PowerFLARM Mode S question

On 10/22/2010 10:30 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 22, 6:55 am, Mike
wrote:
On 10/21/2010 1:36 PM, kirk.stant wrote:

PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. How many aircraft
(Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?

This is for the US, of course.

Kirk
66

If PowerFLARM was a full blown ADS-B IN/OUT system, you would be able to
see all transponder equipped aircraft using the TIS-B data transmitted
from your local ADS-B ground station. But......

--
Mike Schumann

The question was about airliners and you will not need ADS-B data out
to see the 1090ES data out from airliners or many of the other
aircraft who (fly above FL180 and so) are all required to equip with
1090ES by 2020. PowerFLARM will do that just fine out of the box.

For one I am glad that Flarm and Butterfly are not stupid enough to go
down that rathole. If you want 1090ES data-out you add a Mode S
transponder. There are many reasons to separate the functions in two
boxes, starting with there is a large market worldwide already for
stand alone Mode S transponders and by decoupling the highly regulated
data-out functions from the data-in functions allows innovative
companies to develop innovative products--just like PowerFLARM. And in
most countries you do not need ADS-B data out to see other ADS-B data
out equipped aircraft - only in the USA. Vendors are going to optimize
products for a worldwide market? I seems Mike Schumann thinks the
answer to everything is more complexity... and this is yet another
awful suggestion. And if PowerFLARM had 1090ES data-out it would cost
thousands of dollars more plus likely require a certified GPS (the FAA
may have closed off any chance of not requiring this by forcing STC
approval-experimental gliders might still get away eith this?) that
currently costs thousands plus for the forseablefuture require an STC
approval for each glider type it is installed in

I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? Adding a 3rd
collision avoidance technology is more complexity. If I was running the
the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. That's simplicity.

It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
hallucinate.

--
Mike Schumann

On Oct 22, 7:34*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 10/22/2010 10:30 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:





On Oct 22, 6:55 am, Mike
wrote:
On 10/21/2010 1:36 PM, kirk.stant wrote:

PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. *How many aircraft
(Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?

This is for the US, of course.

Kirk
66

If PowerFLARM was a full blown ADS-B IN/OUT system, you would be able to
see all transponder equipped aircraft using the TIS-B data transmitted
from your local ADS-B ground station. *But......

--
Mike Schumann

The question was about airliners and you will not need ADS-B data out
to see the 1090ES data out from airliners or many of the other
aircraft who (fly above FL180 and so) are all required to equip with
1090ES by 2020. PowerFLARM will do that just fine out of the box.

For one I am glad that Flarm and Butterfly are not stupid enough to go
down that rathole. If you want 1090ES data-out you add a Mode S
transponder. There are many reasons to separate the functions in two
boxes, starting with there is a large market worldwide already for
stand alone Mode S transponders and by decoupling the highly regulated
data-out functions from the data-in functions allows innovative
companies to develop innovative products--just like PowerFLARM. And in
most countries you do not need ADS-B data out to see other ADS-B data
out equipped aircraft - only in the USA. Vendors are going to optimize
products for a worldwide market? I seems Mike Schumann thinks the
answer to everything is more complexity... and this is yet another
awful suggestion. And if PowerFLARM had 1090ES data-out it would cost
thousands of dollars more plus likely require a certified GPS (the FAA
may have closed off any chance of not requiring this by forcing STC
approval-experimental gliders might still get away eith this?) that
currently costs thousands plus for the forseablefuture require an STC
approval for each glider type it is installed in

I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity..

It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
hallucinate.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike I focus here on trying to point out what technologies will do and
what they won't and trying to help pilots navigate the reality of a
complex mess of technology. You seem to spend a lot of time dreaming
about what might be if only... Regardless of how impractical or
unlikely for practical market reasons they might be.

The collision concern for most glider pilots is I believe glider-
glider risk. The clear, well proven and logical choice for helping
reduce that risk is for pilots to deploy FLARM asap and stop dreaming
about ADS-B UAT vaporware for glider-glider collision avoidance. I
think folks here can look at the mess around ADS-B right now and
realize that the minimal complexity path to solve that problem is
PowerFLARM (which also provides PCAS and a future path to ADS-B). If
airliners are a concern then add a transponder (right now-it also is
simple, straightforward and just works).

Darryl

On 10/22/2010 10:53 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 22, 7:34 am, Mike
wrote:
On 10/22/2010 10:30 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:





On Oct 22, 6:55 am, Mike
wrote:
On 10/21/2010 1:36 PM, kirk.stant wrote:

PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. How many aircraft
(Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?

This is for the US, of course.

Kirk
66

If PowerFLARM was a full blown ADS-B IN/OUT system, you would be able to
see all transponder equipped aircraft using the TIS-B data transmitted
from your local ADS-B ground station. But......

--
Mike Schumann

The question was about airliners and you will not need ADS-B data out
to see the 1090ES data out from airliners or many of the other
aircraft who (fly above FL180 and so) are all required to equip with
1090ES by 2020. PowerFLARM will do that just fine out of the box.

For one I am glad that Flarm and Butterfly are not stupid enough to go
down that rathole. If you want 1090ES data-out you add a Mode S
transponder. There are many reasons to separate the functions in two
boxes, starting with there is a large market worldwide already for
stand alone Mode S transponders and by decoupling the highly regulated
data-out functions from the data-in functions allows innovative
companies to develop innovative products--just like PowerFLARM. And in
most countries you do not need ADS-B data out to see other ADS-B data
out equipped aircraft - only in the USA. Vendors are going to optimize
products for a worldwide market? I seems Mike Schumann thinks the
answer to everything is more complexity... and this is yet another
awful suggestion. And if PowerFLARM had 1090ES data-out it would cost
thousands of dollars more plus likely require a certified GPS (the FAA
may have closed off any chance of not requiring this by forcing STC
approval-experimental gliders might still get away eith this?) that
currently costs thousands plus for the forseablefuture require an STC
approval for each glider type it is installed in

I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? Adding a 3rd
collision avoidance technology is more complexity. If I was running the
the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. That's simplicity.

It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
hallucinate.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike I focus here on trying to point out what technologies will do and
what they won't and trying to help pilots navigate the reality of a
complex mess of technology. You seem to spend a lot of time dreaming
about what might be if only... Regardless of how impractical or
unlikely for practical market reasons they might be.

The collision concern for most glider pilots is I believe glider-
glider risk. The clear, well proven and logical choice for helping
reduce that risk is for pilots to deploy FLARM asap and stop dreaming
about ADS-B UAT vaporware for glider-glider collision avoidance. I
think folks here can look at the mess around ADS-B right now and
realize that the minimal complexity path to solve that problem is
PowerFLARM (which also provides PCAS and a future path to ADS-B). If
airliners are a concern then add a transponder (right now-it also is
simple, straightforward and just works).

Darryl



Amongst the glider pilots I fly with, glider / GA and glider / Airliner
collision risks are at least as big a concern, if not bigger than glider
/ glider. Only 10% of US pilots fly in contests, where glider / glider
collisions is obviously a very big problem.

The FAA has obviously made a HUGE mess of ADS-B. However, the ground
stations are rolling out. The Navworx ADS-B transceiver is shipping,
and could easily be interfaced to Clear Nav, See You Mobile, etc... if
we could get the soaring community to help get the parties to cooperate.
Obviously the cost of the Navworx unit is higher than we would like,
so the commercial viability of this unit in the glider world remains to
be seen.

Your dismissive attitude towards ADS-B is not helping to get vendors
interested in providing solutions for the glider community. If this is
your intent, then you are doing a great job. I hope you are getting a
nice fat commission check from the FLARM boys.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike, you are way out of line for your uncalled for insult to Darryl.
I would also remind you that an ADS-B transceiver was in the cockpit
of a glider involved in a recent mid-air with another glider.
Unfortunately, it didn't help. Like FLARM itself, one needs ADS-B
devices in both cockpits. In my opinion, the cheaper PowerFLARM and
1090 Mode S combination has a much better chance of being adopted than
the Navwork solution you tout.

-John

On Oct 22, 3:59 pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
Amongst the glider pilots I fly with, glider / GA and glider / Airliner
collision risks are at least as big a concern, if not bigger than glider
/ glider. Only 10% of US pilots fly in contests, where glider / glider
collisions is obviously a very big problem.

The FAA has obviously made a HUGE mess of ADS-B. However, the ground
stations are rolling out. The Navworx ADS-B transceiver is shipping,
and could easily be interfaced to Clear Nav, See You Mobile, etc... if
we could get the soaring community to help get the parties to cooperate.
Obviously the cost of the Navworx unit is higher than we would like,
so the commercial viability of this unit in the glider world remains to
be seen.

Your dismissive attitude towards ADS-B is not helping to get vendors
interested in providing solutions for the glider community. If this is
your intent, then you are doing a great job. I hope you are getting a
nice fat commission check from the FLARM boys.

--
Mike Schumann

I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity..

It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
hallucinate.

--
Mike Schumann

But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
plus interminable certification delays.

It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?

John Cochrane

On Oct 22, 10:58*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity.

It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
hallucinate.

--
Mike Schumann

But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
plus interminable certification delays.

It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?

John Cochrane

I work with the FAA as a contractor, trust me NOTHING is ever simple
with them....

On Oct 22, 7:58*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity.

It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
hallucinate.

--
Mike Schumann

But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
plus interminable certification delays.

It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?

John Cochrane

Amen. The Navworx "simple solution" transceiver draws nearly 1 amp at
12 volts WITHOUT a display, doesn't integrate with any existing
soaring computers, doesn't do glider flight path projection that is
essential to glider-glider collision avoidance and doesn't directly
receive 1090ES data-out signals for the multitude of areas where
that's what you need because the ground station coverage isn't
designed for the places glider fly. Oh, and it costs $2500 but doesn't
include PCAS. So it solves exactly ZERO of the problems that currently
matter to glider pilots and, IMO, is likely to lose out to 1090ES in
the long run because of the aforementioned regulatory requirements.

PowerFlarm plus a Trig 21 is a great way to go because it solves
actual problems we have today and PowerFlarm alone is a pretty good
improvement overall and adequate if you don't fly near a major
commercial airport. Seems simple enough to me.

9B

On 10/23/2010 3:43 PM, Andy wrote:
On Oct 22, 7:58 am, John
wrote:
I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? Adding a 3rd
collision avoidance technology is more complexity. If I was running the
the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. That's simplicity.

It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
hallucinate.

--
Mike Schumann

But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
plus interminable certification delays.

It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?

John Cochrane

Amen. The Navworx "simple solution" transceiver draws nearly 1 amp at
12 volts WITHOUT a display, doesn't integrate with any existing
soaring computers, doesn't do glider flight path projection that is
essential to glider-glider collision avoidance and doesn't directly
receive 1090ES data-out signals for the multitude of areas where
that's what you need because the ground station coverage isn't
designed for the places glider fly. Oh, and it costs $2500 but doesn't
include PCAS. So it solves exactly ZERO of the problems that currently
matter to glider pilots and, IMO, is likely to lose out to 1090ES in
the long run because of the aforementioned regulatory requirements.

PowerFlarm plus a Trig 21 is a great way to go because it solves
actual problems we have today and PowerFlarm alone is a pretty good
improvement overall and adequate if you don't fly near a major
commercial airport. Seems simple enough to me.

9B

You can argue all of these points ad nauseum, but your credibility goes
out the window when you say that PowerFlarm is here and now. It has not
been FCC approved, is not available for sale in the US and is not
shipping. When it is, go ahead and push it all you want. In the mean
time, the Navworx box is shipping. Yes, it may not be the ideal
solution; it may not integrate with glide computers; it may draw more
power than you want; it may be too expensive. But it is here and now,
unlike PowerFlarm.

--
Mike Schumann

On Oct 23, 4:02*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 10/23/2010 3:43 PM, Andy wrote:



On Oct 22, 7:58 am, John
wrote:
I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity.

It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
hallucinate.

--
Mike Schumann

But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
plus interminable certification delays.

It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?

John Cochrane

Amen. *The Navworx "simple solution" transceiver draws nearly 1 amp at
12 volts WITHOUT a display, doesn't integrate with any existing
soaring computers, doesn't do glider flight path projection that is
essential to glider-glider collision avoidance and doesn't directly
receive 1090ES data-out signals for the multitude of areas where
that's what you need because the ground station coverage isn't
designed for the places glider fly. Oh, and it costs $2500 but doesn't
include PCAS. So it solves exactly ZERO of the problems that currently
matter to glider pilots and, IMO, is likely to lose out to 1090ES in
the long run because of the aforementioned regulatory requirements.

PowerFlarm plus a Trig 21 is a great way to go because it solves
actual problems we have today and PowerFlarm alone is a pretty good
improvement overall and adequate if you don't fly near a major
commercial airport. Seems simple enough to me.

9B

You can argue all of these points ad nauseum, but your credibility goes
out the window when you say that PowerFlarm is here and now. *It has not
been FCC approved, is not available for sale in the US and is not
shipping. *When it is, go ahead and push it all you want. *In the mean
time, the Navworx box is shipping. *Yes, it may not be the ideal
solution; it may not integrate with glide computers; it may draw more
power than you want; it may be too expensive. *But it is here and now,
unlike PowerFlarm.

--
Mike Schumann

I hope most people can work out that your thought process around
collision avoidance technology lacks any practicality of foundation in
reality. But since this involves saftey I'll keep pointing out the
obvious.

So something is coming that will meet many of our needs much better
than anything else, and especially for glider-glider collision threats
will be absolutely better than anything else, but it is not here yet
so instead of waiting we should use something that likely will meet
very few needs? And still be relatively expensive. And there is
unlikely to every be a business case for finishing/tailoring that
product for the needs of the USA glider market. And how exactly do you
solve the current STC installation requirement? Who will fund the
development of the STC approval for installation in gliders?

In past discussions with Bill Moffitt, President of NavWorx he seemed
a pretty reasonable guy and his impression of PowerFLARM technology
for the glider market seemed to me to be pretty positive. So that just
confuses me, do NavWorx share you unbridled enthusiasm for pushing
their current UAT products into glider applications? NavWorx's UAT
receivers have an interesting potential market as FIS-B receivers and
their transceivers have an interesting potential market as add-on ADS-
B devices for aircraft owners who want to keep their Mode C
transponder. I suspect they don't need the distraction of trying to
develop products to meet the need of the tiny USA glider market.

Darryl

On 10/23/2010 7:56 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 23, 4:02 pm, Mike
wrote:
On 10/23/2010 3:43 PM, Andy wrote:



On Oct 22, 7:58 am, John
wrote:
I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? Adding a 3rd
collision avoidance technology is more complexity. If I was running the
the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. That's simplicity.

It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
hallucinate.

--
Mike Schumann

But you're not running the FAA, the FAA is running the FAA. And the
way they are running it, if Flarm or similar devices were to add ADS-B
out or operate through the ADS-B protocol rather than low-power direct
radio, it would cost them thousands of more dollars, many more amps,
plus interminable certification delays.

It's not happening; Powerflarm is here and now -- you can see the
jets, you get superb collision avoidance with other gliders and
towplanes that install it, and if you add a mode-S transponder the
jets can see you. It makes perfect sense to separate the "in" and
glider-glider box (not certified) from the much more expensive and
certified "out" and "jet sees you" box. I just can't understand the
fuss. Who is drinking the koolaid here?

John Cochrane

Amen. The Navworx "simple solution" transceiver draws nearly 1 amp at
12 volts WITHOUT a display, doesn't integrate with any existing
soaring computers, doesn't do glider flight path projection that is
essential to glider-glider collision avoidance and doesn't directly
receive 1090ES data-out signals for the multitude of areas where
that's what you need because the ground station coverage isn't
designed for the places glider fly. Oh, and it costs $2500 but doesn't
include PCAS. So it solves exactly ZERO of the problems that currently
matter to glider pilots and, IMO, is likely to lose out to 1090ES in
the long run because of the aforementioned regulatory requirements.

PowerFlarm plus a Trig 21 is a great way to go because it solves
actual problems we have today and PowerFlarm alone is a pretty good
improvement overall and adequate if you don't fly near a major
commercial airport. Seems simple enough to me.

9B

You can argue all of these points ad nauseum, but your credibility goes
out the window when you say that PowerFlarm is here and now. It has not
been FCC approved, is not available for sale in the US and is not
shipping. When it is, go ahead and push it all you want. In the mean
time, the Navworx box is shipping. Yes, it may not be the ideal
solution; it may not integrate with glide computers; it may draw more
power than you want; it may be too expensive. But it is here and now,
unlike PowerFlarm.

--
Mike Schumann

I hope most people can work out that your thought process around
collision avoidance technology lacks any practicality of foundation in
reality. But since this involves saftey I'll keep pointing out the
obvious.

So something is coming that will meet many of our needs much better
than anything else, and especially for glider-glider collision threats
will be absolutely better than anything else, but it is not here yet
so instead of waiting we should use something that likely will meet
very few needs? And still be relatively expensive. And there is
unlikely to every be a business case for finishing/tailoring that
product for the needs of the USA glider market. And how exactly do you
solve the current STC installation requirement? Who will fund the
development of the STC approval for installation in gliders?

In past discussions with Bill Moffitt, President of NavWorx he seemed
a pretty reasonable guy and his impression of PowerFLARM technology
for the glider market seemed to me to be pretty positive. So that just
confuses me, do NavWorx share you unbridled enthusiasm for pushing
their current UAT products into glider applications? NavWorx's UAT
receivers have an interesting potential market as FIS-B receivers and
their transceivers have an interesting potential market as add-on ADS-
B devices for aircraft owners who want to keep their Mode C
transponder. I suspect they don't need the distraction of trying to
develop products to meet the need of the tiny USA glider market.

Darryl


I am not arguing that Navworx is the ideal solution for gliders. What I
object to is the assertions in this thread that PowerFlarm is the
ultimate solution, better than all others, and that it is currently
available.

It is NOT currently available, and any claims to the contrary are false.
It may be available in the relatively near future, and when it is, it
may be the best solution available for a certain segment of the glider
population. That doesn't guarantee that it will be the best solution
out there in a year or two or three.

Everyone has to make their own decisions on what they are going to buy
and when they are going to do that. That is a very personal decision
based on everyone's personal threat environment or their risk tolerance.

--
Mike Schumann