Flarm in 2011 USA Contests

Well done.

Paul Remde

"John Godfrey (QT)" wrote in message
...
The USA Rules Committee has published a document detailing the
decisions taken and background relating to Flarm usage in 2011 USA
contests. The document can be accessed via the link below:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011FlarmUSA.pdf

For the committee,

John Godfrey (QT)
USA Rules Committee

Wow - a severe outbreak of common sense seems to have overtaken the
committee!

Mike

On Nov 16, 9:29*pm, Mike the Strike wrote:
Wow - a severe outbreak of common sense seems to have overtaken the
committee!

Mike

Outbreak of common sense.. ok I would like to entertain the idea of
the SSA doing something for all the SSA members. I noticed there is a
discount for group buying of the new USA FLARMS. Why is it that the
SSA Director has not conducted negotiations with the FLARM
manufacturer and created an opportunity for all the SSA members to
receive a discount through an "SSA FLARM GROUP PURCHASE" ? Seems to
me that might be a real win win for all involved. Members might be
able to purchase the units for $1,000 or so...

But I might be expecting too much of the SSA. So as a member of a
small club I'll have to decide if the cost is worth it...

Oh I do intend to purchase a FLARM myself.

Steve
S9

On 11/16/2010 7:42 PM, Stephen wrote:
On Nov 16, 9:29 pm, Mike the wrote:

Wow - a severe outbreak of common sense seems to have overtaken the
committee!

Mike

Outbreak of common sense.. ok I would like to entertain the idea of
the SSA doing something for all the SSA members. I noticed there is a
discount for group buying of the new USA FLARMS. Why is it that the
SSA Director has not conducted negotiations with the FLARM
manufacturer and created an opportunity for all the SSA members to
receive a discount through an "SSA FLARM GROUP PURCHASE" ? Seems to
me that might be a real win win for all involved. Members might be
able to purchase the units for $1,000 or so...

But I might be expecting too much of the SSA. So as a member of a
small club I'll have to decide if the cost is worth it...

Oh I do intend to purchase a FLARM myself.

I suggest you ask your Regional director. It might be something simple
like "The PowerFlarm company won't do it that way". From the Craggy Aero
site, the group purchase requirements are...

* A group does not need to be an officially sanctioned club by the SSA.
* Generally, a local club operating on an airfield is our model.
* **The group needs to be based at one airfield* *so that the
benefit is appreciated by the participants.


Regardless, your director will know the answer or can easily get it for you.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Am 17.11.2010 04:55, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 11/16/2010 7:42 PM, Stephen wrote:
On Nov 16, 9:29 pm, Mike the wrote:
Wow - a severe outbreak of common sense seems to have overtaken the
committee!

Mike
Outbreak of common sense.. ok I would like to entertain the idea of
the SSA doing something for all the SSA members. I noticed there is a
discount for group buying of the new USA FLARMS. Why is it that the
SSA Director has not conducted negotiations with the FLARM
manufacturer and created an opportunity for all the SSA members to
receive a discount through an "SSA FLARM GROUP PURCHASE" ? Seems to
me that might be a real win win for all involved. Members might be
able to purchase the units for $1,000 or so...

But I might be expecting too much of the SSA. So as a member of a
small club I'll have to decide if the cost is worth it...

Oh I do intend to purchase a FLARM myself.
I suggest you ask your Regional director. It might be something simple
like "The PowerFlarm company won't do it that way". From the Craggy Aero
site, the group purchase requirements are...

* A group does not need to be an officially sanctioned club by the SSA.
* Generally, a local club operating on an airfield is our model.
* **The group needs to be based at one airfield* *so that the
benefit is appreciated by the participants.


Regardless, your director will know the answer or can easily get it for
you.

In Germany we get rebates of 5% / 10% / 15% for group orders of 6+ / 10+
/ 20+ FLARM units. You don't have to be a formal group like a club, an
informal group of individuals will do fine.

Normally, someone puts a small ad on the website of segeflug.de, seeking
for other people wanting to join in to get a better rebate.

This works well since several years, and by this method I got my FLARM
for my newly purchased glider for a reasonable price.
--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Peter said:

In Germany we get rebates of 5% / 10% / 15% for group orders of 6+ / 10+
/ 20+ FLARM units. You don't have to be *a formal group like a club, an
informal group of individuals will do fine.

Normally, someone puts a small ad on the website of segeflug.de, seeking
for other people wanting to join in to get a better rebate.

This works well since several years, and by this method I got my FLARM
for my newly purchased glider for a reasonable price.

The FLARM company recognizes the device only works best when all
gliders in a group (club) are equipped with the device. A small
percentage of gliders and towplanes equipped with FLARM defeats the
intended anti-collision safety features. In order to encourage as many
aircraft as possible within a local group to be equipped with FLARM,
they offer a graduated discount for the group. Groups should consider
FLARM as a "safety system" to help prevent collisions in the flying
space where they fly the most.

As a FLARM dealer, I am trying to encourage as many individuals to
equip with FLARM so they are protected when they fly at our soaring
site (lots of gliders flying from different soaring sites on our
ridges.) These same FLARM equipped aircraft fly the most hours at
their local club, and for many (most?) this means in thermal
conditions. Thermalling is another midair high risk arena, and gliders
as well as towplanes will benefit - probably during more flying hours
each year than when visiting a ridge/wave site, or flying in contests
during the year.

FLARM dealers will have no way to enforce the intent of the company
policy, however, those who are trying to save what amounts to only a
few dollars, should consider the goals of the anti-collision "system."
The largest discount incentive is to place your order before the first
of the year, and we dealers are encouraged by the number of pilots who
are placing their orders now.

Tom Knauff

At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

Paul Remde

"John Godfrey (QT)" wrote in message
...
The USA Rules Committee has published a document detailing the
decisions taken and background relating to Flarm usage in 2011 USA
contests. The document can be accessed via the link below:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011FlarmUSA.pdf

For the committee,

John Godfrey (QT)
USA Rules Committee

While I am not directly concerned as I am a competition director in the UK
I am concerned with one aspect of FLARM in competitions;

4. Stealth or other restrictions. We are not imposing stealth or other
restrictions at this time. We may impose restrictions later, and may do so
on a contest by contest basis.

Current UK rules do require stealth restrictions during competitions and
as a director I am uncomfortable with this on two main grounds.
The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.
The other concern is that the requirement is un-enforcable. FLARM is an
open technology and while it is possible to check an instrument installed
in the glider it is not possible to check and undeclared FLARM unit
carried by the pilot, searching pilots before they get into their glider
is not likely to ever be acceptable. It is comparatively easy to have a
non--stealth unit available. A rule that cannot be enforced should never
be made.
Personally I prefer the route you have taken at the moment, accept that
those with FLARM may receive an advantage from it's use. This alone may
encourage pilots to fit FLARM and if everyone has it the playing field is
at least level. In my opinion it would be unwise, given the nature of your
courts, to mandate the use of stealth mode.

"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only
the PDA output is degraded.
But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
nearby traffic. It is well thought.

The other concern is that the requirement is un-enforcable. FLARM is an
open technology and while it is possible to check an instrument installed
in the glider it is not possible to check and undeclared FLARM unit
carried by the pilot, searching pilots before they get into their glider
is not likely to ever be acceptable. It is comparatively easy to have a
non--stealth unit available. A rule that cannot be enforced should never
be made.

Flarm is not open technology. It is proprietary technology, and no company
except FLARM in switzerland can do it.
All other companies on the market bought licences from flarm. No US company
will be allowed to market its own traffic advisor,
unless they buy it from flarm. It is called monopoly , and in this case it
is about your safety.
A couple of years ago, the IGC had decided to adopt a public protocol for
traffic informations, but nothing happened so far.

paolo

On Nov 17, 5:05*pm, "PCool" wrote:
"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel et...

At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

Paulo explains this is not correct below. In the case of powerFlarm
some of that data normally shown on a PDA is shown on the display and
that is also dithered in the same way (or it would make no sense- and
the Flarm folks are not stupid). One observation is there also seems
to be lots of confusion about Stealth, Contest, Nearest and Collision
modes. The best thing to do there is to read the operation manual for
a current Flarm unit on Flarm's website (http://www.flarm.com/support/
index_en.html) and see their guide for contests as well.

No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only
the PDA output is degraded.
But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
nearby traffic. It is well thought.

The other concern is that the requirement is un-enforcable. FLARM is an
open technology and while it is possible to check an instrument installed
in the glider it is not possible to check and undeclared FLARM unit
carried by the pilot, searching pilots before they get into their glider
is not likely to ever be acceptable. It is comparatively easy to have a
non--stealth unit available. A rule that cannot be enforced should never
be made.

And that undeclared non-stealth unit would be visible to and recorded
by nearby Flarm units. So one possibility is just the risk of
detection would be enough to prevent carrying one. We do not strip
search pilots today at contests so I am not sure enforcement like that
would ever be needed. But again it is a non issue now as the rules
seem to be let's just see how things go without any stealth
requirement. And all this is a concern about something we just do not
have to face at the moment.

The major problem with all this is there is really nothing to complain
about :-) The USA rules commitee has actually looked at the issues,
looked at the technology coming in PowerFLARM and actually made a very
sensible decision given where we are and they took the time to explain
their thoughts. Thanks guys.

Flarm is not open technology. It is proprietary technology, and no company
except FLARM in switzerland can do it.
All other companies on the market bought licences from flarm. *No US company
will be allowed to market its own traffic advisor,
unless they buy it from flarm. It is called monopoly , and in this case it
is about *your safety.
A couple of years ago, the IGC had decided to adopt a public protocol for
traffic informations, but nothing happened so far.

paolo

Related muddled thinking around UAT technology by the SSA has probably
helped Flarm feel less than excited about entering the USA market.
Luckily PowerFLARM is not too far away...

Darryl

From my crystal ball.

A picture says a thousand words:

http://www.bmapper.com/VIRA.jpg

Dale Kramer
No Title anymore