![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/17/2010 12:02 PM, John Smith wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote: Perhaps they could get an FCC waiver to use Flarm in the Worlds task area, and allow Flarm to work in the task area (and nowhere else in the USA) and only during the contest period, and only during the day. I'm not sure they would consider this, as the problem isn't the FCC but definitely their fear of those insane US liability lawsuits. Do you know this from speaking with a principal in the Flarm company? Or is that an assumption? Why else would they prohibit the use of FLARM not only in the USA but worldwide when there is a US citizen on board? If "insane US liability lawsuits" are a problem, how will they avoid the problem for PowerFlarm? For that matter, how does Zaon avoid the same problem for their PCAS units? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eric Greenwell wrote:
I'm not sure they would consider this, as the problem isn't the FCC but definitely their fear of those insane US liability lawsuits. Do you know this from speaking with a principal in the Flarm company? Or is that an assumption? I know it from "second hand direct information", from knowing how European people in general think about the USA liability insanity, and last but not least the FLARM people say so on their faq page (only available in German): www.flarm.com/support/faq/index.html Besides, do you think they would go through the paperwork to have the device approved by the FCC equivalents in many countries, but would recoil at the idea to do it for the USA? If "insane US liability lawsuits" are a problem, how will they avoid the problem for PowerFlarm? No idea. But they are not that small startup company anymore but have had a couple of years now to sort things out and have maybe found a way to avoid the risk. For that matter, how does Zaon avoid the same problem for their PCAS units? No idea. Maybe they even don't and just gamble? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/17/2010 12:58 PM, John Smith wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote: I'm not sure they would consider this, as the problem isn't the FCC but definitely their fear of those insane US liability lawsuits. Do you know this from speaking with a principal in the Flarm company? Or is that an assumption? I know it from "second hand direct information", from knowing how European people in general think about the USA liability insanity, and last but not least the FLARM people say so on their faq page (only available in German): www.flarm.com/support/faq/index.html Besides, do you think they would go through the paperwork to have the device approved by the FCC equivalents in many countries, but would recoil at the idea to do it for the USA? My guesses: Perhaps the North America market was thought to be too small and the FCC licensing too expensive; perhaps in the Euro zone, they did not have to contend with "many countries"; licensing in at least one country (Australia), was not done by Flarm. If "insane US liability lawsuits" are a problem, how will they avoid the problem for PowerFlarm? No idea. But they are not that small startup company anymore but have had a couple of years now to sort things out and have maybe found a way to avoid the risk. So, perhaps the problem is not USA and Canada's "insane liability laws", but Flarm's understanding of them. It would be interesting to know Flarm's reasoning and how it's changed over the years so that they are now entering the market here. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eric Greenwell wrote:
It would be interesting to know Flarm's reasoning They have an e-mail address. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Please correct me if I am wrong.
There is still no information that I could find on how the PCAS part of the PowerFlarm will behave in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders and PowerFlarms. I would like to hear how would this unit be usable in such a situation? There is no way signals from Mod C transponders could be correlated with FLARM so the PCAS would just get crazy and the unit unusable, correct? And what about a similar situation where gliders are only equipped with Mod C transponders, I guess the same outcome the unit would be unusable due to many signal sources in small area. I already experienced this with Zaon MRX so I know this is the case. So, how will it work? Anyone truly knows? What I want is a pure FLARM! I don't need the annoyance of a PCAS when I am in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders. I also don't need ADS-B for a while until it will really be usable. Why do I need to be early adopter of the ADS-B when I want to be an early adopter of FLARM. This box looks to me was designed for power pilots who don't fly very close to a bunch of other aircraft equipped with transponders then the PCAS is not a problem. I am not about to purchase another annoying instrument I already have one PCAS. It is great outside glider congested areas but not in a contest. So unless I hear the PCAS issue is resolved in some way I am not going to buy a unit to find out it is not doing what I need to do. I am waiting to be corrected with FACTS. AK |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Facts? I think that's a different forum. RAS actually stands for
Rumors And Speculation. On Sep 17, 2:22*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote: Please correct me if I am wrong. There is still no information that I could find on how the PCAS part of the PowerFlarm will behave in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders and PowerFlarms. I would like to hear how would this unit be usable in such a situation? There is no way signals from Mod C transponders could be correlated with FLARM so the PCAS would just get crazy and the unit unusable, correct? And what about a similar situation where gliders are only equipped with Mod C transponders, I guess the same outcome the unit would be unusable due to many signal sources in small area. I already experienced this with Zaon MRX so I know this is the case. So, how will it work? Anyone truly knows? What I want is a pure FLARM! I don't need the annoyance of a PCAS when I am in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders. I also don't need ADS-B for a while until it will really be usable. Why do I need to be early adopter of the ADS-B when I want to be an early adopter of FLARM. This box looks to me was designed for power pilots who don't fly very close to a bunch of other aircraft equipped with transponders then the PCAS is not a problem. I am not about to purchase another annoying instrument I already have one PCAS. It is great outside glider congested areas but not in a contest. So unless I hear the PCAS issue is resolved in some way I am not going to buy a unit to find out it is not doing what I need to do. I am waiting to be corrected with FACTS. AK |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 17, 2:22*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
Please correct me if I am wrong. There is still no information that I could find on how the PCAS part of the PowerFlarm will behave in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders and PowerFlarms. I would like to hear how would this unit be usable in such a situation? There is no way signals from Mod C transponders could be correlated with FLARM so the PCAS would just get crazy and the unit unusable, correct? And what about a similar situation where gliders are only equipped with Mod C transponders, I guess the same outcome the unit would be unusable due to many signal sources in small area. I already experienced this with Zaon MRX so I know this is the case. So, how will it work? Anyone truly knows? What I want is a pure FLARM! I don't need the annoyance of a PCAS when I am in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders. I also don't need ADS-B for a while until it will really be usable. Why do I need to be early adopter of the ADS-B when I want to be an early adopter of FLARM. This box looks to me was designed for power pilots who don't fly very close to a bunch of other aircraft equipped with transponders then the PCAS is not a problem. I am not about to purchase another annoying instrument I already have one PCAS. It is great outside glider congested areas but not in a contest. So unless I hear the PCAS issue is resolved in some way I am not going to buy a unit to find out it is not doing what I need to do. I am waiting to be corrected with FACTS. AK This has already been discussed in threads here. As you point out PCAS cannot work in crowded gaggles - so you disable the PCAS alarm in those situation. As I've pointed out before it's not just that it will be annoying, it is that the Mode C transponders fundamentally wont' work properly in crowded gaggles. There is no other way "resolve" this issue, so you turn it off. This is a product designed to work in contest environments, the developers understand these issues. Darryl |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 17, 8:16*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Sep 17, 2:22*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote: Please correct me if I am wrong. There is still no information that I could find on how the PCAS part of the PowerFlarm will behave in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders and PowerFlarms. I would like to hear how would this unit be usable in such a situation? There is no way signals from Mod C transponders could be correlated with FLARM so the PCAS would just get crazy and the unit unusable, correct? And what about a similar situation where gliders are only equipped with Mod C transponders, I guess the same outcome the unit would be unusable due to many signal sources in small area. I already experienced this with Zaon MRX so I know this is the case. So, how will it work? Anyone truly knows? What I want is a pure FLARM! I don't need the annoyance of a PCAS when I am in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders. I also don't need ADS-B for a while until it will really be usable. Why do I need to be early adopter of the ADS-B when I want to be an early adopter of FLARM. This box looks to me was designed for power pilots who don't fly very close to a bunch of other aircraft equipped with transponders then the PCAS is not a problem. I am not about to purchase another annoying instrument I already have one PCAS. It is great outside glider congested areas but not in a contest. So unless I hear the PCAS issue is resolved in some way I am not going to buy a unit to find out it is not doing what I need to do. I am waiting to be corrected with FACTS. AK This has already been discussed in threads here. As you point out PCAS cannot work in crowded gaggles - so you disable the PCAS alarm in those situation. As I've pointed out before it's not just that it will be annoying, it is that the Mode C transponders fundamentally wont' work properly in crowded gaggles. There is no other way "resolve" this issue, so you turn it off. This is a product designed to work in contest environments, the developers understand these issues. Darryl Yes, it was discussed here without any implementation facts! I am looking for facts and a definite answer rather than "the developers know". Do you know this for a fact that I can turn off PCAS functionality in PowerFlarm without turning off the unit? In Europe where Mod S is required this is not a problem since you can program the codes into the unit and correlate with Flarm, but in US most gliders equipped with transponders are Mod C. So, anyone who knows this for a fact please bring it up. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Compared to a standalone PCAS, PowerFLARM has a few things going for
it: - The other PowerFLARM equipped aircraft will transmit the fact that it is transponder equipped in its FLARM signal. PowerFLARM will then attempt a ‘data fusion’ to reduce nuisance alarms. The fusion, off course, works best with Mode S transponders… Once a match between a transponder and a FLARM signal has been made, the higly accurate FLARM data is used and nuisance alarms are minimal. - The PowerFLARM user interface is sophisticated, yet simple. Suppressing the audio of the PCAS alert is trivial, so you will still see on the screen that there are transponder A/C equipped aircraft nearby but it will not constantly beep. - PowerFLARM can easily be updated through the SD Card / Serial / USB port. We have provided FREE updates to all devices ever shipped since 2004, vastly improving their performance and features. So even if we would not get it right at first; dont despair, complain (to us, not RAS)... - We are glider pilots and we will make this work for glider pilots as otherwise we can never again show up on any gliderport, worldwide... Urs FLARM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Whats better, a troll free community, or a troll resistant community? | buttman | Piloting | 3 | October 18th 08 06:15 PM |
Scottish Gliding Union FLARM trial results | Dan G | Soaring | 0 | December 27th 07 11:49 AM |
Av Community | Flyin' High! | Piloting | 4 | April 30th 06 03:47 AM |
Av Community | Flyin' High! | Owning | 0 | April 29th 06 03:09 PM |
Leaving the community | David Brooks | Piloting | 770 | November 29th 04 12:07 AM |