Compare MRX with PF Portable

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 12:43:30 AM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
While I had less than optimal PCAS reception with my powerflarm until recent firmware upgrades and antenna replacement, I had zero false alarms during the 300 hours I flew with it, not even once. I have a Becker mode C transponder.

My experience so far with both Powerflarm and Butterfly support was very positive. I found both Gerhard and Marc to be very responsive. Just need to know who to contact instead of sending emails to the official email address which may be clogged...



Ramy


Ramy,

I sent all the above mentioned emails to direct individual email addresses. Including the dealer. It appears that FLARM has chosen not to reply/help.

Mark

PowerFlarm FirmWare version 3.31
http://www.powerflarm.aero/index.php...ge-and-support

As Ramy says, I am also very pleased with the current level of the functionality of the PowerFlarm system.
I have had already several all-out alarms for potential collisions, including a ADS-B alarm while turning right base with a Cirrus turning left base.
Great functionality at less than half the price of my parachute.

My communication with the Flarm development works pretty well.
I am not associated with Flarm, PowerFlarm or Butterfly. But I work in High Tech. If I had to run an small operation like Flarm/PowerFlarm and I had to manage a very resource constrained team, I would also elect to focus on development and interaction with a few key knowledgeable users, who are capable of helping debugging. I would refrain from spending much resource on answering random emails/calls. I would most particularly ignore emails from users where it is obvious that they have not read any documentation (even if that documentation is still limited)

If you need generic help, I recommend to consult with established users or on forums like this. The collective knowledge is growing quickly.

Hoping for further adoption of PowerFlarm in the US.

ThreeUniform.

I do not work in tech, but If I did, I too might want to try out a new product with a few technically knowledgeable users to help me identify and correct problems. However, I would hope that I would do so BEFORE trying to sell the product on the open market.

What type of parachute do you use? PowerFlarm appears to cost between about $1600 to $1900 in the US. Parachutes seem to be in the $1700 to $2200 range. Hmm, I have not actually used my chute except as a seat cushion. I wonder if it's actually a beta test version...

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 7:15:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I have not actually used my chute except as a seat cushion. I wonder if it's actually a beta test version...

You cannot update a parachute with a USB stick.

_of_flubber
On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 7:15:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I have not actually used my chute except as a seat cushion. I wonder if it's actually a beta test version...

You cannot update a parachute with a USB stick.

That's true, however, I am pretty sure Strong knew the chute had a reasonable chance of working as advertised when they sold it. No updates necessary.

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 2:16:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
PowerFlarm FirmWare version 3.31

Thanks for the tip on ver 3.31. I did not know that was available and it does include a change for own transponder supression.

However, the release notes include -

Known issues:
- Mode C targets at own altitude may be suppressed.


What is the use of a PCAS function that does not reliably detect targets at own ship altitude? These are the ones that can kill you.

Why would anyone part with a ZAON MRX that does reliably detect mode C targets at own altitude?

ZAON has worked out how to inhibit own tranponder alerting without suppresing other same altitude returns. I don't think it was easy for them to achieve though, and there are maintenance menus for tailoring the supression characteristics to a specific installation.

Andy

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, Andy wrote:


Why would anyone part with a ZAON MRX that does reliably detect mode C targets at own altitude?


Perhaps because the collision of a glider with a mode C target is extremely rare?

My PowerFlarm installation never shows any mode C targets, but I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it.

On Friday, August 9, 2013 4:39:08 AM UTC+2, jfitch wrote:

Perhaps because the collision of a glider with a mode C target is extremely rare?

Really? I believe they are more common than glider-to-glider, if the whole of glider operations is considered (outside contests, for example). Several towplane/glider collisions come to mind, the Cirrus that hit a towplane with a glider on tow in Colorado, and of course the Hawker bizjet that ran into the ASG-29 over the Sierras - all were cases of Mode C targets that may have been detected early enough to prevent collision with a working PCAS or PowerFlarm.

In many non-contest locations, the most common target that you will see on your PF will be a Mode-C; unlikely that the local 2-33 will have a PF!

Kirk
66

On Friday, August 9, 2013 2:36:16 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2013 4:39:08 AM UTC+2, jfitch wrote:



Perhaps because the collision of a glider with a mode C target is extremely rare?



Really? I believe they are more common than glider-to-glider, if the whole of glider operations is considered (outside contests, for example). Several towplane/glider collisions come to mind, the Cirrus that hit a towplane with a glider on tow in Colorado, and of course the Hawker bizjet that ran into the ASG-29 over the Sierras - all were cases of Mode C targets that may have been detected early enough to prevent collision with a working PCAS or PowerFlarm.



In many non-contest locations, the most common target that you will see on your PF will be a Mode-C; unlikely that the local 2-33 will have a PF!



Kirk

66

There appear to be 8 collisions between gliders and light airplanes in the NTSB database in the last 20 years. I think we counted 7 glider to glider mid airs in the same period (each of which of course involves 2 gliders). Mode C detection would not guarantee collision avoidance, as PowerFlarm glider detection (almost) does. As with glider-to-glider mid air collisions, you are far better served from the standpoint of safety with a little more spin/stall practice than with a PCAS device. You are about 100 times more likely to collide with terrain (and about 3 times more likely to strike a power line) than a light airplane.

And to repeat once more, I'm not arguing against them: I have both PowerFlarm and Mode S. What I am saying is that eliminating all mid air collisions will not make soaring statistically safer by any significant amount. If you eliminate the 15 or so mid air hits from the NTSB database, you will still find about 700 more ways to crash a glider. If you have a limited budget, spend it on some stall/spin training.

What do you people mean when you say, "a Mode C target"?

Mode C is simply the altitude report. Do you really mean "Mode A"? Aren't
you talking about every Cessna, Piper, Beech, etc., flying around? I would
wager that there are more Mode A/C targets out there than there are Mode S
(excluding airliners).

Admittedly I've only had my PCAS installed for a couple of months, but I've
never had a problem with it alerting on my own Mode S transponder and I can
verify that it's reading my transponder with a single button hit. True, it
has no azimuth report or visual display, but it's pretty simple to note
whether distance and/or altitude delta are increasing, decreasing, or not
changing. It *does* get annoying while thermalling with another
transponder-equipped glider, but I don't do that too often.


"jfitch" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, August 8, 2013 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, Andy wrote:


Why would anyone part with a ZAON MRX that does reliably detect mode C
targets at own altitude?


Perhaps because the collision of a glider with a mode C target is
extremely rare?

My PowerFlarm installation never shows any mode C targets, but I'm not
losing a lot of sleep over it.