A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 24th 12, 02:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?

On Feb 23, 5:47*pm, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
Not to sound like a smartass, but have you considered leaving the PowerFlarm
off until release? *Is the collision potential so great over your usual tow
route/altitude that you don't feel safe without it?


I've seen quite a few incidents in which the glider pilot picked up
the collision threat before the tow pilot.
This sounds like a pretty straightforward issue for flarm to solve --
writing software to know "this is the towplane, you're on tow, ignore
it" doesn't sound like rocket science.
John Cochrane
  #12  
Old February 24th 12, 06:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
bumper[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?

On Feb 23, 3:47*pm, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
Not to sound like a smartass, but have you considered leaving the PowerFlarm
off until release? *Is the collision potential so great over your usual tow
route/altitude that you don't feel safe without it?


That's kind of like saying I know my street and neighborhood really
well, so I won't bother to fasten my seat belt until I get a few miles
down the road. It's not so much a matter of not feeling safe without
the PowerFlarm, but rather of being safer with it. Statistically, at
least for power planes, most mid-airs occur within a few miles of
airports, just like most car accidents occur within 5 miles of home.

bumper
  #13  
Old February 24th 12, 01:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andrzej Kobus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 585
Default PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?

While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
aircraft as being displayed as a threat.


Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?

Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.
  #14  
Old February 24th 12, 04:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?

Agreed, software is simple for those who know how. It's just getting all
the wishes implemented.

BTW, I was referring to the tow plane's flarm. The glider could warn the
tug of any conflicts, couldn't he? Then I remember the incident in Boulder
a few years back...


"John Cochrane" wrote in message
...
On Feb 23, 5:47 pm, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
Not to sound like a smartass, but have you considered leaving the
PowerFlarm
off until release? Is the collision potential so great over your usual tow
route/altitude that you don't feel safe without it?


I've seen quite a few incidents in which the glider pilot picked up
the collision threat before the tow pilot.
This sounds like a pretty straightforward issue for flarm to solve --
writing software to know "this is the towplane, you're on tow, ignore
it" doesn't sound like rocket science.
John Cochrane

  #15  
Old February 25th 12, 01:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andrzej Kobus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 585
Default PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?

On Feb 24, 7:05*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
aircraft as being displayed as a threat.


Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?

Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.


Can anyone using PF comment on my question? Can you see more than one
transponder equipped aircraft at a time? I found this in the manual:

"The nearest aircraft not equipped with ADSB-OUT or FLARM devices, but
is indicated as
a light green circle, in the example, that
target is 2400 ft below. The circle radius
gives a distance estimation based on signal
strength.
The green circle turns red when close. In the
example, the target is 200 ft above"

From the wording it looks like PF can only track one Transponder
equipped aircraft, which is pretty bad!
  #16  
Old February 25th 12, 03:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?

On Feb 25, 7:10*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Feb 24, 7:05*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:









While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
aircraft as being displayed as a threat.


Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?


Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.


Can anyone using PF comment on my question? Can you see more than one
transponder equipped aircraft at a time? *I found this in the manual:

"The nearest aircraft not equipped with ADSB-OUT or FLARM devices, but
is indicated as
a light green circle, in the example, that
target is 2400 ft below. The circle radius
gives a distance estimation based on signal
strength.
The green circle turns red when close. In the
example, the target is 200 ft above"

From the wording it looks like PF can only track one Transponder
equipped aircraft, which is pretty bad!


If you don't have any capability to track one Transponder, and now PF
gives you the capability to track the closest transponder equipped
aircraft, and tell you if he is higher/lower than you (and by how
much), and closing or opening, how can that possibly be a bad thing?

In addition, it does flarm/flarm collision warning, and eventually,
igc-format logging and logger approval (summerish according to the
PowerFLARM talk at the SSA Reno Convention). I expect that the
capability to see others' climb rates on some PDAs will make
recreational cross-country a lot less stressful too...

One man's opinion.

Dan
  #17  
Old February 25th 12, 04:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andrzej Kobus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 585
Default PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?

On Feb 25, 9:26*am, Dan wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:10*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:









On Feb 24, 7:05*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:


While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
aircraft as being displayed as a threat.


Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?


Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.


Can anyone using PF comment on my question? Can you see more than one
transponder equipped aircraft at a time? *I found this in the manual:


"The nearest aircraft not equipped with ADSB-OUT or FLARM devices, but
is indicated as
a light green circle, in the example, that
target is 2400 ft below. The circle radius
gives a distance estimation based on signal
strength.
The green circle turns red when close. In the
example, the target is 200 ft above"


From the wording it looks like PF can only track one Transponder
equipped aircraft, which is pretty bad!


If you don't have any capability to track one Transponder, and now PF
gives you the capability to track the closest transponder equipped
aircraft, and tell you if he is higher/lower than you (and by how
much), and closing or opening, how can that possibly be a bad thing?

In addition, it does flarm/flarm collision warning, and eventually,
igc-format logging and logger approval (summerish according to the
PowerFLARM talk at the SSA Reno Convention). I expect that the
capability to see others' climb rates on some PDAs will make
recreational cross-country a lot less stressful too...

One man's opinion.

Dan


It is bad because my PCAS can track many transponder equipped aircraft
at the same time and give me this information for each one.

I am not talking about Flarm I am all for Flarm but the PCAS
implementation is not good if the PF can only track one transponder
equipped aircraft at a time.
  #18  
Old February 25th 12, 05:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Morgan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?

Your assessment is correct. You only ever see an indication for the
closest transponder only target. Since I haven't used a pcas system
before, I don't know how it displays multiple targets, but I think the
flarm implementation is pretty good since it filters out all but the
most relevant threat. That said, we are in a lightly populated area
for traffic, so I haven't been in a situation where there were
multiple targets within say, 4 miles.

So far with 3 flights under my belt with the powerflarm, I've only
managed to find one unknown transponder target. Range and height
variation were very good, but 3-4 miles and 2000ft below is pretty
hard to spot a small power plane. I have yet to be relatively close
to any power traffic. One flight I was getting a transponder beacon
from a friend in a glider and the estimated range was quite good.

The issue with the towplane transponder and glider masking other
threats is a good problem to solve though. Our towplane doesn't have
a transponder so we can't test that at our little club.

Morgan

On Feb 25, 7:43*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Feb 25, 9:26*am, Dan wrote:









On Feb 25, 7:10*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:


On Feb 24, 7:05*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:


While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
aircraft as being displayed as a threat.


Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?


Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.


Can anyone using PF comment on my question? Can you see more than one
transponder equipped aircraft at a time? *I found this in the manual:


"The nearest aircraft not equipped with ADSB-OUT or FLARM devices, but
is indicated as
a light green circle, in the example, that
target is 2400 ft below. The circle radius
gives a distance estimation based on signal
strength.
The green circle turns red when close. In the
example, the target is 200 ft above"


From the wording it looks like PF can only track one Transponder
equipped aircraft, which is pretty bad!


If you don't have any capability to track one Transponder, and now PF
gives you the capability to track the closest transponder equipped
aircraft, and tell you if he is higher/lower than you (and by how
much), and closing or opening, how can that possibly be a bad thing?


In addition, it does flarm/flarm collision warning, and eventually,
igc-format logging and logger approval (summerish according to the
PowerFLARM talk at the SSA Reno Convention). I expect that the
capability to see others' climb rates on some PDAs will make
recreational cross-country a lot less stressful too...


One man's opinion.


Dan


It is bad because my PCAS can track many transponder equipped aircraft
at the same time and give me this information for each one.

I am not talking about Flarm I am all for Flarm but the PCAS
implementation is not good if the PF can only track one transponder
equipped aircraft at a time.


  #19  
Old February 25th 12, 07:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andrzej Kobus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 585
Default PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?

On Feb 25, 11:20*am, Morgan wrote:
Your assessment is correct. *You only ever see an indication for the
closest transponder only target. *Since I haven't used a pcas system
before, I don't know how it displays multiple targets, but I think the
flarm implementation is pretty good since it filters out all but the
most relevant threat. That said, we are in a lightly populated area
for traffic, so I haven't been in a situation where there were
multiple targets within say, 4 miles.

So far with 3 flights under my belt with the powerflarm, I've only
managed to find one unknown transponder target. *Range and height
variation were very good, but 3-4 miles and 2000ft below is pretty
hard to spot a small power plane. *I have yet to be relatively close
to any power traffic. *One flight I was getting a transponder beacon
from a friend in a glider and the estimated range was quite good.

The issue with the towplane transponder and glider masking other
threats is a good problem to solve though. *Our towplane doesn't have
a transponder so we can't test that at our little club.

Morgan

On Feb 25, 7:43*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:







On Feb 25, 9:26*am, Dan wrote:


On Feb 25, 7:10*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:


On Feb 24, 7:05*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:


While aero-towing a Mode-C transponder equipped glider, and using
PowerFlarm and transponder in the tow plane, most of the time the
glider will show up on the PF as a threat aircraft. Since the PF
prioritizes threats, this precludes another more distant "intruder"
aircraft as being displayed as a threat.


Do you mean PF can only follow one Mode-C threat? This would be a
significant step down from what my PCAS can do. If this is true the PF
PCAS implementation is very poor. Could anyone who flew with PF
comment on this? How many transponder threats can PF follow?


Based on your statement, the same problem will occur in a gaggle of
gliders with transponders. You will have no choice but to disable the
PCAS or filter out codes 1202, but if you do that any glider without a
Flarm but with a transponder is not going to be visible to you. The
only way this problem can be solved is with Mod-S transponders. You
will then associate Mod-S code with a Flarm ID and filter out
transponder signals coming from a glider equipped with both.


Can anyone using PF comment on my question? Can you see more than one
transponder equipped aircraft at a time? *I found this in the manual:


"The nearest aircraft not equipped with ADSB-OUT or FLARM devices, but
is indicated as
a light green circle, in the example, that
target is 2400 ft below. The circle radius
gives a distance estimation based on signal
strength.
The green circle turns red when close. In the
example, the target is 200 ft above"


From the wording it looks like PF can only track one Transponder
equipped aircraft, which is pretty bad!


If you don't have any capability to track one Transponder, and now PF
gives you the capability to track the closest transponder equipped
aircraft, and tell you if he is higher/lower than you (and by how
much), and closing or opening, how can that possibly be a bad thing?


In addition, it does flarm/flarm collision warning, and eventually,
igc-format logging and logger approval (summerish according to the
PowerFLARM talk at the SSA Reno Convention). I expect that the
capability to see others' climb rates on some PDAs will make
recreational cross-country a lot less stressful too...


One man's opinion.


Dan


It is bad because my PCAS can track many transponder equipped aircraft
at the same time and give me this information for each one.


I am not talking about Flarm I am all for Flarm but the PCAS
implementation is not good if the PF can only track one transponder
equipped aircraft at a time.


I am surprised that such a poor solution that does not even handle a
tow plane/glider combo was released. I am also surprised that the PF
will only track on transponder. What about a situation where you have
one aircraft below and one above and they are both close. You will be
looking for one above while the other is about to hit you form the
bottom (say high wing Cessna). Every day I see more power traffic than
I see gliders on XC flights especially being within 30 miles of two
major airports Boston and Manchester (plus a few smaller airports). I
had many too close encounters with power traffic and that is why I put
in a transponder and bought a PCAS. Now it seems if I buy a PF I can
not remove my PCAS because the one in PF leaves me blind to all but
one power plane. Not a good combination. The PCAS part of PF is just
not good and it needs to be fixed. It seems this is one big experiment
(talking about PCAS in PF).
  #20  
Old February 26th 12, 02:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default PowerFlarm and transponders while towing?

On 2/25/2012 10:56 AM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
had many too close encounters with power traffic and that is why I put
in a transponder and bought a PCAS. Now it seems if I buy a PF I can
not remove my PCAS because the one in PF leaves me blind to all but
one power plane. Not a good combination. The PCAS part of PF is just
not good and it needs to be fixed. It seems this is one big experiment
(talking about PCAS in PF).


What are you using for a PCAS now?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PowerFLARM Paul Remde Soaring 9 November 6th 10 05:30 AM
PowerFlarm response to transponders Mark Soaring 1 November 1st 10 04:07 PM
transponders in EU Sandro Soaring 2 February 2nd 07 02:02 PM
Transponders [email protected] Home Built 2 March 2nd 05 03:39 AM
Transponders Mil80C Soaring 64 February 12th 04 06:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.