Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

On Aug 20, 12:50*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:

Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM).

Your arguments (even later in this same post) belie this statement.

The problem is not just contests. *Every day, we have near misses
between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. *Everyone who has purchased a
PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
never see.

PCAS is an important adjunct technology for the immediate future -
PowerFlarm has it but Navworx and Mitre units don't and therefore
can't see anything but ADS-B UAT direct outside the very limited
ground station deployment. Which meant you won't be able to see 1090ES
equipped jets unless you are near ground stations taht are yet to be
built (or even funded to be built I suspect) Correct?

You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
are the FLARM guys. *You completely ignore the significant efforts that
have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
and glider world.

I think the point is that Flarm (and PowerFlarm by extension) has done
a much better job of actually solving for the primary glider collision
scenarios in a unit you can order today (and will likely be delivered
in time for next season) - that is why people are getting interested
in it. For instance, and as has been pointed out, the Navworx unit is
more expensive and draws 0.8 amps @ 12v before you add a GPS or
display. That likely doubles or triples the power requirements on most
gliders. We can recognize the efforts of Mitre and Navworx all we
want but the fact remains they are FAR more focused on GA than gliders
- a look at what they are producing confirms that.

This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions.

Good for them, but it's mostly not material to the discussion of which
products now coming on the market are most suitable for gliders. Just
because it works in an operational test doesn't mean its the BEST
solution.

It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.

True - it's further evidence of how hard it is to get bureaucracies
with diverse interests to align. It gives strength to the argument
that a blanket approach is highly unlikely to end up producing a
superior solution to PowerFlarm and its successors.

The ultimate goal that we should all be be working towards is that every
aircraft, including gliders, balloons, jets, and even parachutists,
should be electronically visible to all other aircraft. *That visibility
should extend far enough that everyone can avoid other aircraft to their
own comfort level. *The 172 on a point to point excursion flight is
going to probably be much more interested in avoiding other aircraft
than a glider pilot participating in a contest. *A jet is going to want
to have an even wider safety margin.

Ultimate goals are nice but having a solution that works before 2020
would be better. For 2011 that is likely PowerFlarm or PowerFlarm plus
a Trig TT21/22 (or similar). The latter seems pretty future-proofed
too. I don't think the Navworx unit does me much good until the ground
infrastructure is built out over the next 10-20 years (particularly in
the remote deserts and ridges where many of us in the west fly). And
with UAT I may never get a solution for jets with 1090ES in those
areas.

Obviously in a high traffic environment, like a contest, you want to
have an intelligent system that minimizes false alarms. *If you don't do
that, then the alarms become meaningless and will be ignored. *That is a
legitimate goal.

It's the highest priority goal for many of us.

However, arbitrarily turning off position data, just to enhance the
competitive nature of an event, without any further justification, would
certainly result in some serious scrutiny, if this was a contributing
factor to an accident.

You need to look in detail at how contest mode works on PowerFlarm -
it does not turn off collision warnings, it simply makes it harder to
use it to find other gliders who are climbing better than you. Making
it harder for gaggle to form is a significant addition to safety. If
you ignore the human behavioral implications of rules you are left
only with theoretical rules that have limited practical value.

If the accident was between contest participants, all of whom agreed to
this arrangement, there might be a defense. *However, if the accident
involved another aircraft that just happened to be in the area, a good
trial lawyer could certainly make a serious case against the pilots
involved, as well as the contest organizers, any governing bodies that
created rules that contributed to the accident, as well as any avionics
manufacturer that artificially suppressed data that could have been
helpful without any legitimate justification.

This is how lawyers kill innovation - by making theoretical arguments
about specious causality.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this whole FLARM debate is moving us
any closer to widespread deployment of collision avoidance systems in
gliders. *What I see is a very narrow focus on a quick band-aid to try
to help the contest environment, while we continue to ignore a
comprehensive solution to the bigger problem.

I think the proposal on the table was to do just the opposite - drive
widespread adoption of PowerFlarm in the US rather than wait for UAT,
which is of more questionable value in glider-glider scenarios,
doesn't yet have the critical ground stations to make it work, and may
never work in seeing 1090ES jets in remote locations.

--
Mike Schumann

P.S. *I do have a legal background.

You style of argument is consistent with that Mike. Are you sure you
don't have a financial interest in UAT adoption?

On Aug 20, 7:14*am, Andy wrote:
On Aug 20, 12:50*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:

On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM).

Your arguments (even later in this same post) belie this statement.

The problem is not just contests. *Every day, we have near misses
between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. *Everyone who has purchased a
PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
never see.

PCAS is an important adjunct technology for the immediate future -
PowerFlarm has it but Navworx and Mitre units don't and therefore
can't see anything but ADS-B UAT direct outside the very limited
ground station deployment. Which meant you won't be able to see 1090ES
equipped jets unless you are near ground stations taht are yet to be
built (or even funded to be built I suspect) Correct?

You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
are the FLARM guys. *You completely ignore the significant efforts that
have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
and glider world.

I think the point is that Flarm (and PowerFlarm by extension) has done
a much better job of actually solving for the primary glider collision
scenarios in a unit you can order today (and will likely be delivered
in time for next season) - that is why people are getting interested
in it. *For instance, and as has been pointed out, the Navworx unit is
more expensive and draws 0.8 amps @ 12v before you add a GPS or
display. That likely doubles or triples the power requirements on most
gliders. *We can recognize the efforts of Mitre and Navworx all we
want but the fact remains they are FAR more focused on GA than gliders
- a look at what they are producing confirms that.

This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions..

Good for them, but it's mostly not material to the discussion of which
products now coming on the market are most suitable for gliders. Just
because it works in an operational test doesn't mean its the BEST
solution.

It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.

True - it's further evidence of how hard it is to get bureaucracies
with diverse interests to align. It gives strength to the argument
that a blanket approach is highly unlikely to end up producing a
superior solution to PowerFlarm and its successors.

The ultimate goal that we should all be be working towards is that every
aircraft, including gliders, balloons, jets, and even parachutists,
should be electronically visible to all other aircraft. *That visibility
should extend far enough that everyone can avoid other aircraft to their
own comfort level. *The 172 on a point to point excursion flight is
going to probably be much more interested in avoiding other aircraft
than a glider pilot participating in a contest. *A jet is going to want
to have an even wider safety margin.

Ultimate goals are nice but having a solution that works before 2020
would be better. For 2011 that is likely PowerFlarm or PowerFlarm plus
a Trig TT21/22 (or similar). The latter seems pretty future-proofed
too. I don't think the Navworx unit does me much good until the ground
infrastructure is built out over the next 10-20 years (particularly in
the remote deserts and ridges where many of us in the west fly). And
with UAT I may never get a solution for jets with 1090ES in those
areas.

Obviously in a high traffic environment, like a contest, you want to
have an intelligent system that minimizes false alarms. *If you don't do
that, then the alarms become meaningless and will be ignored. *That is a
legitimate goal.

It's the highest priority goal for many of us.

However, arbitrarily turning off position data, just to enhance the
competitive nature of an event, without any further justification, would
certainly result in some serious scrutiny, if this was a contributing
factor to an accident.

You need to look in detail at how contest mode works on PowerFlarm -
it does not turn off collision warnings, it simply makes it harder to
use it to find other gliders who are climbing better than you. Making
it harder for gaggle to form is a significant addition to safety. *If
you ignore the human behavioral implications of rules you are left
only with theoretical rules that have limited practical value.

If the accident was between contest participants, all of whom agreed to
this arrangement, there might be a defense. *However, if the accident
involved another aircraft that just happened to be in the area, a good
trial lawyer could certainly make a serious case against the pilots
involved, as well as the contest organizers, any governing bodies that
created rules that contributed to the accident, as well as any avionics
manufacturer that artificially suppressed data that could have been
helpful without any legitimate justification.

This is how lawyers kill innovation - by making theoretical arguments
about specious causality.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this whole FLARM debate is moving us
any closer to widespread deployment of collision avoidance systems in
gliders. *What I see is a very narrow focus on a quick band-aid to try
to help the contest environment, while we continue to ignore a
comprehensive solution to the bigger problem.

I think the proposal on the table was to do just the opposite - drive
widespread adoption of PowerFlarm in the US rather than wait for UAT,
which is of more questionable value in glider-glider scenarios,
doesn't yet have the critical ground stations to make it work, and may
never work in seeing 1090ES jets in remote locations.

--
Mike Schumann

P.S. *I do have a legal background.

You style of argument is consistent with that Mike. *Are you sure you
don't have a financial interest in UAT adoption?

First off, thanks to the people who actually answered the original
question posed in the first post of this thread. Second, thanks to
those who fired up the PCAS, Flarm, PowerFlarm, UAT, 1090ES, and ADS-B
debate. I am VASTLY better informed now than when I started looking
into the whole transponder thing*. After reading every post in this
thread, and most of those in a couple other threads, here's MY take:
Flarm and PowerFlarm appears to be the only NEAR TERM solution to
glider on glider. Power requirements and cost fall within the range of
acceptance for glider pilots who fly in GLIDER congested areas.
UAT may serve well - in the future, but doesn't appear suited for the
soaring contest glider-on-glider scenario. Power requirements are on
the extreme upper edge of acceptable. Cost is also a factor, since it
will require a different transmitter. Oh, and another antenna.
1090ES ADS-B, etc. 2020 will arrive in 9 years and 4 months. From my
understanding, that's when the requirement for a 'certified' GPS feed
becomes mandatory. REALLY?? NINE YEARS!! Whatever 'requirement' is
written now, WILL be obsolete in nine years. Unfortunately, if past
experience is any indicator, the gummint folks who wrote the
'requirement' will have inadvertantly written it is such a way as to
legally demand use of the outdated technology, at a vastly higher cost
than using what will (in 2020) be current, superior technology.
Me, I just want the airliners to be aware of me, and the Trig is the
lowest power draw, least expensive solution to THAT problem.



*of course, starting at zero knowledge, anything gained is a vast
improvement!

On Aug 20, 8:05*am, Grider Pirate wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:14*am, Andy wrote:



On Aug 20, 12:50*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:

On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM).

Your arguments (even later in this same post) belie this statement.

The problem is not just contests. *Every day, we have near misses
between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. *Everyone who has purchased a
PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
never see.

PCAS is an important adjunct technology for the immediate future -
PowerFlarm has it but Navworx and Mitre units don't and therefore
can't see anything but ADS-B UAT direct outside the very limited
ground station deployment. Which meant you won't be able to see 1090ES
equipped jets unless you are near ground stations taht are yet to be
built (or even funded to be built I suspect) Correct?

You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
are the FLARM guys. *You completely ignore the significant efforts that
have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
and glider world.

I think the point is that Flarm (and PowerFlarm by extension) has done
a much better job of actually solving for the primary glider collision
scenarios in a unit you can order today (and will likely be delivered
in time for next season) - that is why people are getting interested
in it. *For instance, and as has been pointed out, the Navworx unit is
more expensive and draws 0.8 amps @ 12v before you add a GPS or
display. That likely doubles or triples the power requirements on most
gliders. *We can recognize the efforts of Mitre and Navworx all we
want but the fact remains they are FAR more focused on GA than gliders
- a look at what they are producing confirms that.

This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions.

Good for them, but it's mostly not material to the discussion of which
products now coming on the market are most suitable for gliders. Just
because it works in an operational test doesn't mean its the BEST
solution.

It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:

draws 0.8 amps @ 12v

I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?

--
Alex

On Aug 20, 11:33*am, Alex Potter wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:14:01 -0700, Andy wrote:
draws 0.8 amps @ 12v

I've not been near an airfield for 10 years now, but are there no
advances in solar power/battery technology since then that improve a
glider's power supply? What is a typical glider's current requirement?

--
Alex

I run my whole panel on less than 0.8 amp average. PDA, logger,
vario, radio. I use a 14 AH battery, useful capacity about 10 AH,
adding 0.8 amp would take me down to about 6 hours duration. I'd have
to add another battery somewhere to get my target 10 hour capacity.
Solar would be an option... but dang those things are ugly on a pretty
glider.

0.8 amps isn't a deal breaker for me... but less is better.

The Navworx product isn't generating any interest here because there
is at present no way to build a complete system out of the thing that
will work in a glider flown in proximity to other gliders. Possibly
someone like Flarm could do this... but the price point is going to be
difficult, $2500 transceiver, plus whatever additional for a display
and software... I don't see that catching on.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

It's a no-brainer. Everyone who flies gliders with other gliders
needs to get a PowerFlarm. Everyone who shares airspace with
airliners needs to get a transponder. It's just that simple.

The SSA rules committee needs to immediately adopt a mandate for
PowerFlarm in 2011 sanctioned contests so that the Flarm folks
understand their mission and can get production ramped accordingly.
Let's not have any more mid-airs -- they are ruining the fun.

A big thank you to Darryl for his extrodinarily clear explainations of
a complex subject.

On Aug 20, 11:09*am, Steve Koerner wrote:
It's a no-brainer. *Everyone who flies gliders with other gliders
needs to get a PowerFlarm. *

I, for one, don't think it is that simple.

I agree that FLARM is the best available technology for glider on
glider collision avoidance. That part is the no brainer.

The situation as I understand it is that one manufacturer of devices
that uses FLARM technology has expressed an intention to launch a
product (PowerFLARM) in USA. If this produduct is FLARM compatible it
must mean that the company holding the rights to the FLARM technology
has authorized the use of it in USA. That is something that they
have, in the past, prohibited.

PowerFLARM includes features that are not included by other
manufacturers of equipment using FLARM technology. There is no
indication in the specifications, or elsewhere on their website, how
these additional features will be integrated with the well proven
FLARM functionality.

If the holder of the rights to the FLARM technology has authorized its
use in USA what is to stop other companies launching a FLARM product
to the US market. Perhaps such a product would not have the
additional features of the Power FLARM unit but would support only the
basic FLARM functionality that has a proven track record. Perhaps that
device, or family of devices, would be far less expensive than
PowerFLARM. Perhaps these devices already exist and just need a
firmware change to assign the correct frequencies for use in USA.

The SSA rules committee needs to immediately adopt a mandate for
PowerFlarm in 2011 sanctioned contests

No rule should require the use of a particular manufacturer's
product. The rule that should be considered is one that requires the
use of a FLARM compatible device.

so that the Flarm folks
understand their mission and can get production ramped accordingly.

Who are the FLARM folks that you refer to? In an earlier post you
said "Andy -- have some faith. The Flarm designers are glider pilots
and have been at this for years. The track record is that of
remarkable
success". Do you mean the manufacturer of PowerFLARM, or perhaps the
holder of the FLARM rights. To the best of my knowledge these are not
the same company. (Maybe someone that knows the relationship between
the various companies and the people involved could comment)


Andy

On Aug 20, 12:15*pm, Andy wrote:
On Aug 20, 11:09*am, Steve Koerner wrote:

It's a no-brainer. *Everyone who flies gliders with other gliders
needs to get a PowerFlarm. *

I, for one, don't think it is that simple.

I agree that FLARM is the best available technology for glider on
glider collision avoidance. *That part is the no brainer.

The situation as I understand it is that one manufacturer of devices
that uses FLARM technology has expressed an intention to launch a
product (PowerFLARM) in USA. *If this produduct is FLARM compatible it
must mean that the company holding the rights to the FLARM technology
has authorized the use of it in USA. *That is something that they
have, in the past, prohibited.

PowerFLARM includes features that are not included by other
manufacturers of equipment using FLARM technology. *There is no
indication in the specifications, or elsewhere on their website, how
these additional features will be integrated with the well proven
FLARM functionality.

If the holder of the rights to the FLARM technology has authorized its
use in USA what is to stop other companies launching a FLARM product
to the US market. *Perhaps such a product would not have the
additional features of the Power FLARM unit but would support only the
basic FLARM functionality that has a proven track record. Perhaps that
device, or family of devices, would be far less expensive than
PowerFLARM. *Perhaps these devices already exist and just need a
firmware change to assign the correct frequencies for use in USA.

The SSA rules committee needs to immediately adopt a mandate for
PowerFlarm in 2011 sanctioned contests

No rule should require the use of a particular manufacturer's
product. *The rule that should be considered is one that requires the
use of a FLARM compatible device.

so that the Flarm folks
understand their mission and can get production ramped accordingly.

Who are the FLARM folks that you refer to? *In an earlier post you
said "Andy -- have some faith. * The Flarm designers are glider pilots
and have been at this for years. *The track record is that of
remarkable
success". *Do you mean the manufacturer of PowerFLARM, or perhaps the
holder of the FLARM rights. *To the best of my knowledge these are not
the same company. *(Maybe someone that knows the relationship between
the various companies and the people involved could comment)

Andy

Flarm and Butterfly (the actual manufacturer of PowerFLARM) are
cooperating very closely to bring this first Flarm based product to
the USA market. As with all other Flarm products the core technology
is developed by Flarm. Urs Rothacher the guy posting on r.a.s in these
threads is the CEO and one of the founders of of Flarm and is very
technical. He is clearly buried working to get the PowerFLARM out.

No existing Flarm devices are FCC approved in the USA and therefore
none of them can be legally sold. Unfortunately there is confusing
information put up on some web sites (yes you Paul Remde :-)) implying
some Flarm devices are available in the USA, there just are no FCC
approvals AFAIK. Some of us have had conversations with Urs about this
and one of the things that Flarm is working on in this whole project
is really clean FCC approval of the new generation hardware inside the
PowerFLARM product. That takes time, effort and $$$.

I also see no reason to specify a "powerFLARM" device for USA contest
rules. Specifying "Flarm" based product or similar likely achieves
what may be desired. And I tend to believe that is what USA rules
folks might do in any language that allowed/required etc. this
technology.

Darryl

Andy:

I agree. It should be a "Flarm compatible device" that is mandated
for 2011 contests not PowerFlarm per se.

I don't understand the nit picking about rights holders vs
manufacturers.

On Aug 20, 12:44*pm, Steve Koerner wrote:

I don't understand the nit picking about rights holders vs
manufacturers.

It's a question of what flexibility a manufacturer has to modify the
core technology/firmware to make it compatible with new features that
are not supported by other FLARM products. The new features need to be
integrated not just stuffed in the same box.

If, as Darrly says, the holder of the rights and the manufacturer are
working together on PowerFLARM then I agree it should be a non
issue.


Andy