PowerFLARM Mode S question

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)

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 10/23/2010 6:18 PM, Andy wrote:
On Oct 22, 7:58 am, John
wrote:

Powerflarm is here and now.

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

Andy (GY)
You didn't miss anything. It's due in April 2011, which is soon enough
for my flying.

You can order one now, as I have. I don't do much flying during the
winter, so I'd rather wait for a good glider/glider solution, than buy a
poor solution now. I already have a transponder, so I've got "half a deal".


--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" 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 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 Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:03:15 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote:


Over what period of time?

All at once, presumably. Just now (5:45 AM PDT) I looked at Flight Radar
24 http://www.flightradar24.com/ and saw 4 aircraft near Portland and 3
near LA.


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

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 10/24/2010 8:51 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:03:15 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote:


Over what period of time?

All at once, presumably. Just now (5:45 AM PDT) I looked at Flight Radar
24 http://www.flightradar24.com/ and saw 4 aircraft near Portland and 3
near LA.


So much for the assertion that ADS-B is far off into the future.

--
Mike Schumann

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:51:46 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote:

On 10/24/2010 8:51 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:03:15 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote:


Over what period of time?

All at once, presumably. Just now (5:45 AM PDT) I looked at Flight
Radar 24 http://www.flightradar24.com/ and saw 4 aircraft near Portland
and 3 near LA.


So much for the assertion that ADS-B is far off into the future.

Don't forget that this is all from aircraft with Mode S/1090ES kit.

Take a look at Flight Radar 24 and point it at Europe or the UK if you
want to see how far the USA has to go in equipment uptake and coverage,
though in fairness, as the site's coverage depends on volunteers
connecting receivers to the 'net it will be deficient in the USA because
there's so far little incentive for plane spotters to install the
receivers.


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

On Oct 24, 7:51*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 10/24/2010 8:51 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:03:15 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote:

Over what period of time?

All at once, presumably. Just now (5:45 AM PDT) I looked at Flight Radar
24http://www.flightradar24.com/and saw 4 aircraft near Portland and 3
near LA.

So much for the assertion that ADS-B is far off into the future.

--
Mike Schumann

And a few airliners flying around today with 1090ES data-out (and not
integrated with most ATC services yet) somehow changes what has been
said here by anybody? Its exactly consistent.

ADS-B is coming. I've stated the situation as best as I know it with
ADS-B adoption. If you can add anything cogent to that discussion
speak up.

You are looking at airliners. As I've said here already - airliners
out of Europe are very likely to have 1090ES data-out. New airliners
in the USA are very likely to have 1090ES data-out. Some airlines and
freight carriers are likely to adopt earlier because they start to see
benefits like in-trail separation and sequencing or just because they
are interested in exploring the capability to do that in future. On
the other hand for GA and gliders there is very little incentive to
adopt ADS-B data-out, its expensive and the recent STC requirement is
a significant barrier. Significant enough that I suspect it just
stopped GA ADS-B upgrades cold for a while (outside locations where
there is a clear benefit like GOMEX and a oil industry helicopter
fleet that can pay for it). And we are still a few years away from
extensive ground station coverage with full ADS-B services (full roll
out of critical services at TRACON/approach locations, not just the
enroute essential services rolling out now in most places). And even
when there service is fully rolled out there it looks like there will
be poor coverage in many important glider locations. So all we can say
is (unless the wheels fall off ADS-B) there will be widespread
carriage of ADS-B data-out by 2020. Where widespread means all the big
guys and installed at least in GA aircraft that fly where they require
transponders today. And all the big guys will be 1090ES data-out and
what GA adopts we'll have to wait and see (but I expect much more
1090ES data-out than the FAA seemed to ever expect).

I assume you have the ability to find out what current UAT adoption is
around some locations. That would be interesting to know.

Nobody I can find from AOPA, NBAA, avionics industry organizations
etc. seems to have any predictions for ADS-B fleet adoption rates. I
would certainly not assume aggressive roll-out of ADS-B data-out in GA
aircraft--because of the current STC hurdle, the costs and lack of
benefits (that AOPA and EAA and others are pretty clear of in their
criticisms of ADS-B).

And back to gliders... there seems no way that certified gliders can
install any ADS-B data-out today because of the lack of STC approval.
So its largely academic right now for many of us if a product is FCC
and TSO approved if there is no STC for installation on type. If you
want to keep saying that certain UAT transceivers are available now
you need to qualify that would be for experimental gliders only or let
us know who is working on the install STC and for what gliders.

Darryl