PowerFLARM Mode S question

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

On 10/23/2010 6:48 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:

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.


All that anyone is saying is that it is the best solution in the near
future. Do you disagree?

On Oct 23, 6:48*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
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

I think it's pretty clear - Mike admits that when PowerFlarm gets FCC
approval he will unequivocally support it as the optimal solution for
gliders. His arguments to-date have been uniformly based on
PowarFlarm's pending approval.

Mike, are you going to change your argument or be consistent?

9B

On 10/24/2010 2:39 AM, Andy wrote:
On Oct 23, 6:48 pm, Mike
wrote:
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

I think it's pretty clear - Mike admits that when PowerFlarm gets FCC
approval he will unequivocally support it as the optimal solution for
gliders. His arguments to-date have been uniformly based on
PowarFlarm's pending approval.

Mike, are you going to change your argument or be consistent?

9B

When the product is FCC approved, and you can get a datasheet and a
manual then we can have a discussion on the pluses and minuses. I am
open minded to any solution that not only addresses glider on glider
threats, but also glider / GA and glider / airliners threats.

--
Mike Schumann

On Oct 22, 7:58*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
Powerflarm is here and now.

Did I miss something? Where can I buy one today?

Andy (GY)