Flarm in the US

On Aug 11, 12:19*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
On 8/11/2010 12:15 PM, Ramy wrote:



Maybe I got lost in details, but I don't see much difference (except
the thermaling specific algorithms) between our needs and GA needs, at
least the slower "low end" GA which does not already use more
sofisticated traffic alert equipment than PCAS. If it is the best
solution for us, why isn't it for them? If they buy PCAS, why wouldn't
they buy PowerFlarm?

PowerFlarm may have fancy software to try to take into account that
gliders often do not fly straight. *However, PowerFlarm certainly can
handle the simpler situation where planes do fly straight, and so I
would think Ramy is right -- PowerFlarm would be very useful to GA.

A couple of points, some restated..

The PowerFLARM does no support popular portable or fixed dispays used
in the GA market. That may be an issue for some pilots. That is also
something FLARM could address in future (with software and/or hardware
changes).

To have the flarm protocol be useful you have to have significant
adoption. And I just do not see why or how that would happen in the GA
market. I could see examples offered before of pockets of possible
interest (news/rescue helicopters, fire bombers/spotters, logging
helicopters).

To have the ADS-B part work you need an ADS-B transmitter. For the low-
end part of the GA market in the USA most likely to adopt ADS-B data-
out (voluntarily or to meet mandate requirements) typically have Mode
C transponders today. For those lower-end aircraft I expect UAT
devices as presumably they appear (and gain TSO approval) to be
appealing. It is not clear there will be a separate UAT transmitter
market. I expect to see transceivers and receivers.

For more modern aircraft with Mode S transponders I expect is more
likely for pilots to upgrade their Mode S to 1090ES data out and at
the low-end of that group the PowerFLARM as an add-on receiver could
be interesting if the issue of display compatibility does not matter.
But in that market of more modern GA aircraft you rapidly run into
cockpits where owners/pilots are more likely to want to deploy
something that integrates with their current display and other toys
even if not IFR certified. More complex cockpits also raise some
interesting questions of device compatibility (ability to correctly
set the capability code bits for ADS-B) that seem to be an open
question and it is not clear that all these GA modern glass panel
systems will necessarily be compatible with portable ADS-B receivers
(this is mostly a USA issue). ADS-B is a slow painful process so we
need to really see what happens. If a PowerFLARM was priced close to
an Zaon MRX then I'd say its a no-brainer for any low-end GA pilot to
adopt it. The PCAS feature in the PowerFLARM is a nice feature that
other 1090ES receivers are not providing but I'm sure that will sway
much of the GA market, esp. compared to display compatibility etc.

The USA market, with its dual-link and UAT options is a bit different
than Europe. Europe has mandatory Mode S transponders and is going
1090ES data-out only. And I expect the PowerFLARM to be relatively
more appealing to lower-end GA pilots there than in the USA. I am not
saying a GA pilot cannot or should not use a PowerFLARM I am trying to
point out that as the product looks today it may be a significantly
less compelling product in the USA GA market than some glider pilots
seem to be assuming. If Flarm/Butterfly want to target the USA GA
market there are some obvious things they could do in future. It is a
however a very compelling product for many of us now...


Darryl