FLARM Statistics

Ramy wrote:

One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.

This is my belief, also, and perhaps the TPAS manufacturers are the ones
to approach about this. They might be able to convince the FLARM folk
that they could manufacture and sell the units without any liability for
FLARM, or develop one their own. A unit for North America wouldn't need
to be compatible with units in other countries.

I think the biggest problem is disinterest in the US community. In
preparation for a presentation on FLARM at the 2005 SSA convention, I
contacted a number of pilots about potential interest in it. I thought
the Minden pilots would be very excited about it because of the White
Mountains issues, but there was almost no interest in it. I was stunned.

I now think the potential for collision with another glider is widely
perceived (rightly or wrongly) as so low, it's not worth the effort or
cost to use something like FLARM. One way to reduce the cost would be a
FLARM with an IGC secure recorder, so the additional cost of the FLARM
capability is, say, less than $200 (I don't know if that is possible).
Still, since so many pilots already have a secure recorder, it might
take years for a significant number to be in use.

Perhaps a simpler, cheaper, "proximity" alert unit would be more
acceptable in North America. It wouldn't be completely passive, but
would broadcast a periodic weak signal with an ID code that can be
detected a mile or two away. It would receive signals from other units
and estimate their distance by the signal strength (no GPS). TPAS
manufacturers could easily convert their current designs (like the Zaon
MRX) just by fitting a different RF "front end". The box, power supply,
displays, logic, etc would remain the same. This would make it much
cheaper for them to develop and manufacture than a FLARM style unit.

It wouldn't be as effective as a FLARM, but if it were available for
less than $500, there might be a market for it. The Zaon MRX unit, for
example, already has an altimeter function in it, so the altitude could
be broadcast along with the ID code, allowing display of the relative
altitudes of the two gliders.

In the ideal world, this detection capability would be an "add-on" to a
company's standard TPAS unit, allowing detection of transponder equipped
aircraft AND aircraft with just the dual TPAS.

It just occurred to me the reason the TPAS unit manufacturers don't seem
to have a liability issue is their units only alert based on proximity,
and not on predicted flight path. If this is true, perhaps a modified
FLARM could be sold in North America by FLARM folks or a licensed
dealer/manufacturer.

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

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Eric Greenwell wrote:

I think the biggest problem is disinterest in the US community. In
preparation for a presentation on FLARM at the 2005 SSA convention, I
contacted a number of pilots about potential interest in it. I thought
the Minden pilots would be very excited about it because of the White
Mountains issues, but there was almost no interest in it. I was stunned.

I think you would get a very different reaction now, that it's been
discovered that the sky is not that big after all, not even on a
weekday over Minden nor over the remote Amazonas rainforest. I'll be
the first one in line to replace my volkslogger with a flarm. The cost
should be minimal.

Ramy

"Ramy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think you would get a very different reaction now, that it's been
discovered that the sky is not that big after all, not even on a
weekday over Minden nor over the remote Amazonas rainforest. I'll be
the first one in line to replace my volkslogger with a flarm. The cost
should be minimal.

Ramy


Ramy,

I'm not so sure. Mid-air awareness has probably risen some. However, the
Minden incident would not have been averted by Flarm, nor would the SA
mid-air between two jets. And because of the far flung "wide open spaces" in
the US, there are but few places, such as the Whites in NV, where glider
density comes close to the Alps (though I've not been there).

To make something universally acceptable in the US, if it only works between
gliders it'll have to be cheap and small. Such a device would be much better
received if it warns of both power and glider threats. The bigger
catastrophic risk at Minden is that an airliner and glider will try to
occupy the same airspace. Many of us worry about that and transponders seem
the best answer for now.

--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII yaw string

bumper wrote:


To make something universally acceptable in the US, if it only works between
gliders it'll have to be cheap and small. Such a device would be much better
received if it warns of both power and glider threats.

I hope some clever person will modify a Zaon MRX by adding another,
perhaps externally mounted, RF "front end" that transmits an ID code and
the altitude every few seconds, then listens for other units. The
estimated distance (based on the strength of the received signal) of the
"threat" is displayed along with the transponder derived "threats". The
developer would have to do some reverse engineering on the MRX to gain
access to the altitude signal (or just use another pressure sensor) and
to mix the info into data stream to the logic/display, but could end up
with a small, cheap enough, add-on to the MRX. Ta da! Transponder and
glider proximity alerts in (maybe) one small box.

Or, a person even more clever might convince Zaon to do it instead.


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

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:U3iXg.5681$ic1.2059@trndny06...
bumper wrote:


To make something universally acceptable in the US, if it only works
between gliders it'll have to be cheap and small. Such a device would be
much better received if it warns of both power and glider threats.

I hope some clever person will modify a Zaon MRX by adding another,
perhaps externally mounted, RF "front end" that transmits an ID code and
the altitude every few seconds, then listens for other units. The
estimated distance (based on the strength of the received signal) of the
"threat" is displayed along with the transponder derived "threats". The
developer would have to do some reverse engineering on the MRX to gain
access to the altitude signal (or just use another pressure sensor) and to
mix the info into data stream to the logic/display, but could end up with
a small, cheap enough, add-on to the MRX. Ta da! Transponder and glider
proximity alerts in (maybe) one small box.

Or, a person even more clever might convince Zaon to do it instead.


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

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Or, a "clever" person could design something akin to Garmin's RINO (a GPS
that is able to send it's position and/or acquire the position of other
nearby units - up to 23 nm in the air). Unfortunately, the FCC did not allow
Garmin to program the RINO to send/receive automatically - - one has to push
the side button to send position to all other units within range. The
"RINO", at $150 US, still remains a useful tool for buddy or team soaring.
(RINO will display other units range, bearing, and altitude. When your
buddy's info is updated on your display, your unit will "chime" and this
reminds you to push the button on your unit to send him your position. It's
also possible to "poll" other RINOs within range for their current
position - - though this takes more button pushes and so is not so
convenient while flying.)

Think about it though, if Garmin can use Family Radio Service (FRS or GMRS)
band to send / receive position, then why the h__l can't the FCC allow the
use of this radio band, even if limited to less power/range, to be used in
an automatic position reporting mode. The equipment would be cheap,
portable, low-power consuming and would display other threat aircraft on a
moving map display w/ GPS altitude.

Sounds just like a poor man's ADS-B, but with less range, doesn't it?
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII Yaw String

I suspect if these units could transmit in auto mode, the frequency would
become completely unusable.

Mike Schumann

"bumper" wrote in message
...


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:U3iXg.5681$ic1.2059@trndny06...
bumper wrote:


To make something universally acceptable in the US, if it only works
between gliders it'll have to be cheap and small. Such a device would be
much better received if it warns of both power and glider threats.

I hope some clever person will modify a Zaon MRX by adding another,
perhaps externally mounted, RF "front end" that transmits an ID code and
the altitude every few seconds, then listens for other units. The
estimated distance (based on the strength of the received signal) of the
"threat" is displayed along with the transponder derived "threats". The
developer would have to do some reverse engineering on the MRX to gain
access to the altitude signal (or just use another pressure sensor) and
to mix the info into data stream to the logic/display, but could end up
with a small, cheap enough, add-on to the MRX. Ta da! Transponder and
glider proximity alerts in (maybe) one small box.

Or, a person even more clever might convince Zaon to do it instead.


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

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Or, a "clever" person could design something akin to Garmin's RINO (a GPS
that is able to send it's position and/or acquire the position of other
nearby units - up to 23 nm in the air). Unfortunately, the FCC did not
allow Garmin to program the RINO to send/receive automatically - - one has
to push the side button to send position to all other units within range.
The "RINO", at $150 US, still remains a useful tool for buddy or team
soaring. (RINO will display other units range, bearing, and altitude. When
your buddy's info is updated on your display, your unit will "chime" and
this reminds you to push the button on your unit to send him your
position. It's also possible to "poll" other RINOs within range for their
current position - - though this takes more button pushes and so is not so
convenient while flying.)

Think about it though, if Garmin can use Family Radio Service (FRS or
GMRS) band to send / receive position, then why the h__l can't the FCC
allow the use of this radio band, even if limited to less power/range, to
be used in an automatic position reporting mode. The equipment would be
cheap, portable, low-power consuming and would display other threat
aircraft on a moving map display w/ GPS altitude.

Sounds just like a poor man's ADS-B, but with less range, doesn't it?
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII Yaw String

That sounds just like Flarm, which is available from two manufacturers in
Europe and one in Australia, and has sold about 5,000 units so far.

Are you suggesting that the USA re-invent the wheel?

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"bumper" wrote in message
...

snip

Sounds just like a poor man's ADS-B, but with less range, doesn't it?
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII Yaw String

No, not intentionally, anyway. I was under the impression, though I have no
experience with FLARM, that it was not suitable for high speed GA aircraft,
jets and the like.

At present, FLARM cannot be used in the USA due to apparent liability
concerns. Even if it could be used, and all gliders were so equipped, it
would only address part of the problem. For the US, we need a system that
will work for both power and glider. If that's FLARM, fine. If not, then
hopefully someone will reinvent the wheel - - soon.

I'm aware of two mid-airs in the Minden / Truckee / Tahoe area in the past
15 or so years. Both where power vs. glider. Fortunately, and rather
amazingly, neither involved fatalities. There was another further south on
the Sierra that involved a glider and jet fighter - - again both survived. I
have no statistics, but in this neck-of-the-woods, it would seem the threat
of a glider mid-air is mostly between us and the guys with engines.
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quit Vent kit and MKII yaw string

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." wrote in message
...
That sounds just like Flarm, which is available from two manufacturers in
Europe and one in Australia, and has sold about 5,000 units so far.

Are you suggesting that the USA re-invent the wheel?

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"bumper" wrote in message
...

snip

Sounds just like a poor man's ADS-B, but with less range, doesn't it?
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII Yaw String

It would make a lot more sense if someone would engineer a low cost ADSB
compliant transceiver that would interface with a PDA. Then eveyone could
go nuts developing software that would be able to identify not only gliders
but also power aircraft. Once the FAA starts installing the necessary
ground equipment, we'll even be able to see Mode C transponder equiped
aircraft using the ADSB version of TIS.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:U3iXg.5681$ic1.2059@trndny06...
bumper wrote:


To make something universally acceptable in the US, if it only works
between gliders it'll have to be cheap and small. Such a device would be
much better received if it warns of both power and glider threats.

I hope some clever person will modify a Zaon MRX by adding another,
perhaps externally mounted, RF "front end" that transmits an ID code and
the altitude every few seconds, then listens for other units. The
estimated distance (based on the strength of the received signal) of the
"threat" is displayed along with the transponder derived "threats". The
developer would have to do some reverse engineering on the MRX to gain
access to the altitude signal (or just use another pressure sensor) and to
mix the info into data stream to the logic/display, but could end up with
a small, cheap enough, add-on to the MRX. Ta da! Transponder and glider
proximity alerts in (maybe) one small box.

Or, a person even more clever might convince Zaon to do it instead.


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

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Mike Schumann wrote:
It would make a lot more sense if someone would engineer a low cost ADSB
compliant transceiver that would interface with a PDA. Then eveyone could
go nuts developing software that would be able to identify not only gliders
but also power aircraft. Once the FAA starts installing the necessary
ground equipment, we'll even be able to see Mode C transponder equiped
aircraft using the ADSB version of TIS.

The ground equipment is already in place along the east coast from New
York down to Florida, Alaska, Oregon, and a few other scattered places.
It's much cheaper than upgrading radar equipment, but suffers from the
classic chicken and egg problem.

In principle, a simple low power ADS-B transceiver (to be precise a UAT)
need be no more complicated or expensive to manufacture than a FLARM
unit. In practice, however, the certification costs alone are something
over a million dollars for a device which currently has a tiny market.
If the FAA really wants to kick start use of ADS-B in this country, they
need to take a serious look at simplifying or subsidizing the
certification process.

Marc