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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Flarm in the US
Darryl & Brian -
Thanks for the corrections on pricing. Under $2k starts making it very attractive. Regarding the headless bit: Its not just about power, its also installation location. DG instrument panels/pods are great for ergonomics and bailout ability, but they don't have a lot of extra space for stuff like this. I already have my ewMicroRecorder on top of the instrument pod and don't want to block my forward view. A headless unit would allow me to install it under the seat-pan or behind my head, and a hookup to my PDA or a flight computer would still provide visual (and hopefully audible) cues when there was a collision risk. Regarding XCSoar: I haven't used XCSoar in over a year and couldn't remember for sure to what degree it supported FLARM. In LK8000 the FLARM support has been re-written and is much more fully-featured. Bottom-line: the more devices that support it, the better! --Noel |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Flarm in the US
On Aug 9, 12:07*pm, rhwoody wrote:
On Aug 9, 11:29*am, Mike Schumann wrote: On 8/9/2010 11:57 AM, Andy wrote: On Aug 9, 9:45 am, Mike wrote: Why not require ADS-B units instead. *Then you'd get the advantages of FLARM, but you'd also see all of the transponder equipped GA aircraft (assuming that there was a ground station in the area). Perhaps because glider pilots would be overwhelmed by nuissance alerts when contest flying? *I have already experienced my PCAS becoming close to useless as more gliders are fitted with transponders. *I don't need another system crying wolf all the time. FLARM uses intelligent alerting based on glider flight characteristics. *It has been reported that the nuissance alerting frequency low enough that it is still useful in high glider traffic densities. Andy There are two parts to FLARM; *an ADS-B type position reporting broadcast function, and a built in collision warning system. ADS-B transceivers typically do not include any collision warning logic.. * Instead they are more like modems. *They transmit and receive position data in addition to receiving weather info, etc. *This information is passed on to some form of graphics display device so that the locations of other aircraft can be shown on a moving map display relative to your own aircraft. The display device, in addition to showing the location of other aircraft, can also be programmed to provide collision warnings. Obviously, the typical flight trajectories of gliders are different than most power aircraft. *I suspect that most glider specific moving map vendors will try to match FLARM's logic to minimize false alarms if they elect to provide a collision warning function in addition to just displaying the relative locations of other aircraft. ADS-B is obviously just in its infancy in the US vs FLARM's development in Europe. *The encouraging news is that the potential size of the US ADS-B market is much larger than the potential FLARM market in Europe (when you include the GA power market), so there will undoubtedly be lots of innovation in the display devices that will provide the collision warning function. *In VFR environments, these devices will not require FAA approvals, so I expect that technical advancements will be very rapid, once low cost ADS-B transceivers become widely available. -- Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have Flarm in my glider - have had it for 2 years plus - I fly in Namibia where it is mandatory - when coupled with the Butterfly and the Blue Box it shows all transponders plus the Flarm targets - and the Butterfly shows multiple targets within the pilot entered radius - plus it shows the climb rate of the various targets - this function is outlawed in European competitions - only that function - the rest works as usual - Flarm works great and is a huge safety instrument - but it only works if everyone has it - the stray who doesn't have it is a risk - my personal opinion is that Flarm was mandatory for all gliders in the 15m Nationals at Uvalde there would not have been a mid-air - and if task setters would not set tasks with opposing traffic it would also help a lot - in my opinion the US competition scene will eventually make it mandatory to have Flarm or similar - in the very near future - the Flarm is not an expensive instrument - and remember that funerals and estate settlements are very, very expensive - hospitals as well - just my $0.02 worth locally I use the Zaon to see the jet and power traffic that can run you down from behind - Chris O'Calahan was a friend and colleague and his tragic death has me rethinking this whole subject. I've always been a big fan of ADS-B but now I'm not so sure. I am absolutely sure if both gliders had PowerFLARM, Chris would be alive. ADS-B is at least a decade away (With inevitable delays - maybe two decades) from completion. If you read the background tech discussions, a fair sized constituency seems to be trying for force ADS-B to simply replicate the current radar environment in a new technology with few real advances for the average pilot beyond what we have now with Mode-C. In any event, ADS-B will be primarily focused on airplane operations and its usefulness to gliders will be incidental. PowerFLARM is exactly what we need and it will be available in months not decades. The developers are tightly focused on glider operations and will no doubt improve their product in the months and years to come based on feedback from glider pilots - something I very much doubt will be the case with ADS-B. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Flarm in the US
On Aug 9, 12:31*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
Darryl & Brian - Thanks for the corrections on pricing. *Under $2k starts making it very attractive. Regarding the headless bit: *Its not just about power, its also installation location. *DG instrument panels/pods are great for ergonomics and bailout ability, but they don't have a lot of extra space for stuff like this. *I already have my ewMicroRecorder on top of the instrument pod and don't want to block my forward view. *A headless unit would allow me to install it under the seat-pan or behind my head, and a hookup to my PDA or a flight computer would still provide visual (and hopefully audible) cues when there was a collision risk. Regarding XCSoar: *I haven't used XCSoar in over a year and couldn't remember for sure to what degree it supported FLARM. *In LK8000 the FLARM support has been re-written and is much more fully-featured. Bottom-line: the more devices that support it, the better! --Noel Noel I had a DG-303 and I suspect the very best place for a Flarm like device is on top of the glareshield, for both visibility and antenna location and I'd be trying to move your flight recorder elsewhere if you need the space. My old DG-303 panel was so tight (I like the full size altimeters etc.) I had problem finding space for even small things. I had my MRX PCAS mounted on top of the glareshield and it worked great, and I made a smal sunshade that velcros on top of the unit that helped with the display visibility. Although it depends on your head height vs. the glareshield height I suspect a PowerFLARM by itself will not intrude a lot into your visibility. Darryl |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Flarm in the US
On Aug 9, 9:23*am, brianDG303 wrote:
On Aug 9, 7:12*am, Renny wrote: [snip] Mike and Renny, a good discussion of the macro view of FLARM and ADS-B. Another view is more personal, for example in my situation- I fly a lot of ridge and mountain in a very narrow altitude band and a lot of clouds. There is not a lot of power traffic in those conditions. I have a transponder but I don't see the Transmit light going off very often and I suspect I am not getting very many radar paints down in the rocks and trees where I like to fly. My greatest risk is from the six other gliders I share the area with, which do not have transponders and will never get them at the current costs; in fairness my threat to them is even higher as I am a low hour pilot. FLARM would go a long way to reducing the risks and at a reasonable cost; PowerFlarm would be my choice as it would also provide protection from ADS-B and transponder equipped threats, but at twice the cost the installed base in my situation would be very much reduced and I stand a better chance of talking my potentially deadly friends into investing in FLARM. 2020 is not soon enough. It is not soon enough for the pilots killed on a regular basis at contests, which we seem to simply accept as an unavoidable risk. With that in mind Mike's statement that FLARM isn't of use (for me) would not be correct. In 2004 my club lost two gliders and a pilot in a collision that would not have happens if they had had FLARM. How do you calculate that cost? Brian Brian & folks Sorry to hog the thread but I want to make sure that key technical facts are nailed down. Brian wrote... PowerFlarm would be my choice as it would also provide protection from ADS-B and transponder equipped threats, ... PowerFLARM or any other 1090ES receiver in the USA will "see" other ADS-B data-out equipped traffic if and only if one or more of the following is true 1. ADS-B Direct. That other traffic is transmitting ADS-B data-out on the same physical link layer (i.e. a Mode S transponder with 1090ES data-out). or 2. ADS-R (ADS-B Relay). That other traffic is transmitting on the other physical link layer (i.e. a UAT transmitter or transceiver) *and* your aircraft is correctly transmitting ADS-B data-out that describes the aircraft location and ADS-B receiver configuration (aka the "capability code" bits) *and* both aircraft are within range of one or more ADS-B ground stations *and* the aircraft are within the ADS-R "service volume" (or "threat cylinder" in my terminology) of what I beleive is +/- 3,500' and 15 nautical miles of each other --- If you don't meet *all* the requirments in #2 above your ADS-B receiver may still see other traffic, especially traffic near other ADS-B data-out equipped aircraft, but there is no gaurentee that you will see all traffic near you. The PowerFLARM is not an ADS-B transmitter so you will need a Mode S transponder with 1090ES data-out or a UAT transmitter/receiver to make the ADS-B traffic part of the PowerFLARM work properly. My expectation is given that ADS-B is a damn confusing mess that at least for the next several years pilots in the USA who buy a PowerFLARM will likely mostly do so for the flarm-flarm and PCAS capability, and if they also see 1090ES data-out aircraft (esp. airliners and fast jets) that great, but I do worry that many pilots won't understand they will not properly see say GA UAT equipped traffic without an ADS-B transmitter. --- The PowerFLARM has PCAS capability so is the threat aircraft transponder is being interrogated the PowerFLARM should be able to warn you of a threat and its relative altitude but it won't have direction information. The nice thing about this is many of us have positive experiences with Zaon MRX units where there seems to be good interrogation even outside of standard SSR coverage (via TCAS and TCAD interrogators etc). However if the concern is about ridges and other fairly obscured sites then there just may not be enough interrogations to make a transponder useful for a PCAS (PowerFLARM or Zaon MRX etc.) unit to detect anything. Of course if the threat aircraft has a Mode S 1090ES data-out transponder then the PowerFLARM will directly the ADS- B data from the transponder. PowerFLARM will also have ADS-B TIS-B support but it is not initially shipping with this enabled. TIS-B is the relay of other aircraft SSR position data to ADS-B equipped aircraft so they can "see" transponder only equipped traffic. TIS-B (ADS-B Traffic Information System) requires that the other traffic has a Mode C or S transponder *and* is within coverage of a traditional SSR radar (or multilateration system). i.e. think airspace where you have ATC radar coverage today. *and* your aircraft is correctly transmitting ADS-B data-out that describes the aircraft location and ADS-B receiver configuration (aka the "capability code" bits) *and* your aircraft is within range of an ADS-B ground station *and* the threat aircraft is within the TIS-B "service volume" (or "threat cylinder" in my terminology) of your aircraft - I believe that is is +/- 3,500' and 15 nautical miles. --- Since Brian mentioned ridges as a scenario, a potential concern there is that you may be frequently outside of ADS-B ground coverage and therefore ADS-R services may be unreliable or not work at all. So even if all the gliders are properly equipped a 1090ES ADS-B equipped glider just won't "see" a UAT equipped glider an visa versa. Although ADS-B ground station coverage compared to traditional SSR radar is going to be impressive, including at many locations down to very low altitudes, ADS-B as deployed in the USA just is not designed to deal with scenarios like ridge soaring. To deal reliably with this glider- on-glider ridge scenario all gliders in that area would need to adopt a single physical ADS-B link layer (UAT or 1090ES) and/or adopt PowerFLARM (for Flarm-Flarm). This is one reason I also claim that ADS- B alone in gliders is not practical in the USA until somebody develops a low cost dual-link layer receiver that can receive directly on both 1090ES and UAT. The ADS-R overage is a reason that busy ridge soaring locations might want to be looking at the ADS-B GBT (ground station) coverage maps and getting a feel how much this will be issue in their area. Something probably a good idea for the SSA to be pushing to have happen/coordinate. Sorry to ramble on but this level of detail is really unfortunately necessary in discussing these technologies. Darryl |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Flarm in the US
On 8/9/2010 3:44 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 9, 9:23 am, wrote: On Aug 9, 7:12 am, wrote: [snip] Mike and Renny, a good discussion of the macro view of FLARM and ADS-B. Another view is more personal, for example in my situation- I fly a lot of ridge and mountain in a very narrow altitude band and a lot of clouds. There is not a lot of power traffic in those conditions. I have a transponder but I don't see the Transmit light going off very often and I suspect I am not getting very many radar paints down in the rocks and trees where I like to fly. My greatest risk is from the six other gliders I share the area with, which do not have transponders and will never get them at the current costs; in fairness my threat to them is even higher as I am a low hour pilot. FLARM would go a long way to reducing the risks and at a reasonable cost; PowerFlarm would be my choice as it would also provide protection from ADS-B and transponder equipped threats, but at twice the cost the installed base in my situation would be very much reduced and I stand a better chance of talking my potentially deadly friends into investing in FLARM. 2020 is not soon enough. It is not soon enough for the pilots killed on a regular basis at contests, which we seem to simply accept as an unavoidable risk. With that in mind Mike's statement that FLARM isn't of use (for me) would not be correct. In 2004 my club lost two gliders and a pilot in a collision that would not have happens if they had had FLARM. How do you calculate that cost? Brian Brian& folks Sorry to hog the thread but I want to make sure that key technical facts are nailed down. Brian wrote... PowerFlarm would be my choice as it would also provide protection from ADS-B and transponder equipped threats, ... PowerFLARM or any other 1090ES receiver in the USA will "see" other ADS-B data-out equipped traffic if and only if one or more of the following is true 1. ADS-B Direct. That other traffic is transmitting ADS-B data-out on the same physical link layer (i.e. a Mode S transponder with 1090ES data-out). or 2. ADS-R (ADS-B Relay). That other traffic is transmitting on the other physical link layer (i.e. a UAT transmitter or transceiver) *and* your aircraft is correctly transmitting ADS-B data-out that describes the aircraft location and ADS-B receiver configuration (aka the "capability code" bits) *and* both aircraft are within range of one or more ADS-B ground stations *and* the aircraft are within the ADS-R "service volume" (or "threat cylinder" in my terminology) of what I beleive is +/- 3,500' and 15 nautical miles of each other --- If you don't meet *all* the requirments in #2 above your ADS-B receiver may still see other traffic, especially traffic near other ADS-B data-out equipped aircraft, but there is no gaurentee that you will see all traffic near you. The PowerFLARM is not an ADS-B transmitter so you will need a Mode S transponder with 1090ES data-out or a UAT transmitter/receiver to make the ADS-B traffic part of the PowerFLARM work properly. My expectation is given that ADS-B is a damn confusing mess that at least for the next several years pilots in the USA who buy a PowerFLARM will likely mostly do so for the flarm-flarm and PCAS capability, and if they also see 1090ES data-out aircraft (esp. airliners and fast jets) that great, but I do worry that many pilots won't understand they will not properly see say GA UAT equipped traffic without an ADS-B transmitter. --- The PowerFLARM has PCAS capability so is the threat aircraft transponder is being interrogated the PowerFLARM should be able to warn you of a threat and its relative altitude but it won't have direction information. The nice thing about this is many of us have positive experiences with Zaon MRX units where there seems to be good interrogation even outside of standard SSR coverage (via TCAS and TCAD interrogators etc). However if the concern is about ridges and other fairly obscured sites then there just may not be enough interrogations to make a transponder useful for a PCAS (PowerFLARM or Zaon MRX etc.) unit to detect anything. Of course if the threat aircraft has a Mode S 1090ES data-out transponder then the PowerFLARM will directly the ADS- B data from the transponder. PowerFLARM will also have ADS-B TIS-B support but it is not initially shipping with this enabled. TIS-B is the relay of other aircraft SSR position data to ADS-B equipped aircraft so they can "see" transponder only equipped traffic. TIS-B (ADS-B Traffic Information System) requires that the other traffic has a Mode C or S transponder *and* is within coverage of a traditional SSR radar (or multilateration system). i.e. think airspace where you have ATC radar coverage today. *and* your aircraft is correctly transmitting ADS-B data-out that describes the aircraft location and ADS-B receiver configuration (aka the "capability code" bits) *and* your aircraft is within range of an ADS-B ground station *and* the threat aircraft is within the TIS-B "service volume" (or "threat cylinder" in my terminology) of your aircraft - I believe that is is +/- 3,500' and 15 nautical miles. --- Since Brian mentioned ridges as a scenario, a potential concern there is that you may be frequently outside of ADS-B ground coverage and therefore ADS-R services may be unreliable or not work at all. So even if all the gliders are properly equipped a 1090ES ADS-B equipped glider just won't "see" a UAT equipped glider an visa versa. Although ADS-B ground station coverage compared to traditional SSR radar is going to be impressive, including at many locations down to very low altitudes, ADS-B as deployed in the USA just is not designed to deal with scenarios like ridge soaring. To deal reliably with this glider- on-glider ridge scenario all gliders in that area would need to adopt a single physical ADS-B link layer (UAT or 1090ES) and/or adopt PowerFLARM (for Flarm-Flarm). This is one reason I also claim that ADS- B alone in gliders is not practical in the USA until somebody develops a low cost dual-link layer receiver that can receive directly on both 1090ES and UAT. The ADS-R overage is a reason that busy ridge soaring locations might want to be looking at the ADS-B GBT (ground station) coverage maps and getting a feel how much this will be issue in their area. Something probably a good idea for the SSA to be pushing to have happen/coordinate. Sorry to ramble on but this level of detail is really unfortunately necessary in discussing these technologies. Darryl I'm glad you posted this very informative item. As you point out, this is an incredible mess. It didn't need to be that way, but that's what you get with government engineering by political committee. It's too bad that the FLARM guys didn't go after the US market when they 1st started their project in Europe years ago. It might have taken off in the US GA market and created a defacto standard. No we have a huge mess with no good answers in sight. Certainly not a story that gets people excited about spending $$$$s to upgrade their avionics. -- Mike Schumann |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Flarm in the US
I wrote a "contest corner" draft on Flarm in the US, motivated by my
experience with it at WGC. http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...ers/flarm.html It's here, and it really helps with glider to glider midairs which are the main problem at contests. John Cochrane |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Flarm in the US
On Aug 9, 4:29*pm, John Cochrane
wrote: I wrote a "contest corner" draft on Flarm in the US, motivated by my experience with it at WGC. http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...ers/flarm.html It's here, and it really helps with glider to glider midairs which are the main problem at contests. John Cochrane Bravo John....................thanks for the link, and count me as on of the "let's all get one" gang. Brad 199AK |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Flarm in the US
Thanks, John. I was fortunate enough to do my primary single-engine training in a nicely equipped set of Diamond DA-20 aircraft with glass cockpits (though it was pretty damned expensive). They were equipped with TIS displays and it was really great to get a sense of the other air traffic around my training area (downtown Seattle has 4 major Class D airports within a few miles of each other, all under Class B airspace and with big jets taking off and landing at them all, as well as a lot of GA and seaplane traffic). As long as people don't get complacent, I firmly believe in the ability of a similar device to increase situational awareness and safety! Questions For The Competition Pilots out the Would you pay $$ to rent a powerFLARM unit for a Regional or National- level contest? What would you pay for 7 - 14 days of use of a powerFLARM? Would you pay a higher contest entry fee if the contest provided FLARM units for competitors? --Noel |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Flarm in the US
On Aug 9, 5:03*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
Thanks, John. *I was fortunate enough to do my primary single-engine training in a nicely equipped set of Diamond DA-20 aircraft with glass cockpits (though it was pretty damned expensive). *They were equipped with TIS displays and it was really great to get a sense of the other air traffic around my training area (downtown Seattle has 4 major Class D airports within a few miles of each other, all under Class B airspace and with big jets taking off and landing at them all, as well as a lot of GA and seaplane traffic). *As long as people don't get complacent, I firmly believe in the ability of a similar device to increase situational awareness and safety! Questions For The Competition Pilots out the Would you pay $$ to rent a powerFLARM unit for a Regional or National- level contest? What would you pay for 7 - 14 days of use of a powerFLARM? Would you pay a higher contest entry fee if the contest provided FLARM units for competitors? --Noel Noel, I've monitored Whidbey approach when flying up near Mt Vernon, I can't tell you how many times I've heard the controller giving pilots heads up for traffic and not one of the power guys ever saw each other. This has happened many times. I somewhat believe power pilots are complacent, believing that technology will save them for a mid-air..................if you recall, we almost got rammed by a twin while in the pattern at KAWO! I don't like the idea of making FLARM available for rent. This is something we should should equip our cockpits with and use ALL THE TIME! I don't know what the learning curve is for Flarm, but if I ever did fly a contest, I would want to know how Flarm works and not have to "figure it out" in the cockpit during a contest. Also, let's not stratify the use of Flarm for just contest pilots, the airspace gets pretty busy just east KAWO too! Is there a possibility of making Flarm simulator that we could practice with on a PC? Perhaps some of the soaring flight simulators have it, but I don't play with those. On another note: If we are going to start tossing our ideas into the hat...................please make sure LK8000 is compatible with whatever Flarm unit is developed, pretty sure Paolo is all over that anyways! Brad |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Flarm in the US
On Aug 9, 5:18*pm, Brad wrote:
On Aug 9, 5:03*pm, "noel.wade" wrote: Thanks, John. *I was fortunate enough to do my primary single-engine training in a nicely equipped set of Diamond DA-20 aircraft with glass cockpits (though it was pretty damned expensive). *They were equipped with TIS displays and it was really great to get a sense of the other air traffic around my training area (downtown Seattle has 4 major Class D airports within a few miles of each other, all under Class B airspace and with big jets taking off and landing at them all, as well as a lot of GA and seaplane traffic). *As long as people don't get complacent, I firmly believe in the ability of a similar device to increase situational awareness and safety! Questions For The Competition Pilots out the Would you pay $$ to rent a powerFLARM unit for a Regional or National- level contest? What would you pay for 7 - 14 days of use of a powerFLARM? Would you pay a higher contest entry fee if the contest provided FLARM units for competitors? --Noel Noel, I've monitored Whidbey approach when flying up near Mt Vernon, I can't tell you how many times I've heard the controller giving pilots heads up for traffic and not one of the power guys ever saw each other. This has happened many times. I somewhat believe power pilots are complacent, believing that technology will save them for a mid-air..................if you recall, we almost got rammed by a twin while in the pattern at KAWO! I don't like the idea of making FLARM available for rent. This is something we should should equip our cockpits with and use ALL THE TIME! I don't know what the learning curve is for Flarm, but if I ever did fly a contest, I would want to know how Flarm works and not have to "figure it out" in the cockpit during a contest. Also, let's not stratify the use of Flarm for just contest pilots, the airspace gets pretty busy just east KAWO too! Is there a possibility of making Flarm simulator that we could practice with on a PC? Perhaps some of the soaring flight simulators have it, but I don't play with those. On another note: If we are going to start tossing our ideas into the hat...................please make sure LK8000 is compatible with whatever Flarm unit is developed, pretty sure Paolo is all over that anyways! Brad Brad Yes, but you got it kind of backwards - the LK8000 is developed to be compatible with the publicly documented (and relatively simple) serial FLARM protocol. Flarm established that protocol for a reason and worked to get it widely adopted by software and flight computer vendors. Which is why any ADS-B products trying to enter the glider market without supporting this basic protocol is just unlikely to happen. I agree on your point, a contest day or practice day in crowded airspace is just not the time to start dicking around learning how to use or interpret any traffic warning system. And a simulator on a PC/ mac just would not convince me either (and I already play around with SilentWings), pilots need to fly with the real thing. I think investigating mandating Flarm type devices in USA contest makes sense but I think proposing renting/loaning those systems would not be a good idea. Darryl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IGC FLARM DLL | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | March 25th 08 11:27 AM |
WinPilot ADV & PRO 9.0b Flarm | Richard[_1_] | Soaring | 15 | February 6th 08 09:49 PM |
FLARM | Robert Hart | Soaring | 50 | March 16th 06 11:20 PM |
Flarm | Mal | Soaring | 4 | October 19th 05 08:44 AM |
FLARM | John Galloway | Soaring | 9 | November 27th 04 07:16 AM |