Build your own PowerFLARM!

On Aug 16, 10:10*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
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

Product support at it's finest ;-)
Thanks,
Craig

On Aug 16, 12:59*am, 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

Maybe I was snoozing when the Flarm for competition proposal described
above was introduced. When was this? As chair of the SSA rules
committee, I admit to not having been made aware of this proposal.
In any case, my PERSONAL view (not speaking for Rules committee) is
that the mid air collision risk that most threatens us all is not the
glider to glider collision risk, scary as that is, but the risk that
one of our gliders is going to knock a jet out of the sky(that is what
will be described in the news notwithstanding who hit who).
Given my perspective, the coming Power Flarm device offers, from what
I read, a significant group of potential benefits not currently
available to us, once it is commercial and we can put them in gliders.
Hopefully that will be sooner than later.
FWIW- another opinion.

wrote in message
...
...the risk that
one of our gliders is going to knock a jet out of the sky(that is what
will be described in the news notwithstanding who hit who).
Given my perspective, the coming Power Flarm device offers, from what
I read, a significant group of potential benefits ...

I share your concern about the potential negative effects of an airliner/glider
crash, but what role does Power Flarm have in preventing that?

Vaughn

On Aug 16, 4:18*pm, "vaughn" wrote:
wrote in message

...

...the risk that
one of our gliders is going to knock a jet out of the sky(that is what
will be described in the news notwithstanding who hit who).
Given my perspective, the coming Power Flarm device offers, from what
I read, a significant group of potential benefits ...

I share your concern about the potential negative effects of an airliner/glider
crash, but what role does Power Flarm have in preventing that?

Vaughn

As I understand it, Power Flarm will incorporate ADS-B ( protocall not
completely clear to me) as well as transponder PCAS annunciation.
Daryl need not jump in and repeat all that has been previously posted.
I know some forlks are putting together good information on a page in
Gliderpilot.net which will have much more good information.
If I believe their projections, this will offer a device that could
help in the competition environment while also providing at least a
basic degree of conflict warning during other flying which I don't
have now.
FWIW
UH

On Aug 16, 1:49*pm, wrote:

As I understand it, Power Flarm will incorporate ADS-B ( protocall not
completely clear to me) as well as transponder PCAS annunciation.

Here's a short Not-Totally-Technically-Accurate-But-Close-Enough
Explanation:

There are two "flavors" of ADS-B: 1090ES and UAT. The 1090ES system
is more likely to be used by big/fast airplanes. UAT is more likely
to be equipped on small GA aircraft. PowerFLARM supports 1090ES. It
does not support UAT or ground-based relays of traffic information
(according to the specs released so far). So you'll see some ADS-B
aircraft with the PowerFLARM; but you won't necessarily detect _every_
ADS-B aircraft. I believe that "some" ADS-B detection is better than
"none", especially when you add in the ability to see Mode C/S
transponders (when replying to radar pings) and other FLARM-equipped
gliders.

--Noel
(who will have a PowerFLARM this fall)

On Aug 16, 5:22*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On Aug 16, 1:49*pm, wrote:

As I understand it, Power Flarm will incorporate ADS-B ( protocall not
completely clear to me) as well as transponder PCAS annunciation.

Here's a short Not-Totally-Technically-Accurate-But-Close-Enough
Explanation:

There are two "flavors" of ADS-B: *1090ES and UAT. *The 1090ES system
is more likely to be used by big/fast airplanes. *UAT is more likely
to be equipped on small GA aircraft. *PowerFLARM supports 1090ES. *It
does not support UAT or ground-based relays of traffic information
(according to the specs released so far). *So you'll see some ADS-B
aircraft with the PowerFLARM; but you won't necessarily detect _every_
ADS-B aircraft. *I believe that "some" ADS-B detection is better than
"none", especially when you add in the ability to see Mode C/S
transponders (when replying to radar pings) and other FLARM-equipped
gliders.

--Noel
(who will have a PowerFLARM this fall)

That looks like a pretty good explanation, but I'll clarify based on
what
I've digested from Darryl's excellent in-depth explanations. 1090ES
actually rides along with mode-S transponder replies, so if you have
a suitably equipped transponder (like the Trig) with the right flags
set,
you'll get informed by the ground transmitter of aircraft with UAT.
Plus, you'll know about any aircraft with 1090ES ADS-B, FLARM, or
mode A/C/S transponders (you'll only know altitude and distance to
those).

Given all that I'll be a PowerFLARM user as well (except it will be a
bit
longer for me to afford one), plus eventually the Trig.

-- Matt

On 8/16/2010 11:48 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 16, 3:48 am, Mike
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

You keep talking about PowerFlarm as if it were "available". It is not
currently shipping. Has it been submitted to the FCC yet for approval?
What is the estimated ship date?

ADS-B UAT transceivers are currently available and shipping and FCC
approved from Navworx and Garmin (granted the Garmin box is totally
overpriced and essentially obsolete).

Granted, there may not be any collision avoidance systems available for
ADS-B UAT transceivers that rival the sophistication of what FLARM
provides for gliders in Europe. There is no technical reason that
someone can't come up with the equivalent, or potentially even superior
solution as an open source or proprietary solution.

So rather than poo-poo any ADS-B solution, why not encourage people like
See-You, Clear Nav, and others to support both platforms and let the
best solution win.

--
Mike Schumann

On 8/16/2010 4:22 PM, noel.wade wrote:
On Aug 16, 1:49 pm, wrote:

As I understand it, Power Flarm will incorporate ADS-B ( protocall not
completely clear to me) as well as transponder PCAS annunciation.

Here's a short Not-Totally-Technically-Accurate-But-Close-Enough
Explanation:

There are two "flavors" of ADS-B: 1090ES and UAT. The 1090ES system
is more likely to be used by big/fast airplanes. UAT is more likely
to be equipped on small GA aircraft. PowerFLARM supports 1090ES. It
does not support UAT or ground-based relays of traffic information
(according to the specs released so far). So you'll see some ADS-B
aircraft with the PowerFLARM; but you won't necessarily detect _every_
ADS-B aircraft. I believe that "some" ADS-B detection is better than
"none", especially when you add in the ability to see Mode C/S
transponders (when replying to radar pings) and other FLARM-equipped
gliders.

--Noel
(who will have a PowerFLARM this fall)

PowerFlarm is ADS-B In only. It only transmits FLARM, which jets can't
see. By itself it does absolutely nothing to protect us against
mid-airs against jets.

--
Mike Schumann

PowerFlarm is ADS-B In only. *It only transmits FLARM, which jets can't
see. *By itself it does absolutely nothing to protect us against
mid-airs against jets.

--
Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

except that it will tell you the jet near you before you mid-air if I
understand correctly
"transponder PCAS annunciation. "

On Aug 16, 5:41*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/16/2010 4:22 PM, noel.wade wrote:



On Aug 16, 1:49 pm, wrote:

As I understand it, Power Flarm will incorporate ADS-B ( protocall not
completely clear to me) as well as transponder PCAS annunciation.

Here's a short Not-Totally-Technically-Accurate-But-Close-Enough
Explanation:

There are two "flavors" of ADS-B: *1090ES and UAT. *The 1090ES system
is more likely to be used by big/fast airplanes. *UAT is more likely
to be equipped on small GA aircraft. *PowerFLARM supports 1090ES. *It
does not support UAT or ground-based relays of traffic information
(according to the specs released so far). *So you'll see some ADS-B
aircraft with the PowerFLARM; but you won't necessarily detect _every_
ADS-B aircraft. *I believe that "some" ADS-B detection is better than
"none", especially when you add in the ability to see Mode C/S
transponders (when replying to radar pings) and other FLARM-equipped
gliders.

--Noel
(who will have a PowerFLARM this fall)

PowerFlarm is ADS-B In only. *It only transmits FLARM, which jets can't
see. *By itself it does absolutely nothing to protect us against
mid-airs against jets.

--
Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I respectfully disagree. The assumption that you must be transmitting
a signal to not get hit is not correct. Yes- a transponder seen by
TCAS in the jet is a significant benefit- some may say huge.
BUT- getting information that I have a conflict I don't know about
hugely increases my chances of taking action that could avoid the
disaster. We are more likely to make the disaster avoiding move than
the guys in the jet on autopilot talking to unicom to make sure Mr
Smith's limo will be at the gate.
UH