Powerflarm results @Seniors

Anyone who flew at Seniors contest care to comment about impression of
system?

On Mar 21, 6:31*am, Robert Fidler wrote:
Anyone who flew at Seniors contest care to comment about impression of
system?

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/03/march...t-the-seniors/

T8

On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:09:12 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
On Mar 21, 6:31*am, Robert Fidler wrote:
Anyone who flew at Seniors contest care to comment about impression of
system?

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/03/march...t-the-seniors/

T8

Interesting! The insensitivity in those 30 units could be due to either installation problems, or to hardware/software problems. Given the success of the Flarm in Europe, I sure it will be resolved sooner or later.

But I think Frank is correct - the solution to the problem needs to addressed publicly to achieve maximum confidence in the PowerFlarm. Unfortunately, the PowerFlarm team hasn't shown a willingness to share in public, as evidenced by the relatively few postings on how they were working to address the long delays in the introduction of the portable, and now the brick, version of the unit.

-John

On Mar 21, 1:38*pm, John Carlyle wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:09:12 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
On Mar 21, 6:31*am, Robert Fidler wrote:
Anyone who flew at Seniors contest care to comment about impression of
system?

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/03/march...t-the-seniors/

T8

Interesting! The insensitivity in those 30 units could be due to either installation problems, or to hardware/software problems. Given the success of the Flarm in Europe, I sure it will be resolved sooner or later.

But I think Frank is correct - the solution to the problem needs to addressed publicly to achieve maximum confidence in the PowerFlarm. Unfortunately, the PowerFlarm team hasn't shown a willingness to share in public, as evidenced by the relatively few postings on how they were working to address the long delays in the introduction of the portable, and now the brick, version of the unit.

-John

I wonder what changed. I don't recall hearing anything about this with
the portable units at Uvalde last year and I know that I'm pretty sure
Frank and I were able to see each other at a longer range than that at
Region 10.

On Mar 21, 2:38*pm, John Carlyle wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:09:12 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
On Mar 21, 6:31*am, Robert Fidler wrote:
Anyone who flew at Seniors contest care to comment about impression of
system?

http://soaringcafe.com/2012/03/march...t-the-seniors/

T8

Interesting! The insensitivity in those 30 units could be due to either installation problems, or to hardware/software problems. Given the success of the Flarm in Europe, I sure it will be resolved sooner or later.

But I think Frank is correct - the solution to the problem needs to addressed publicly to achieve maximum confidence in the PowerFlarm. Unfortunately, the PowerFlarm team hasn't shown a willingness to share in public, as evidenced by the relatively few postings on how they were working to address the long delays in the introduction of the portable, and now the brick, version of the unit.

-John

I doubt that so many units had installation issue. Besides this thing
is so big you don't have many choices where to put it in so either it
works or it doesn't.

One can ask what happened here. Well, there was a change and not
enough testing after the change. Typical outcome when quality controls
are not in place. In regards to a tow plane sailplane issue reported a
month or two ago nor response from PowerFlarm either.

I hope this time around PowerFlarm is going to make a statement
preferably starting with apology to their trusting clients.

I going to "guess" a bit:

I understand the FCC restricted the transmitted power output of the
PowerFlarm over what PF would have liked. They also refused approval
unless PF took steps to prevent someone from installing a high gain
antenna in order to improve output power. This resulted in sub-optimal
transmitted range, though I thought it was still supposed to be 2 to 4
miles or so. PF did include a "panel" Flarm receive antenna that is
"optional" to install. Using that antenna will increase the effective
range of the PF by displaying threat aircraft at a more distant range.
If the threat aircraft doesn't also use the "panel" antenna, then
you'll probably see him before he sees you.

Were these additional receive antennas used at the contests or left in
the box?

In my flight testing with PF in two power aircraft, effective range
was about .5 to 2 nm, without using the panel antenna, and seemed
dependant on aircraft orientation as one would expect as sometime
there was aircraft structure in the way. I'm using the panel antenna
in my glider, but so far have not found anothe PF equipped glider to
play with.

The "ADS-B in" works flawlessly all the way out to 32 nm. The PCAS
function seems reliable to at least 8 nm, however the altitude
displayed will sometimes show a minus instead of a plus when clearly
the threat aircraft is above.

bumper

In our club we have "Academy" training evenings during winter
season. Few weeks ago I was telling about FLARM units, and this
week one our member who works for accident investigation was
telling about safety issues in competitions. Safety is an issue here,
since within 12 months lifes of 4 Finnish glider pilot were lost. 2 in
midair with an eagle (!!), one because of motorized take-off spoilers
open, and one because of midair with other competitor.

The conclusion of the last incident, midair between two competing
planes, both equipped with FLARM units, flying 10 minutes very
close to each others, was really scary. FLARM seems to be
something that might warn you if someone is approaching under the
same cloudstreet, but in competition where you have several planes
near to you all the time, you still might loose situation awareness.

FLARM antenna installation is really a problem. PowerFlarm seems
to have two antennas, I have no idea how that works. I have
installed several FLARMs into our club gliders, and I have used "RF
Range Analysis" tool provided by FLARM.
http://flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
This should tell you if your antenna installation has problems - and
there often are problems. I would like to see this analysis extended
into 3 dimensional graphic.

Everyone who installs FLARM in a plane should use this analysis
tool.

Crickets....

No other contest user reports?

T8

On Friday, March 23, 2012 8:53:21 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
Crickets....

No other contest user reports?

T8

My impression of the rental powerflarms units was very much the same as TA reported.
First let me go on record as saying that I want very much for the powerflarm concept to work. I plan to install a "brick" in my glider - when available and when they work.
I had three near misses in thermals. The powerflarm alarm would sound and a second or two later the near miss would occur. The range was unacceptably poor...
Other issues I had with the portable units we The display was very hard to read in the cockpit with my sunglasses on. The warning "beeps" could have been louder so as to be heard above the radio and audio vario. The display of transponder equiped aircraft with no directional information did me very little good.
I look forward to trying powerflarm again, after they have had a chance to make it work better.

Don (DK)

On Mar 23, 7:30*am, wrote:
On Friday, March 23, 2012 8:53:21 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
The powerflarm alarm would sound and a second or two later the near
miss would occur. The range was unacceptably poor...

Don (DK)

Don,

Were you using the "optional" small panel antenna? This is the flat
black, about 1" X 4" receive antenna that should be mounted vertically
and a couple of feet away from the PowerFlarm. This is intended to
increase the PF effective range and is included with the portable.

thanks,

bumper