for glider-
glider collision avoidance.

The last thing the USA glider community needs is this continued
irresponsible harping about ADS-B in an attempt to slow adoption of
technology that can save pilots lives now, whether it is Flarm for
glider-glider risks or transponders for airline and fast jet risks
etc. I had enough of the promotion of UAT as interesting future
technology 5 years ago and saw the effect that had on some people near
busy airline traffic areas like Reno and those pilots thinking they
will defer purchasing a transponder because there is going to be a
mythical $500 box that will do everything in future (never mind that
what "do everything is" was not clear in their minds or that it has no
compatibility with the TCAS systems in those airliners).

---

Back to the completely stupid claim that ADS-B is the ultimate system
for glider-glider collision avoidance. For glider-glider and glider-
towplane collision avoidance Flarm is the undisputed technical and
market leader --

o Flarm has a large installed base of glider users worldwide. It is a
proven technology for glider-glider collision avoidance. Proven in
real world situations like major glider contests and worldwide by many
thousands of users.

o Flarm devices are relatively low cost to purchase and install.

o Flarm devices are compact and draw low power suitable for use in a
glider.

o A Flarm box includes receiver and transmitter capabilities *and*
processes and triggers audible and visual (internal or remote display)
warnings.

o Flarm collision avoidance algorithms (in the Flarm box) are designed
for glider-glider type scenarios. Especially to avoid the significant
false alarm rate that other technology would generate in gaggle type
scenarios, while on-tow, etc.

o Flarm devices include display capabilities supported by popular
soaring hardware and software vendors (to do that you need the traffic
threat processing in the box not in the external device/software - and
that is also a good for standardizing warning behavior etc.).

o Flarm supports contest/stealth behavior with log file verification
to allow use in contests. This is all debatable but the support for
the feature is at least there now. I really hate to think what
technology war would be unleashed if everybody had long range accurate
climb and position data on competitors.

---

So who is making a ADS-B based system that comes close to the above?
remembering the claim here is ADS-B will be best for glider-glider
scenarios - you cannot get close to the above list of capabilities by
taking a general purpose system and shoving it into a glider.

A UAT based systems for gliders has been talked about a lot by Mike
Schumann and others - so which manufacturer is going to deliver these
capabilities targeted specifically at the tiny USA glider community?
Maybe Mike can tell us who that will be.

There is UAT stuff designed for GA use is things like the NavWorx UAT
transceiver products we've heard Mike Schumann promoting here before.
And there is also the FreeFlight Rangr UAT transceiver series coming
to market (I've got bored making fun of the NavWorx product for use in
gliders so I'll pick on the FreeFlight one now...). The FreeFlight
Rangr is based on the Mitre prototype we've heard so much about (the
NavWorks was not based on Mitre) and it costs ~$5k for the transceiver
with no GPS and $7k for the transceiver with GPS (prices are lower for
non-TSO products for experimental aircraft and I expect given recent
FAA rulings on STC approval requirements we won't be sneaking non-TSO
ADS-B transmitters into certified gliders) and then you have to add an
external display/processor and the transceiver alone draws 0.7A @ 12V
and you still don't get collision avoidance warnings/false alarm
reduction necessary for things like thermalling with other gliders. So
yes prices will fall but where do the magic economics/market dynamics
come from that has somebody building this ADS-B UAT based system to
have the features needed for use in gliders?

Same for 1090ES based collision avoidance systems. Who is going to
build a system for the needs of the glider community? At least with
1090ES there is more of a worldwide market (even if there is still USA
specific issues with 1090ES). Oh wait there is a 1090ES receiver
coming to the USA market soon... and its PowerFLARM. But wait, any
glider pilot who wants to avoid other gliders and towplanes just
installs the PowerFLARM and it all just works. No adding ADS-B
anything, no additional $5k+ worth of hardware, no dealing with FAA
STC approval. And all the other gliders are much more likely to have
Flarm installed than ADS-B, and it all works properly for a glider
environment. So purely for glider-glider and glider-towplane collision
avoidance I don't see a reason for a USA glider pilot to install more
than PowerFLARM (and it has PCAS that works out of the box with not
extra hardware and gives compatibility with those of us who have
transponders in our gliders today and 1090ES data-in for visibility of
1090ES data-out equipped traffic as they equip).

---

In the USA ADS-B dual-link pretty much guarantees that a single link
layer ADS-B receiver will not work reliably as a collision avoidance
tool at low altitudes and other areas outside of GBT (ADS-B ground
station coverage). AOPA is starting to realize this in GA land and was
trying to get more GBT stations located near GA airports so ADS-B
could be a useful traffic collision avoidance tool near those airports
etc. But that is not going to happen widely. So unless there is wide
spread adoption of dual-link (1090ES+UAT) receivers (with a single-
channel transmitter) ADS-B itself as a collision avoidance technology
in the GA market has some serious issues. It looks like there are
areas of the USA where the GBT (ground station) coverage will be
horrible, and those areas just happen to be around significant gliding
locations like Southern Utah/Parowan and the White Mountains/Inyokern
Valley and other bits along the Sierras and lots of other places in
the middle of the USA. Low level coverage on ridges out east may also
be poor. For ADS-B as collision avoidance technology to work well
outside GBT coverage you either need to force adoption of one-link
layer across the US glider community or wait for dual-link receivers/
transceivers (with single link transmitters) to be developed (at more
cost).

So mmmmm what do we do as pilots at risk of mid-air collisions
today....keep waiting for maybe some future dual-link devices that
also has to meet those "designed for use in gliders" requirements I
list above? How many more pilots do we need to put at risk? Meanwhile
we can standardize on Flarm as the collision avoidance protocol to use
*now* and know it will work glider-glider without requiring ADS-B GBT
ground station coverage, or worrying about any of all the other crap
associated with ADS-B.

And the FAA just seriously jammed up the works by requiring STCs for
every ADS-B data-out installation. Anybody aware of a manufacturer
working on an STC approval for ADS-B data-out for their glider type?
It is not any impact on ADS-B data-out adoption in gliders that is the
real issue here, more importantly this is going to significantly slow
ADS-B data-out adoption in the GA market (if you want to "see" those
aircraft they need ADS-B data-out, and there has been no incentive for
them to equip and now there is a stronger disincentive to even try).
And this recent FAA ruling may also have smaller ADS-B vendors
businesses at risk. It just likely set back ADS-B deployment in the
USA by years (or however long it will take the FAA to undo this
"temporary" requirement and the industry to recover from the damage).

---

No single traffic collision avoidance technology well addresses major
scenarios like glider-glider, glider-GA, glider-airliner etc. And this
will not change for the foreseeable future. So if the pilot of that
PowerFLARM equipped glider also flies in areas of high density airline
and fast jet traffic or near lots of GA traffic they can consider
adding a Mode S or Mode C transponder. In the longer term they could
also add ADS-B data-out, either with a UAT or 1090ES. If they want a
transponder and ADS-B data-out then the logical choice is likely a
Mode S transponder like a Trig TT-21 with 1090ES data-out. But for
glider-glider scenarios there is absolutely no reason to look beyond
Flarm (PowerFLARM in the USA) --it is the ultimate technology designed
specifically for that application and it does it well.

Oh well, sorry, I know I should just ignore the trolls.

Darryl