Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

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