FLARM Technology for the US Gliding Community

On Sep 15, 4:20*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Sep 15, 12:19*pm, Andy wrote:



On Sep 15, 11:25*am, Ramy wrote:

We would probably have at east one pilot alive today if the FCC
approved those units earlier.

That seems to assign some blame to FCC.

Why would FCC be expected to approve an equipment for which no
approval application was made. * Why would anyone have made an
approval application for an equipment which was not marketed for use
in USA and prohibited by the manufacture(s) from being used in USA.

For those that think the door will be open to import the older FLARM
units to US and use them without FCC approval, don't forget that the
unit's firmware has an embedded drop dead date. *It would be very easy
for the next firmware cycle to inhibit operation for GPS locations in
USA.

Am I the only one that suspects a large part of the US PowerFLARM cost
is going towards a legal fund?

Andy

You may be right but my point is that, as often the case, we have the
technology (which should normally be the biggest challenge) but it
almost always hampered by paperwork/FCC/FAA/liablity/(name your
favorite bureaucrat agency here).
This is much less so with consumer devices.
I understand this is to prevent chaos, but if so, how come everyone
can mail order an aviation radio and interfere with ATC if they feal
like?

Ramy

As usual, reality is a bit more complicated...
In USA, the power levels allowed on the free-for-all
frequencies are higher than other countries.
That means the background noise level on these
frequencies is higher from other devices.
PowerFLARM has a more powerful
radio transmitter than the classic FLARM, and
is thus is more able to punch through the noise.

So, while a classic FLARM might operate here,
in addition to being illegal it won't work as well.
The other guy *might* hear you...

Hope that helps !
You guys should fly more and speculate less !

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

On Sep 19, 8:12*am, Dave Nadler wrote:

You guys should fly more and speculate less !

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

There would be no need for "speculation" if there were "specs"

On the one hand we are told US PowerFLARM is the same as "rest of the
world" PowerFLARM except for IGC recorder approval, but now you seem
to be suggesting that US PowerFLARM has different RF specs from the
"rest of the world" PowerFLARM. Maybe the RF TX power is controlled
according to region as determined by GPS position and the RF sections
are identical?

This is the first I have heard about higher RF power output. Up to
now the only information has been that the receiver is more sensitive
than legacy FLARM.

Now I'm going flying - someone has to pull the rope.

Andy (GY)

On Sep 19, 12:28*pm, Andy wrote:
On Sep 19, 8:12*am, Dave Nadler wrote:

You guys should fly more and speculate less !

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

There would be no need for "speculation" if there were "specs"

On the one hand we are told US PowerFLARM is the same as "rest of the
world" PowerFLARM except for IGC recorder approval, but now you seem
to be suggesting that US PowerFLARM has different RF specs from the
"rest of the world" PowerFLARM. *Maybe the RF TX power is controlled
according to region as determined by GPS position and the RF sections
are identical?

This is the first I have heard about higher RF power output. *Up to
now the only information has been that the receiver is more sensitive
than legacy FLARM.

Now I'm going flying - someone has to pull the rope.

Andy (GY)

As I wrote:
PowerFLARM has a more powerful transmitter
compared to classic FLARM.
Regardless of what country it is sold in.
The more powerful transmitter is needed in USA.

Location-specific behavior is an entirely separate matter:
To meet local requirements, in Europe the transmit power
will be lower than USA, controlled by software (no
hardware difference).

I will add a couple of FAQ entries later...

Glad you've gone flying and stopped speculating ;-)
Best Regards, Dave