Build your own PowerFLARM!

On Aug 15, 1:16 pm, Mark Berger wrote:
sisu1a wrote:
When people in the FAA, AOPA, etc... read these kind of comments, what
do you think happens to our sport's credibility?

Running the risk of being accused of having a sense of humor *can* be
pretty damaging, please censor yourself accordingly.

Kinda reminds me of a story I heard a few years back (forgot by who,
but it was out east...). A few syndicate owners of a glider found
themselves with an empty hole in the panel to fill so for kicks, one
of them took an instrument carcass and made a new Fun-meter
(Funometer?), with a nicely made scale and pointer to measure how much
fun was being had at any given moment, with "Fun" written on the scale
to indicate such. After rigging the ship one day, another club member
came up and was quietly studying the panel in the ship for a awhile,
puzzling over this new gadget. Eventually he pipes up and asks one of
the guys: "What does F.U.N.stand for"?

-Paul

What does UAT stand for?

Mark

Short answer...UAT stands for Universal Access Transceiver.

Long answer...

UAT is one of the two physical link layers used for ADS-B in the USA.
The other is 1090ES.

UAT stands for Universal Access Transceiver. Even though "transceiver"
is part of the name not all "UAT" boxes are transceivers, some are
receivers only and some might be transmitters (but by the time a
manufacturer goes to all the effort of building and certifying a
transmitter I expect them to include a receiver).

Ultimately UAT is specified by RTCA standard DO282B and 1090ES is
specified by RTCA standard DO260B and these specs are what roll up
into the FAA 2020 carriage mandates (for powered aircraft not gliders)
and TSO approval specs for the devices.

For powered aircraft 1090ES is required in the 2020 mandate for flight
above FL180.

1090ES layers on top of the data transmission and reception capability
in Mode S transponders. 1090ES operate on 1090MHz, the current
transponder reply frequency, hence their name. The "ES" part is for
"extended squitter", "extended" = larger data packet, squitter =
automatic broadcast without begin interrogated.

UATs operate on 978 MHz.

UAT are mostly a USA thing, Europe in particular has standardized on
Mode S transponders as a step towards 1090ES based ADS-B. That has
some implications on the glider community for products coming from of
Europe. Specifically this likely the reason the PowerFLARM contains a
1090ES receiver and not a UAT receiver. It is also the reason we have
interesting Mode S/1090ES capable products usable in gliders like the
Trig TT21.

Part of the original desire for UAT in the USA was to avoid congestion
on 1090MHz but I am far from convinced on that. The Europeans don't
necessarily agree with the USA analysis. TCAS, TCAD etc. hammering on
Mode C transponders especially consumes a lot of bandwidth. And one of
the ways to free up a lot of that bandwidth is to require Mode C
transponders to be replaced with Mode S. Sounds scary but much less if
we had started early to allow this to be done over 5-10 years. Now
ironically it looks at least to me that many GA aircraft are going to
equip with 1090ES data out it does not matter since they will be
transmitting on 1090MHz only - but at least that upgrade gets rid of
that aircraft's bandwidth wasteful Mode C transponder.

And Raytheon actually bid on the FAA ADS-B deployment contract as
1090ES only - kind of calling bull**** on many dual-link assumptions.
Ironically had their bid been accepted we might actually ended up with
a more usable ADS-B system.

A benefit of UATs over 1090ES is they will receive FIS-B data (e.g.
weather, TFR, NOTAM etc.) once the USA ADS-B ground infrastructure is
in place. This requires you have a display able to display the data
and line of sight to a GBT ground station (ie. you may not be able
receive on the ground at some locations, e.g. before flight).

The main benefit of 1090ES is it is layered on top of Mode S and that
capability is already in or can be added to current Mode S
transponders. Since carriage mandates in the USA for power aircraft
for transponders and ADS-B data-out equipment overlap I expect many GA
aircraft to equip with Mode S/1090ES data-out. UATs that meet the
carriage requirements once avaible at low cost might be compelling for
many lower end GA and sports airceaft with Mode C transpodners who do
not want to upgrade to a Mode S 1090ES capable transponder. For
gliders the interest there is a single box like a Trig TT21 can
provide transponder capability with airline and fast-jet TCAS *and*
provide ADS-B data out via 1090ES.

One of the desires of UAT is that maybe lower cost devices that
transponders could be produced. I am somewhat pessimistic of that
happening, especially not down to the sub $1,000 price point for a
transceiver which I suspect is completely unrealistic. Even if current
UAT specs are simplified the relatively small USA market for UAT
devices (large parts of the GA market I expect to go 1090ES anyhow)
will keep UAT pricing high.

UAT receivers may also be popular with all GA aircraft (and gliders?)
for receiving FIS-B (unlike with traffic you do not need any ASD-B
transmitter capability for FIS-B to work). The competition there is
for-fee XM Weather which may already has significant penetration
amongst people who want in-flight weather services. We'll have to see
how all this shakes out, including if widespread reception on the
ground is an issue, a free products vs. XM weather, etc. UAT FIS-B is
also expected to add commercial charge-for service data products in
future - I expect that to be hard to pull off against XM Weather.

The dual-link ADS-B scheme in the USA has some pretty unfortuante
implications on use of ADS-B in gliders, including like not being
usable with mixed UAT and 1090ES equipment when running ridges etc.
outside of GBT (ground station) coverage. I see no way around that at
the ADS-B level except the availability of dual-link receivers that
receive on both 1090ES and UAT links.

Traffic display and warning requirements, Flarm with ADS-B and Flarm
vs. ADS-B technologies has been talked about in other threads
recently.

Hope that helps. :-)

Darryl

Was the stock reinforced with steel or Spectra ?

Specra of course, steel can no longer be insured in the US. Jeez Dave,
I thought at least you were paying attention...

-p

Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 15, 1:16 pm, Mark wrote:
sisu1a wrote:
When people in the FAA, AOPA, etc... read these kind of comments, what
do you think happens to our sport's credibility?

Running the risk of being accused of having a sense of humor *can* be
pretty damaging, please censor yourself accordingly.

Kinda reminds me of a story I heard a few years back (forgot by who,
but it was out east...). A few syndicate owners of a glider found
themselves with an empty hole in the panel to fill so for kicks, one
of them took an instrument carcass and made a new Fun-meter
(Funometer?), with a nicely made scale and pointer to measure how much
fun was being had at any given moment, with "Fun" written on the scale
to indicate such. After rigging the ship one day, another club member
came up and was quietly studying the panel in the ship for a awhile,
puzzling over this new gadget. Eventually he pipes up and asks one of
the guys: "What does F.U.N.stand for"?

-Paul

What does UAT stand for?

Mark

Short answer...UAT stands for Universal Access Transceiver.

Long answer...

UAT is one of the two physical link layers used for ADS-B in the USA.
The other is 1090ES.

UAT stands for Universal Access Transceiver. Even though "transceiver"
is part of the name not all "UAT" boxes are transceivers, some are
receivers only and some might be transmitters (but by the time a
manufacturer goes to all the effort of building and certifying a
transmitter I expect them to include a receiver).

Ultimately UAT is specified by RTCA standard DO282B and 1090ES is
specified by RTCA standard DO260B and these specs are what roll up
into the FAA 2020 carriage mandates (for powered aircraft not gliders)
and TSO approval specs for the devices.

For powered aircraft 1090ES is required in the 2020 mandate for flight
above FL180.

1090ES layers on top of the data transmission and reception capability
in Mode S transponders. 1090ES operate on 1090MHz, the current
transponder reply frequency, hence their name. The "ES" part is for
"extended squitter", "extended" = larger data packet, squitter =
automatic broadcast without begin interrogated.

UATs operate on 978 MHz.

UAT are mostly a USA thing, Europe in particular has standardized on
Mode S transponders as a step towards 1090ES based ADS-B. That has
some implications on the glider community for products coming from of
Europe. Specifically this likely the reason the PowerFLARM contains a
1090ES receiver and not a UAT receiver. It is also the reason we have
interesting Mode S/1090ES capable products usable in gliders like the
Trig TT21.

Part of the original desire for UAT in the USA was to avoid congestion
on 1090MHz but I am far from convinced on that. The Europeans don't
necessarily agree with the USA analysis. TCAS, TCAD etc. hammering on
Mode C transponders especially consumes a lot of bandwidth. And one of
the ways to free up a lot of that bandwidth is to require Mode C
transponders to be replaced with Mode S. Sounds scary but much less if
we had started early to allow this to be done over 5-10 years. Now
ironically it looks at least to me that many GA aircraft are going to
equip with 1090ES data out it does not matter since they will be
transmitting on 1090MHz only - but at least that upgrade gets rid of
that aircraft's bandwidth wasteful Mode C transponder.

And Raytheon actually bid on the FAA ADS-B deployment contract as
1090ES only - kind of calling bull**** on many dual-link assumptions.
Ironically had their bid been accepted we might actually ended up with
a more usable ADS-B system.

A benefit of UATs over 1090ES is they will receive FIS-B data (e.g.
weather, TFR, NOTAM etc.) once the USA ADS-B ground infrastructure is
in place. This requires you have a display able to display the data
and line of sight to a GBT ground station (ie. you may not be able
receive on the ground at some locations, e.g. before flight).

The main benefit of 1090ES is it is layered on top of Mode S and that
capability is already in or can be added to current Mode S
transponders. Since carriage mandates in the USA for power aircraft
for transponders and ADS-B data-out equipment overlap I expect many GA
aircraft to equip with Mode S/1090ES data-out. UATs that meet the
carriage requirements once avaible at low cost might be compelling for
many lower end GA and sports airceaft with Mode C transpodners who do
not want to upgrade to a Mode S 1090ES capable transponder. For
gliders the interest there is a single box like a Trig TT21 can
provide transponder capability with airline and fast-jet TCAS *and*
provide ADS-B data out via 1090ES.

One of the desires of UAT is that maybe lower cost devices that
transponders could be produced. I am somewhat pessimistic of that
happening, especially not down to the sub $1,000 price point for a
transceiver which I suspect is completely unrealistic. Even if current
UAT specs are simplified the relatively small USA market for UAT
devices (large parts of the GA market I expect to go 1090ES anyhow)
will keep UAT pricing high.

UAT receivers may also be popular with all GA aircraft (and gliders?)
for receiving FIS-B (unlike with traffic you do not need any ASD-B
transmitter capability for FIS-B to work). The competition there is
for-fee XM Weather which may already has significant penetration
amongst people who want in-flight weather services. We'll have to see
how all this shakes out, including if widespread reception on the
ground is an issue, a free products vs. XM weather, etc. UAT FIS-B is
also expected to add commercial charge-for service data products in
future - I expect that to be hard to pull off against XM Weather.

The dual-link ADS-B scheme in the USA has some pretty unfortuante
implications on use of ADS-B in gliders, including like not being
usable with mixed UAT and 1090ES equipment when running ridges etc.
outside of GBT (ground station) coverage. I see no way around that at
the ADS-B level except the availability of dual-link receivers that
receive on both 1090ES and UAT links.

Traffic display and warning requirements, Flarm with ADS-B and Flarm
vs. ADS-B technologies has been talked about in other threads
recently.

Hope that helps. :-)

Darryl
Darryl:

It helps a lot. Clearest introduction and explanation of all these
systems I've read. Thanks.

Mark

On Aug 15, 4:27*pm, Mark Berger wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 15, 1:16 pm, Mark *wrote:
sisu1a wrote:
When people in the FAA, AOPA, etc... read these kind of comments, what
do you think happens to our sport's credibility?

Running the risk of being accused of having a sense of humor *can* be
pretty damaging, please censor yourself accordingly.

Kinda reminds me of a story I heard a few years back (forgot by who,
but it was out east...). A few syndicate owners of a glider found
themselves with an empty hole in the panel to fill so for kicks, one
of them took an instrument carcass and made a new Fun-meter
(Funometer?), with a nicely made scale and pointer to measure how much
fun was being had at any given moment, with "Fun" written on the scale
to indicate such. After rigging the ship one day, another club member
came up and was quietly studying the panel in the ship for a awhile,
puzzling over this new gadget. Eventually he pipes up and asks one of
the guys: "What does F.U.N.stand for"?

-Paul

What does UAT stand for?

Mark

Short answer...UAT stands for Universal Access Transceiver.

Long answer...

UAT is one of the two physical link layers used for ADS-B in the USA.
The other is 1090ES.

UAT stands for Universal Access Transceiver. Even though "transceiver"
is part of the name not all "UAT" boxes are transceivers, some are
receivers only and some might be transmitters (but by the time a
manufacturer goes to all the effort of building and certifying a
transmitter I expect them to include a receiver).

Ultimately UAT is specified by RTCA standard DO282B and 1090ES is
specified by RTCA standard DO260B and these specs are what roll up
into the FAA 2020 carriage mandates (for powered aircraft not gliders)
and TSO approval specs for the devices.

For powered aircraft 1090ES is required in the 2020 mandate for flight
above FL180.

1090ES layers on top of the data transmission and reception capability
in Mode S transponders. 1090ES operate on 1090MHz, the current
transponder reply frequency, hence their name. The "ES" part is for
"extended squitter", "extended" = larger data packet, squitter =
automatic broadcast without begin interrogated.

UATs operate on 978 MHz.

UAT are mostly a USA thing, Europe in particular has standardized on
Mode S transponders as a step towards 1090ES based ADS-B. That has
some implications on the glider community for products coming from of
Europe. Specifically this likely the reason the PowerFLARM contains a
1090ES receiver and not a UAT receiver. It is also the reason we have
interesting Mode S/1090ES capable products usable in gliders like the
Trig TT21.

Part of the original desire for UAT in the USA was to avoid congestion
on 1090MHz but I am far from convinced on that. The Europeans don't
necessarily agree with the USA analysis. TCAS, TCAD etc. hammering on
Mode C transponders especially consumes a lot of bandwidth. And one of
the ways to free up a lot of that bandwidth is to require Mode C
transponders to be replaced with Mode S. Sounds scary but much less if
we had started early to allow this to be done over 5-10 years. Now
ironically it looks at least to me that many GA aircraft are going to
equip with 1090ES data out it does not matter since they will be
transmitting on 1090MHz only - but at least that upgrade gets rid of
that aircraft's bandwidth wasteful Mode C transponder.

And Raytheon actually bid on the FAA ADS-B deployment contract as
1090ES only - kind of calling bull**** on many dual-link assumptions.
Ironically had their bid been accepted we might actually ended up with
a more usable ADS-B system.

A benefit of UATs over 1090ES is they will receive FIS-B data (e.g.
weather, TFR, NOTAM etc.) once the USA ADS-B ground infrastructure is
in place. This requires you have a display able to display the data
and line of sight to a GBT ground station (ie. you may not be able
receive on the ground at some locations, e.g. before flight).

The main benefit of 1090ES is it is layered on top of Mode S and that
capability is already in or can be added to current Mode S
transponders. Since carriage mandates in the USA for power aircraft
for transponders and ADS-B data-out equipment overlap I expect many GA
aircraft to equip with Mode S/1090ES data-out. UATs that meet the
carriage requirements once avaible at low cost might be compelling for
many lower end GA and sports airceaft with Mode C transpodners who do
not want to upgrade to a Mode S 1090ES capable transponder. For
gliders the interest there is a single box like a Trig TT21 can
provide transponder capability with airline and fast-jet TCAS *and*
provide ADS-B data out via 1090ES.

One of the desires of UAT is that maybe lower cost devices that
transponders could be produced. I am somewhat pessimistic of that
happening, especially not down to the sub $1,000 price point for a
transceiver which I suspect is completely unrealistic. Even if current
UAT specs are simplified the relatively small USA market for UAT
devices (large parts of the GA market I expect to go 1090ES anyhow)
will keep UAT pricing high.

UAT receivers may also be popular with all GA aircraft (and gliders?)
for receiving FIS-B (unlike with traffic you do not need any ASD-B
transmitter capability for FIS-B to work). The competition there is
for-fee XM Weather which may already has significant penetration
amongst people who want in-flight weather services. We'll have to see
how all this shakes out, including if widespread reception on the
ground is an issue, a free products vs. XM weather, etc. UAT FIS-B is
also expected to add commercial charge-for service data products in
future - I expect that to be hard to pull off against XM Weather.

The dual-link ADS-B scheme in the USA has some pretty unfortuante
implications on use of ADS-B in gliders, including like not being
usable with mixed UAT and 1090ES equipment when running ridges etc.
outside of GBT (ground station) coverage. I see no way around that at
the ADS-B level except the availability of dual-link receivers that
receive on both 1090ES and UAT links.

Traffic display and warning requirements, Flarm with ADS-B and Flarm
vs. ADS-B technologies has been talked about in other threads
recently.

Hope that helps. :-)

Darryl

Darryl:

It helps a lot. *Clearest introduction and explanation of all these
systems I've read. *Thanks.

Mark

And I should have added one thing that some folks like about UAT is
that it supports an anonymous mode. With 1090ES (or Mode S in general)
you are always transmitting the ICAO ID so the feds can always find
out who you are if they see you on radar or their ADS-B ground
systems.

Broadcasting who you are is not nice if you want to bust airspace and
hope to get away with it, but it is nice if the feds are trying to
find you in a SAR situation.

--

[Less useful digression... Anonymous mode also has me a bit concerned
about possible local UAT transmitter ghosting issues. Where a receiver
in the aircraft may mistake its local transmitter as belonging to
another aircraft or another aircraft's transmitter as belonging to it.
That's easy to untangle when you have an integrated system or single
box UAT transceiver but might start being a problem with other
portable avionics used in combination with a UAT transmitter or
transceiver. If UAT anonymous mode is used it removes an the obvious
filter of aircraft ID that a receiver manufacturer would use to keep
track of which transmitter signal is belongs to its aircraft. Maybe
this won't be a practical issue. There are several possible related
issues with ADS-B "ghosting" and target duplication for 1090ES and UAT
devices that we'll have to wait and see how well the devices and ADS-B
ground infrastructure does on this in practice. Especially given there
is a lot of flexibility in how vendors implement things of the
portable (non-certified) receiver products. I think all ADS-B is going
to take a while to shake out a lot of these issues in general].

Darryl

Mike.
There are people in the SSA that where presented with the idea of the
Soaring Safety Foundation purchasing 100 FLARM units to rent to all
National Soaring Championship contestants.
This concept worked at the WCG in Australia a few years back for GPS
FRs. Look how that turned out.
The idea was to plant the seed at contersts and have the contestants
experience and learn what Flarm could do. Those pilots would take the
experience back to their regions and Flarm would certainly have been
discussed and I believe implemented.

But the "Supreme Leaders" of the SSA clearly have choosen to wait
for ADS-B.

I know the arguement about how Flarm would not work in the USA because
it would not protect Gliders from the airplane traffic in general.

I maintain that the greatest, threat of midair for gliders are other
gliders. Yes we have had airplane Vs Glider mid-airs. In my 28 year
soaring career, I can mostly recall the mid-air incidents happening
in contest gaggles. I suppose I can be proven wrong by a statistical
analysis of all glider mid-air incidents. I do not think I am alone
in my recollection of events driving my impression of risks.

Now here we are. For some reason the folks at Flarm have decided to
not market the proven design of Flarm, but instead, develope the
Power Flarm for the US market. I think it is going to be great. But
is shameful that the Soaring Society did not do anything to appeal to
the producers of Flarm, or the SSA membership to demand this
technology be available 4-5 years ago.

I (not so) patiently wait for word that PowerFlarm has shipped. I
will shamelessly market them as a dealer as I shake my head at what we
could have done sooner.

We should not stand in the way of the development fof ADS-B, UAT,
ES1090..... but the soaring market is not going to drive that
technology. I am surprised that the SSA spends a dime to be at the
table.

The SSA needs to finally endorse and promote for technologly that is
already developed.

I suspect the next response wil be that the technology is not
available in the US so my views are pointless. My answer to this is
B.S. as a group the SSA COULD have made Flarm happen but ADS-B was
simply choosen no matter that is was and is decades away from being a
useful reality.

Flame on......


Rex

On 8/15/2010 11:59 PM, Rex wrote:
Mike.
There are people in the SSA that where presented with the idea of the
Soaring Safety Foundation purchasing 100 FLARM units to rent to all
National Soaring Championship contestants.
This concept worked at the WCG in Australia a few years back for GPS
FRs. Look how that turned out.
The idea was to plant the seed at contersts and have the contestants
experience and learn what Flarm could do. Those pilots would take the
experience back to their regions and Flarm would certainly have been
discussed and I believe implemented.

But the "Supreme Leaders" of the SSA clearly have choosen to wait
for ADS-B.

I know the arguement about how Flarm would not work in the USA because
it would not protect Gliders from the airplane traffic in general.

I maintain that the greatest, threat of midair for gliders are other
gliders. Yes we have had airplane Vs Glider mid-airs. In my 28 year
soaring career, I can mostly recall the mid-air incidents happening
in contest gaggles. I suppose I can be proven wrong by a statistical
analysis of all glider mid-air incidents. I do not think I am alone
in my recollection of events driving my impression of risks.

Now here we are. For some reason the folks at Flarm have decided to
not market the proven design of Flarm, but instead, develope the
Power Flarm for the US market. I think it is going to be great. But
is shameful that the Soaring Society did not do anything to appeal to
the producers of Flarm, or the SSA membership to demand this
technology be available 4-5 years ago.

I (not so) patiently wait for word that PowerFlarm has shipped. I
will shamelessly market them as a dealer as I shake my head at what we
could have done sooner.

We should not stand in the way of the development fof ADS-B, UAT,
ES1090..... but the soaring market is not going to drive that
technology. I am surprised that the SSA spends a dime to be at the
table.

The SSA needs to finally endorse and promote for technologly that is
already developed.

I suspect the next response wil be that the technology is not
available in the US so my views are pointless. My answer to this is
B.S. as a group the SSA COULD have made Flarm happen but ADS-B was
simply choosen no matter that is was and is decades away from being a
useful reality.

Flame on......


Rex




The reason FLARM didn't take off in the US has relatively little to do
with the SSA. A big reason is that the FLARM folks not only
discouraged, but prohibited its use in the US when they initially
introduced the product. If they had agressively gone after the US
market then it's entirely possible that they would have had the same
success in the US as in Europe.

Now, 10 years later, ADS-B is finally getting some traction, and the
FLARM guys decide the US market is lucrative after all.

As far as mid-airs go, the statistics may be weighted towards
glider-glider accidents due to the much higher risks associated with
contests. Probably less than 10% of US glider pilots participate in
contests. For those of us that don't, getting hit by a GA aircraft (or
a jet), is just as big a concern as getting nailed by another glider.
In this market, I don't see a lot of interest in a solution that doesn't
address the entire threat environment.

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 14, 9:53*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
OK this is kind of silly but the the actual size of the PowerFLARM
device has been discussed in other threads. And as pointed out there I
think the renderings on the PowerFLARM *web site makes the unit look a
bit larger that it really is.

Anyhow being a visual kind of person (and somebody who "thinks" in
Photoshop and Illustrator). I've made a very simple paper cutout model
that anybody interested in the actual size of a PowerFLARM can print,
cut out, fold and stick together. You can use this to see how the
PowerFLARM will look in your cockpit.

The PDF files are on my blog at *http://www.darryl-ramm.com/2010/08/b...flarm-paper-mo...

Maybe this would also be handy for leaving lying around the house and
using it to casually bring up with your better half why its a good
idea to spend some more money on the soaring addiction. :-)

Cheers

Darryl

Thanks Darryl,

It's up and running, but when I hold it on one particular
configuration it shows a loss of signal strength. Will you be
offering rubber bumpers to address this issue?

Craig

I got a paper cut. I'm calling my attorney.

On Aug 16, 3:48*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/15/2010 11:59 PM, Rex wrote:



Mike.
There are people in the SSA that where presented with the idea of the
Soaring Safety Foundation purchasing 100 FLARM units to rent to all
National Soaring Championship contestants.
This concept worked at the WCG in Australia a few years back for GPS
FRs. *Look how that turned out.
The idea was to plant the seed at contersts and have the contestants
experience and learn what Flarm could do. *Those pilots would take the
experience back to their regions and Flarm would certainly have been
discussed and I believe implemented.

* *But the "Supreme Leaders" of the SSA clearly have choosen to wait
for ADS-B.

I know the arguement about how Flarm would not work in the USA because
it would not protect Gliders from the airplane traffic in general.

I maintain that the greatest, threat of midair for gliders are other
gliders. *Yes we have had airplane Vs Glider mid-airs. *In my 28 year
soaring career, *I can mostly recall the mid-air incidents happening
in contest gaggles. *I suppose I can be proven wrong by a statistical
analysis of all glider mid-air incidents. *I do not think I am alone
in my recollection of events driving my impression of risks.

Now here we are. *For some reason the folks at Flarm have decided to
not market the proven design of Flarm, *but instead, *develope the
Power Flarm for the US market. *I think it is going to be great. *But
is shameful that the Soaring Society did not do anything to appeal to
the producers of Flarm, or the SSA membership to demand this
technology be available 4-5 years ago.

I (not so) patiently wait for word that PowerFlarm has shipped. *I
will shamelessly market them as a dealer as I shake my head at what we
could have done sooner.

We should not stand in *the way of the development fof ADS-B, UAT,
ES1090..... but the soaring market is not going to drive that
technology. *I am surprised that the SSA spends a dime to be at the
table.

The SSA needs to finally endorse and promote for technologly that is
already developed.

I suspect the next response wil be that the technology is not
available in the US *so my views are pointless. *My answer to this is
B.S. *as a group the SSA COULD have made Flarm happen but ADS-B was
simply choosen no matter that is was and is decades away from being a
useful reality.

Flame on......

Rex

The reason FLARM didn't take off in the US has relatively little to do
with the SSA. *A big reason is that the FLARM folks not only
discouraged, but prohibited its use in the US when they initially
introduced the product. *If they had agressively gone after the US
market then it's entirely possible that they would have had the same
success in the US as in Europe.

Now, 10 years later, ADS-B is finally getting some traction, and the
FLARM guys decide the US market is lucrative after all.

As far as mid-airs go, the statistics may be weighted towards
glider-glider accidents due to the much higher risks associated with
contests. *Probably less than 10% of US glider pilots participate in
contests. *For those of us that don't, getting hit by a GA aircraft (or
a jet), is just as big a concern as getting nailed by another glider.
In this market, I don't see a lot of interest in a solution that doesn't
address the entire threat environment.

--
Mike Schumann

No solution addresses the entire threat environment. But you keep
coming back to seeming to think UATs and ADS-B do. And people are
interested in a solution that actually is available and actually is
usable to actually solve their problem(s).

Pilots are dying in glider on glider (and tow plane) collisions and
that problems just absolutely has to be addressed asap and Flarm is
clearly head and shoulders above any other choice of possible
technology that could help. And as we've been over several times
before is just no ADS-B product that provides collision alerts that
will likely work in a busy gaggle as no vendor or developer (except
Flarm) has focused work on the software needed for that scenario.

At least one benefit of the PowerFLARM unti with PCAS and 1090ES data-
in is it does span much more of the collision problem space than many
other options, including traditional FLARM units. And it starts with
the only practically avaiable glider-glider collision avoidance. With
PCAS it adds stuff that works today to help with many GA traffic
scenarios and has an ADS-B receiver that provides compatibility with
an ADS-B future in the USA. It needs an ADS-B transmitter to work
fully but by building the receiver part into the Flarm box you get the
data-in integration we need in our cockpits done properly (e.g. Flarm
serial display protocol for ADS-B traffic data, Flarm style alerts on
ADS-B data) etc. Talking any other ADS-B box UAT or 1090ES whether a
receiver or transceiver without that stuff (like the current Mitre
prototype or the Trig 1090ES receiver) is just a non-starter in out
market as a practical product (but for researching other long-term
technical and regulatory stuff the Mitre project does not need that
integration). There will be an increasing range of choices for devices
suitable for use in gliders for people who want to do full ADS-B with
the PowerFLARM as a receiver. Starting with the Trig TT21 today, and
hopefully also including UAT transmitters in future.

Darryl

On Aug 16, 9:31*am, Craig wrote:
On Aug 14, 9:53*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:



OK this is kind of silly but the the actual size of the PowerFLARM
device has been discussed in other threads. And as pointed out there I
think the renderings on the PowerFLARM *web site makes the unit look a
bit larger that it really is.

Anyhow being a visual kind of person (and somebody who "thinks" in
Photoshop and Illustrator). I've made a very simple paper cutout model
that anybody interested in the actual size of a PowerFLARM can print,
cut out, fold and stick together. You can use this to see how the
PowerFLARM will look in your cockpit.

The PDF files are on my blog at *http://www.darryl-ramm.com/2010/08/b...flarm-paper-mo...

Maybe this would also be handy for leaving lying around the house and
using it to casually bring up with your better half why its a good
idea to spend some more money on the soaring addiction. :-)

Cheers

Darryl

Thanks Darryl,

It's up and running, but when I hold it on one particular
configuration it shows a loss of signal strength. *Will you be
offering rubber bumpers to address this issue?

Craig

Just avoid holding it that way.

Darryl