Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

On Aug 20, 11:09*am, Steve Koerner wrote:
It's a no-brainer. *Everyone who flies gliders with other gliders
needs to get a PowerFlarm. *

I, for one, don't think it is that simple.

I agree that FLARM is the best available technology for glider on
glider collision avoidance. That part is the no brainer.

The situation as I understand it is that one manufacturer of devices
that uses FLARM technology has expressed an intention to launch a
product (PowerFLARM) in USA. If this produduct is FLARM compatible it
must mean that the company holding the rights to the FLARM technology
has authorized the use of it in USA. That is something that they
have, in the past, prohibited.

PowerFLARM includes features that are not included by other
manufacturers of equipment using FLARM technology. There is no
indication in the specifications, or elsewhere on their website, how
these additional features will be integrated with the well proven
FLARM functionality.

If the holder of the rights to the FLARM technology has authorized its
use in USA what is to stop other companies launching a FLARM product
to the US market. Perhaps such a product would not have the
additional features of the Power FLARM unit but would support only the
basic FLARM functionality that has a proven track record. Perhaps that
device, or family of devices, would be far less expensive than
PowerFLARM. Perhaps these devices already exist and just need a
firmware change to assign the correct frequencies for use in USA.

The SSA rules committee needs to immediately adopt a mandate for
PowerFlarm in 2011 sanctioned contests

No rule should require the use of a particular manufacturer's
product. The rule that should be considered is one that requires the
use of a FLARM compatible device.

so that the Flarm folks
understand their mission and can get production ramped accordingly.

Who are the FLARM folks that you refer to? In an earlier post you
said "Andy -- have some faith. The Flarm designers are glider pilots
and have been at this for years. The track record is that of
remarkable
success". Do you mean the manufacturer of PowerFLARM, or perhaps the
holder of the FLARM rights. To the best of my knowledge these are not
the same company. (Maybe someone that knows the relationship between
the various companies and the people involved could comment)


Andy

On Aug 20, 12:15*pm, Andy wrote:
On Aug 20, 11:09*am, Steve Koerner wrote:

It's a no-brainer. *Everyone who flies gliders with other gliders
needs to get a PowerFlarm. *

I, for one, don't think it is that simple.

I agree that FLARM is the best available technology for glider on
glider collision avoidance. *That part is the no brainer.

The situation as I understand it is that one manufacturer of devices
that uses FLARM technology has expressed an intention to launch a
product (PowerFLARM) in USA. *If this produduct is FLARM compatible it
must mean that the company holding the rights to the FLARM technology
has authorized the use of it in USA. *That is something that they
have, in the past, prohibited.

PowerFLARM includes features that are not included by other
manufacturers of equipment using FLARM technology. *There is no
indication in the specifications, or elsewhere on their website, how
these additional features will be integrated with the well proven
FLARM functionality.

If the holder of the rights to the FLARM technology has authorized its
use in USA what is to stop other companies launching a FLARM product
to the US market. *Perhaps such a product would not have the
additional features of the Power FLARM unit but would support only the
basic FLARM functionality that has a proven track record. Perhaps that
device, or family of devices, would be far less expensive than
PowerFLARM. *Perhaps these devices already exist and just need a
firmware change to assign the correct frequencies for use in USA.

The SSA rules committee needs to immediately adopt a mandate for
PowerFlarm in 2011 sanctioned contests

No rule should require the use of a particular manufacturer's
product. *The rule that should be considered is one that requires the
use of a FLARM compatible device.

so that the Flarm folks
understand their mission and can get production ramped accordingly.

Who are the FLARM folks that you refer to? *In an earlier post you
said "Andy -- have some faith. * The Flarm designers are glider pilots
and have been at this for years. *The track record is that of
remarkable
success". *Do you mean the manufacturer of PowerFLARM, or perhaps the
holder of the FLARM rights. *To the best of my knowledge these are not
the same company. *(Maybe someone that knows the relationship between
the various companies and the people involved could comment)

Andy

Flarm and Butterfly (the actual manufacturer of PowerFLARM) are
cooperating very closely to bring this first Flarm based product to
the USA market. As with all other Flarm products the core technology
is developed by Flarm. Urs Rothacher the guy posting on r.a.s in these
threads is the CEO and one of the founders of of Flarm and is very
technical. He is clearly buried working to get the PowerFLARM out.

No existing Flarm devices are FCC approved in the USA and therefore
none of them can be legally sold. Unfortunately there is confusing
information put up on some web sites (yes you Paul Remde :-)) implying
some Flarm devices are available in the USA, there just are no FCC
approvals AFAIK. Some of us have had conversations with Urs about this
and one of the things that Flarm is working on in this whole project
is really clean FCC approval of the new generation hardware inside the
PowerFLARM product. That takes time, effort and $$$.

I also see no reason to specify a "powerFLARM" device for USA contest
rules. Specifying "Flarm" based product or similar likely achieves
what may be desired. And I tend to believe that is what USA rules
folks might do in any language that allowed/required etc. this
technology.

Darryl

Andy:

I agree. It should be a "Flarm compatible device" that is mandated
for 2011 contests not PowerFlarm per se.

I don't understand the nit picking about rights holders vs
manufacturers.

On Aug 20, 12:44*pm, Steve Koerner wrote:

I don't understand the nit picking about rights holders vs
manufacturers.

It's a question of what flexibility a manufacturer has to modify the
core technology/firmware to make it compatible with new features that
are not supported by other FLARM products. The new features need to be
integrated not just stuffed in the same box.

If, as Darrly says, the holder of the rights and the manufacturer are
working together on PowerFLARM then I agree it should be a non
issue.


Andy

On Aug 20, 8:05*am, Grider Pirate wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:14*am, Andy wrote:



On Aug 20, 12:50*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:

On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM).

Your arguments (even later in this same post) belie this statement.

The problem is not just contests. *Every day, we have near misses
between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. *Everyone who has purchased a
PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
never see.

PCAS is an important adjunct technology for the immediate future -
PowerFlarm has it but Navworx and Mitre units don't and therefore
can't see anything but ADS-B UAT direct outside the very limited
ground station deployment. Which meant you won't be able to see 1090ES
equipped jets unless you are near ground stations taht are yet to be
built (or even funded to be built I suspect) Correct?

You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
are the FLARM guys. *You completely ignore the significant efforts that
have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
and glider world.

I think the point is that Flarm (and PowerFlarm by extension) has done
a much better job of actually solving for the primary glider collision
scenarios in a unit you can order today (and will likely be delivered
in time for next season) - that is why people are getting interested
in it. *For instance, and as has been pointed out, the Navworx unit is
more expensive and draws 0.8 amps @ 12v before you add a GPS or
display. That likely doubles or triples the power requirements on most
gliders. *We can recognize the efforts of Mitre and Navworx all we
want but the fact remains they are FAR more focused on GA than gliders
- a look at what they are producing confirms that.

This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions.

Good for them, but it's mostly not material to the discussion of which
products now coming on the market are most suitable for gliders. Just
because it works in an operational test doesn't mean its the BEST
solution.

It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:11:21 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

[ much snippage of useful and interesting post ]

Thanks for that, Darryl. Still not too much progress then....

--
Alex

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:11:21 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

Although it obviously varies widely a typical power consumption number
for a glider avionics is roughly around 0.8 amp (as Evan noted his is)
for what I am guessing is a typical setup of C302 style computer, a PDA,
and VHF radio. Owners should measure and calculate the loads in the
glider and estimate the battery capacity needed or run time available
from the batteries they have. Do not just divide the nominal "Ah
capacity" by amp load, especially at higher loads, you need to use the
discharge curves data from a manufacturer to estimate the available run
time of a battery at a particular load (most good VRLA batteries are
close enough to use another manufacturers spec sheet for a similar sized
battery).

I'd seriously suggest a visit to your local RC model shop to look at
battery chargers. $60 - $100 gets you a cycling charger that can not only
peak charge a partially discharged SLA battery without harming it, but
can measure its capacity. Record the measured capacity every year and bin
the battery when it shows a 30% drop and you may even save money.

Slinging an SLA battery every three years is common wisdom here, yet last
winter my three year old batteries still had 90% of their nominal
capacity. Bin them? I think not!

FWIW these batteries have always been charged with a peak charger.

PS; sorry for hi-jacking the thread, but it seemed appropriate.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On 8/20/2010 5:48 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:

I'd seriously suggest a visit to your local RC model shop to look at
battery chargers. $60 - $100 gets you a cycling charger that can not only
peak charge a partially discharged SLA battery without harming it, but
can measure its capacity. Record the measured capacity every year and bin
the battery when it shows a 30% drop and you may even save money.


What units do you suggest? The ones in that price range I'm familiar
with (like the LN5014 Multiplex) discharge at a low rate (~0.4 amps) and
charge at only 14.0 volts, not really a peak charger, which should use
14.6 at least.

--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 8/20/2010 9:25 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
The ADS-B Ground Station roll-out is moving forward at an accelerating
rate and should be completed Nation Wide by the end of 2012. It is
fully funded and all the necessary contracts are in place.

The vast majority of the country will have coverage above 1,800 ft.
See
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...cast/coverage/


I have no financial interest in any of this.

Mike, with the way my newsreader works, it would be a lot easier to
follow the meaning of your posts if you included at least a paragraph of
the posting you are replying to. Thanks!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 8/20/2010 8:04 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:19:24 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules have
not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how they
do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver (since it
is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning "two-way
communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based devices.

I'm realising there is another passive collision warning system that we
use in the UK but I think may not be used as such in the USA - NOTAMS.

Whenever there's something happening here that raises a significant
collision risk such as a balloon festival, gliding competition or
microlite rally it will be NOTAMed, giving the base airfield, number of
participants and the area where significant numbers of participating
aircraft may be found. This at least warns other pilots to be more
vigilant in that area.

I've noticed that NOTAMs seem to be much less used in the USA than they
are here, so I'm wondering if your Regionals and national competitions
are routinely NOTAMed.


Anecdotally....a preliminary flight plan I did a month or two ago for
Corpus Christi from Altus (SW Oklahoma) as depicted on sectionals using
that handy service fltplan.com showed up with a flag because it crossed
close by an airfield south of Dallas marked for an air display via a NOTAM.

This approach beats paper modems easily - the planning service shows
only NOTAMS relevant to the track...

Brian W