PowerFlarm v3.40

While I agree with what you said about the fun of knowing where your buddies
are, you missed my point that it's ATC and other aircraft that can't see the
Flarm-only glider. Sure he (might be able to) see them, but they can't see
him. I also had to draw the line at mounting a device that can only either
block my panel or my outside view. Sometimes more is not necessarily better
but I know opinions vary on what to have.

Finally at the risk of starting a flame war, I would not install a device
that I consider to be still in beta test. XCSoar releases beta software but
they identify it as such and ask experienced users to "gorilla test" it and
identify problems. From the level of complaints I've read regarding Flarm
firmware updates, missed targets, suppression, antennae, displays, etc., I
believe it's still a beta product. Sure it does great things, but it would
not yet receive a TSO. Happy testing!


"kirk.stant" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, April 20, 2014 10:14:46 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:

Listen up, Guys: GA, military, and airlines are NOT using Flarm. Oh, and

we have at least one guy at Moriarty who has a Flarm but not a
transponder.

So he and the half dozen or so Flarm equipped gliders can avoid each other

but he's cruising along blissfully unaware that ATC can't see him, nor can

the airliners or military flights that buzz in and out of ABQ daily.

Blissfully unaware? Well, since GA, military, and airliners are pretty much
all using either Mode A/C, Mode S, or ADS-B, that PFlarm-only guy is
probably fully aware of the location of any potentially threatening traffic
in his vicinity - even that VFR doctor in the Bonanza squawking 1200 and not
talking to anybody...

And he is also aware of where all his gliding buddies are - and that's a lot
of fun, too! - even the clueless new guy who it trying to run into him under
his nice Cu in the middle of nowhere.

So while I agree that if you routinely mix in with high-speed airline
traffic (common out West, not as common in most of midwest or east) a
transponder is a smart thing, I think that a PFlarm is even more of a good
thing. Both is best.

Try it - you might like it. Seriously.

Cheers,

Kirk

Dan,

A famous science fiction writer, Jerry Pournelle, once wrote that "perfect is the enemy of good enough". That applies to PowerFLARM in spades. Even in its present "beta" stage (your words), it works very, very well. It hasn't risen to the level of "saved my butt" yet, but it has certainly helped me avoid some very close encounters, including one with a 747 sneaking up on my rear 400 feet above me!

I agree with Darryl and Kirk - you should get both a PowerFLARM and a Mode S transponder if you possibly can. They were tough to shoe-horn into a LS8 cockpit, but believe me, they repaid my sweat (and my monetary) investment!

-John, Q3


On Monday, April 21, 2014 9:52:10 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
While I agree with what you said about the fun of knowing where your buddies
are, you missed my point that it's ATC and other aircraft that can't see the
Flarm-only glider. Sure he (might be able to) see them, but they can't see
him. I also had to draw the line at mounting a device that can only either
block my panel or my outside view. Sometimes more is not necessarily better
but I know opinions vary on what to have.

Finally at the risk of starting a flame war, I would not install a device
that I consider to be still in beta test. XCSoar releases beta software but
they identify it as such and ask experienced users to "gorilla test" it and
identify problems. From the level of complaints I've read regarding Flarm
firmware updates, missed targets, suppression, antennae, displays, etc., I
believe it's still a beta product. Sure it does great things, but it would
not yet receive a TSO. Happy testing!

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 9:17:30 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
That's what I would hope. I recall that, when I installed my Mode S

transponder and had it tested, it was putting out over 175 watts to the test

equipment antenna. Don't we have an inverse cube function of power density

to distance? I think that's right, though I probably didn't say it

correctly. Anyway, an aircraft a couple of hundred feet away would be

received in the milliwatt range, maybe somewhat more, but certainly not at

100+ watts.





"Ramy" wrote in message

...

I am pretty sure that the suppression is based on power as well, in addition

to altitude. So only a strong signal at the same altitude will be

suppressed. Which mean you will still get warning for same altitude until

the other aircraft is very close, giving you enough warning. I assume this

is the same way that Zaon works. But again this is just my guess. Will be

nice if Flarm folks will comment on this.



Ramy

Dan, radiation diminishes according to the inverse square law, just as gravitational forces or sound:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
If you double the distances, intensity falls to a quarter.

On Monday, April 21, 2014 12:45:44 AM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
Well, I can report that the PowerFlarm core fails to warn me of commercial traffic most of the time. In the past week, I have been within distances of concern to a Boeing 737 and a Canadair Regional jet - they descend over our gliderport into Tucson International. My transponder seems to work, though - both these aircraft took evasive action to avoid me. The Canadair was at my altitude and had to make a very steep turn away from me. Not a peep from the Flarm!
Mike

Mike - you have either installation or configuration problems. I have an original brick, and I see every airliner, towplane, glider with transponder, and GA with transponder nearby - we're under the most-used approach path for a major Canadian airport, and see traffic all day, every day. I use the standard centre-fed dipole that came with my brick. Try swapping with a known good antenna and see if the problem is cured...

On Monday, April 21, 2014 9:49:36 AM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
On Monday, April 21, 2014 12:45:44 AM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:

Well, I can report that the PowerFlarm core fails to warn me of commercial traffic most of the time. In the past week, I have been within distances of concern to a Boeing 737 and a Canadair Regional jet - they descend over our gliderport into Tucson International. My transponder seems to work, though - both these aircraft took evasive action to avoid me. The Canadair was at my altitude and had to make a very steep turn away from me. Not a peep from the Flarm!

Mike



Mike - you have either installation or configuration problems. I have an original brick, and I see every airliner, towplane, glider with transponder, and GA with transponder nearby - we're under the most-used approach path for a major Canadian airport, and see traffic all day, every day. I use the standard centre-fed dipole that came with my brick. Try swapping with a known good antenna and see if the problem is cured...

Dan:

I was coming to the same conclusion and will review my installation!

Definitely keep us posted, Mike. If not an antenna issue, maybe there's also a configuration setting you have that must be tweaked?
(I definitely agree with the grumbles about the PF folks not being great at customer communications & documentation)

The PF "brick" in my '300 definitely warned me about mode C GA traffic many times!

--Noel

John, fair enough regarding perfect being the enemy of good enough. Please
send me one and I'll try it out! :-)


"John Carlyle" wrote in message
...
Dan,

A famous science fiction writer, Jerry Pournelle, once wrote that "perfect
is the enemy of good enough". That applies to PowerFLARM in spades. Even in
its present "beta" stage (your words), it works very, very well. It hasn't
risen to the level of "saved my butt" yet, but it has certainly helped me
avoid some very close encounters, including one with a 747 sneaking up on my
rear 400 feet above me!

I agree with Darryl and Kirk - you should get both a PowerFLARM and a Mode S
transponder if you possibly can. They were tough to shoe-horn into a LS8
cockpit, but believe me, they repaid my sweat (and my monetary) investment!

-John, Q3


On Monday, April 21, 2014 9:52:10 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
While I agree with what you said about the fun of knowing where your
buddies
are, you missed my point that it's ATC and other aircraft that can't see
the
Flarm-only glider. Sure he (might be able to) see them, but they can't
see
him. I also had to draw the line at mounting a device that can only
either
block my panel or my outside view. Sometimes more is not necessarily
better
but I know opinions vary on what to have.

Finally at the risk of starting a flame war, I would not install a device
that I consider to be still in beta test. XCSoar releases beta software
but
they identify it as such and ask experienced users to "gorilla test" it
and
identify problems. From the level of complaints I've read regarding Flarm
firmware updates, missed targets, suppression, antennae, displays, etc., I
believe it's still a beta product. Sure it does great things, but it
would
not yet receive a TSO. Happy testing!

OK, I was picturing the power as on the surface of an expanding sphere from
the point of transmission (4/3 * pi * r **3) but, as I said, I wasn't sure.


wrote in message
...
On Sunday, April 20, 2014 9:17:30 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
That's what I would hope. I recall that, when I installed my Mode S

transponder and had it tested, it was putting out over 175 watts to the
test

equipment antenna. Don't we have an inverse cube function of power
density

to distance? I think that's right, though I probably didn't say it

correctly. Anyway, an aircraft a couple of hundred feet away would be

received in the milliwatt range, maybe somewhat more, but certainly not
at

100+ watts.





"Ramy" wrote in message

...

I am pretty sure that the suppression is based on power as well, in
addition

to altitude. So only a strong signal at the same altitude will be

suppressed. Which mean you will still get warning for same altitude until

the other aircraft is very close, giving you enough warning. I assume
this

is the same way that Zaon works. But again this is just my guess. Will be

nice if Flarm folks will comment on this.



Ramy

Dan, radiation diminishes according to the inverse square law, just as
gravitational forces or sound:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
If you double the distances, intensity falls to a quarter.

Despite all my current misgivings, I AM keeping my eye on progress with
Flarm...


"noel.wade" wrote in message
...
Definitely keep us posted, Mike. If not an antenna issue, maybe there's
also a configuration setting you have that must be tweaked?
(I definitely agree with the grumbles about the PF folks not being great
at customer communications & documentation)

The PF "brick" in my '300 definitely warned me about mode C GA traffic
many times!

--Noel

Dan,

Can't provide the goods, because I'm not giving mine up! I will give you a prediction: when you finally fly with a PowerFLARM you're going to be asking yourself over and over "why did I wait so long to get one"?

-John, Q3


On Monday, April 21, 2014 8:46:40 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
John, fair enough regarding perfect being the enemy of good enough. Please
send me one and I'll try it out! :-)