ADSB panel display

On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:30:05 AM UTC-7, Alastair Lyas wrote:
Might be worth waiting for products combining both ADSB and
Flarm?

The uAvionix SkyEcho 2 is innovative in ways, but to me it has lots of limitations and is just not that interesting for the USA glider market at least, which is why I've not mentioned it before on r.a.s. But here goes...

I always expect there is interesting stuff coming, but folks do need to be a little careful what they might decide to wait for. Well over a decade ago some folks in the Minden area were waiting for mythical UAT devices that never happened, lots of handwaving not grounded in reality, and in some cases owners unfortunately were putting off transponder adoption because of that. Let's not repeat anything like that again. And for the SkyEcho 2 we don't need to wait to actually look at what this device does or does not do since documentation has been available for a while. And much of my comments below come from just reading that documentation... but OK, with a pretty good understanding of the underlying technology.

The SkyEcho 2 does not include a FLARM transceiver, so in the USA today you would be adding a PowerFLARM to it via the FLARMBridge option to get FLARM capability. That immediately makes it uninteresting to lots of glider owners. According to the documentation the combined devices do *not* take ADS-B traffic and output that on a FLARM serial protocol link so the usual traffic displays used in a glider can see them... it seems to only works the other way and takes FLARM traffic and adds it to what is being sent over GLD-90 protocol to GA EFBs etc. The reverse of what most glider pilots want in a cockpit (and what PowerFLARM does today for 1090ES Direct traffic). And I'll bet it converts PowerFLARMs more useful traffic warnings say when thermalling with other gliders into ADS-B warnings going off all the time nonsense. And given how the FLARM ICD (serial protocol) and GLD-90 works I doubt there is any sane way not to have to do that. But OK, it is what it is, and very clearly this product is *not* aimed at gliders.

I'm not sure uAvionix have promised USA FCC approval for that device yet. I expect they are likely to. It's not FCC approved today so can't even be advertised in the USA... which may well be why there is nothing mentioned on their USA website or why they don't want to irritate the FCC by even talking about it. Having been to the FCC approval mosh pit (I was going to call it a dance :-)) several times before uAvionix should know very well what they are doing with FCC approval.

Their launch for the product was very UK centric, which was pretty interesting given how far behind overall ADS-B adoption is in Europe vs. the USA, they seem to be hoping to move that needle, ride on UK interest in TABS and FIS-B trials and combining some FLARM capability. So quite a intersting kitchen sink of a product for those uses and very interesting that uAvionix are so growth oriented they are lookin at trying to seed that market.

So then you want to ask if you need an actual PowerFLARM device to connect to the SkyEcho 2 to do FLARM then what else does the SkyEcho 2 provide, and importantly is it a replacement for a transponder?

Importantly the SkyEcho 2 *not* a full transponder but does implement TABS/TSO-C199 so should provide compatibility with TCAS which is obviously important. I'd love to see one working. ATC will likely not see that device however and that's going to be an issue in many places near busy ATC areas. ATC *does* sees Trig transponders running as TABS devices, as they are full transponders underneath the TABS 1090ES Out part. The ATC visibility part is a large concern for me, especially around places like the Minden area which this thread started with. Without ATC visibility I would not recommend that device for use in that area. I'd love to eventually get my hands on one to confirm and to talk about it with the friendly NOCAL TRACON tech folks who cover the Reno area.

You also can't install this (or any other TABS) device in an aircraft with an existing Mode C or Mode S transponder.... so can't get visibility to ATC that way. I can't imagine any glider owner with a transponder in their glider who would want to pull it out and replace it with a SkyEcho 2 if that meant losing visibility to ATC... a large part of why they installed the transponder to start with.

The SkyEcho 2 also won't meet FAA 2020 ADS-B Out requirements, and although gliders are partially exempt, we still have folks who want to say overfly Class C airspace (but below 10,000').

It's a little confusing in some many ways the SkyEcho seems more targeted at UAVs (or maybe ultralights) but things like UAT In/FIS-B is more a GA feature, so it sure is an intersting product to follow for geeks like me, but kind of wedged into a space between others products, especially with full Mode S/1090ES Out transponders on one side. We'll see....

Other products with combined ADS-B and FLARM capabilities...

PowerFLARM today does 1090ES In (Direct only, no ADS-R and TIS-B) and FLARM.. (effectively all PowerFLARM sold in the USA have the 1090ES In option).

LXNav PowerMouse is coming, apparently undergoing FCC approval, with its ADS-B In option it does 1090ES In (but unlike PowerFLARM it *does* ADS-R and hopefully TIS-B) and FLARM. (hopefully LXNav will be smart here and the PowerMouse sold in the USA will all have 1090ES In option).

Other vendors like AirAvionic have new FLARM products with 1090ES In capabilities coming, I wish they would start describing those product specs and capabilities more clearly and ideally clarifying their plans for the USA market. (their ATD57 display is still great however if anybody wants a dedicated FLARM display).

---

Alastair I assume you are in the UK? or elsewhere in Europe. I'm you not sure why you care about FLARM and the USA with a LXNav 9070, but if you really want to operate in the USA hopefully you have a standard PowerFLARM external box (i.e. a model with FCC approval) connected to the 9070.

Grrr GDL-90 not GLD-90. Autocorrect seems to be dyslexic.

On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:30:05 AM UTC-7, Alastair Lyas wrote:
Might be worth waiting for products combining both ADSB and
Flarm?

The uAvionix SkyEcho 2 is innovative in ways, but to me it has lots of limitations and is just not that interesting for the USA glider market at least, which is why I've not mentioned it before on r.a.s. But here goes...

I always expect there is interesting stuff coming, but folks do need to be a little careful what they might decide to wait for. Well over a decade ago some folks in the Minden area were waiting for mythical UAT devices that never happened, lots of handwaving not grounded in reality, and in some cases owners unfortunately were putting off transponder adoption because of that. Let's not repeat anything like that again. And for the SkyEcho 2 we don't need to wait to actually look at what this device does or does not do since documentation has been available for a while. And much of my comments below come from just reading that documentation... but OK, with a pretty good understanding of the underlying technology.

The SkyEcho 2 does not include a FLARM transceiver, so in the USA today you would be adding a PowerFLARM to it via the FLARMBridge option to get FLARM capability. That immediately makes it uninteresting to lots of glider owners. According to the documentation the combined devices do *not* take ADS-B traffic and output that on a FLARM serial protocol link so the usual traffic displays used in a glider can see them... it seems to only works the other way and takes FLARM traffic and adds it to what is being sent over GLD-90 protocol to GA EFBs etc. The reverse of what most glider pilots want in a cockpit (and what PowerFLARM does today for 1090ES Direct traffic). And I'll bet it converts PowerFLARMs more useful traffic warnings say when thermalling with other gliders into ADS-B warnings going off all the time nonsense. And given how the FLARM ICD (serial protocol) and GLD-90 works I doubt there is any sane way not to have to do that. But OK, it is what it is, and very clearly this product is *not* aimed at gliders.

I'm not sure uAvionix have promised USA FCC approval for that device yet. I expect they are likely to. It's not FCC approved today so can't even be advertised in the USA... which may well be why there is nothing mentioned on their USA website or why they don't want to irritate the FCC by even talking about it. Having been to the FCC approval mosh pit (I was going to call it a dance :-)) several times before uAvionix should know very well what they are doing with FCC approval.

Their launch for the product was very UK centric, which was pretty interesting given how far behind overall ADS-B adoption is in Europe vs. the USA, they seem to be hoping to move that needle, ride on UK interest in TABS and FIS-B trials and combining some FLARM capability. So quite a intersting kitchen sink of a product for those uses and very interesting that uAvionix are so growth oriented they are lookin at trying to seed that market.

So then you want to ask if you need an actual PowerFLARM device to connect to the SkyEcho 2 to do FLARM then what else does the SkyEcho 2 provide, and importantly is it a replacement for a transponder?

Importantly the SkyEcho 2 *not* a full transponder but does implement TABS/TSO-C199 so should provide compatibility with TCAS which is obviously important. I'd love to see one working. ATC will likely not see that device however and that's going to be an issue in many places near busy ATC areas. ATC *does* sees Trig transponders running as TABS devices, as they are full transponders underneath the TABS 1090ES Out part. The ATC visibility part is a large concern for me, especially around places like the Minden area which this thread started with. Without ATC visibility I would not recommend that device for use in that area. I'd love to eventually get my hands on one to confirm and to talk about it with the friendly NOCAL TRACON tech folks who cover the Reno area.

You also can't install this (or any other TABS) device in an aircraft with an existing Mode C or Mode S transponder.... so can't get visibility to ATC that way. I can't imagine any glider owner with a transponder in their glider who would want to pull it out and replace it with a SkyEcho 2 if that meant losing visibility to ATC... a large part of why they installed the transponder to start with.

The SkyEcho 2 also won't meet FAA 2020 ADS-B Out requirements, and although gliders are partially exempt, we still have folks who want to say overfly Class C airspace (but below 10,000').

It's a little confusing in some many ways the SkyEcho seems more targeted at UAVs (or maybe ultralights) but things like UAT In/FIS-B is more a GA feature, so it sure is an intersting product to follow for geeks like me, but kind of wedged into a space between others products, especially with full Mode S/1090ES Out transponders on one side. We'll see....

Other products with combined ADS-B and FLARM capabilities...

PowerFLARM today does 1090ES In (Direct only, no ADS-R and TIS-B) and FLARM. (effectively all PowerFLARM sold in the USA have the 1090ES In option).

LXNav PowerMouse is coming, apparently undergoing FCC approval, with its ADS-B In option it does 1090ES In (but unlike PowerFLARM it *does* ADS-R and hopefully TIS-B) and FLARM. (hopefully LXNav will be smart here and the PowerMouse sold in the USA will all have 1090ES In option).

Other vendors like AirAvionic have new FLARM products with 1090ES In capabilities coming, I wish they would start describing those product specs and capabilities more clearly and ideally clarifying their plans for the USA market. (their ATD57 display is still great however if anybody wants a dedicated FLARM display).

---

Alastair I assume you are in the UK? or elsewhere in Europe. I'm you not sure why you care about FLARM and the USA with a LXNav 9070, but if you really want to operate in the USA hopefully you have a standard PowerFLARM external box (i.e. a model with FCC approval) connected to the 9070.

On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:30:05 AM UTC-7, Alastair Lyas wrote:
Might be worth waiting for products combining both ADSB and
Flarm?

The uAvionix SkyEcho 2 is innovative in ways, but to me it has lots of limitations and is just not that interesting for the USA glider market at least, which is why I've not mentioned it before on r.a.s. But here goes...

I always expect there is interesting stuff coming, but folks do need to be a little careful what they might decide to wait for. Well over a decade ago some folks in the Minden area were waiting for mythical UAT devices that never happened, lots of handwaving not grounded in reality, and in some cases owners unfortunately were putting off transponder adoption because of that. Let's not repeat anything like that again. And for the SkyEcho 2 we don't need to wait to actually look at what this device does or does not do since documentation has been available for a while. And much of my comments below come from just reading that documentation... but OK, with a pretty good understanding of the underlying technology.

The SkyEcho 2 does not include a FLARM transceiver, so in the USA today you would be adding a PowerFLARM to it via the FLARMBridge option to get FLARM capability. That immediately makes it uninteresting to lots of glider owners. According to the documentation the combined devices do *not* take ADS-B traffic and output that on a FLARM serial protocol link so the usual traffic displays used in a glider can see them... it seems to only works the other way and takes FLARM traffic and adds it to what is being sent over GLD-90 protocol to GA EFBs etc. The reverse of what most glider pilots want in a cockpit (and what PowerFLARM does today for 1090ES Direct traffic). And I'll bet it converts PowerFLARMs more useful traffic warnings say when thermalling with other gliders into ADS-B warnings going off all the time nonsense. And given how the FLARM ICD (serial protocol) and GLD-90 works I doubt there is any sane way not to have to do that. But OK, it is what it is, and very clearly this product is *not* aimed at gliders.

I'm not sure uAvionix have promised USA FCC approval for that device yet. I expect they are likely to. It's not FCC approved today so can't even be advertised in the USA... which may well be why there is nothing mentioned on their USA website or why they don't want to irritate the FCC by even talking about it. Having been to the FCC approval mosh pit (I was going to call it a dance :-)) several times before uAvionix should know very well what they are doing with FCC approval.

Their launch for the product was very UK centric, which was pretty interesting given how far behind overall ADS-B adoption is in Europe vs. the USA, they seem to be hoping to move that needle, ride on UK interest in TABS and FIS-B trials and combining some FLARM capability. So quite a intersting kitchen sink of a product for those uses and very interesting that uAvionix are so growth oriented they are lookin at trying to seed that market.

So then you want to ask if you need an actual PowerFLARM device to connect to the SkyEcho 2 to do FLARM then what else does the SkyEcho 2 provide, and importantly is it a replacement for a transponder?

Importantly the SkyEcho 2 *not* a full transponder but does implement TABS/TSO-C199 so should provide compatibility with TCAS which is obviously important. I'd love to see one working. ATC will likely not see that device however and that's going to be an issue in many places near busy ATC areas. ATC *does* sees Trig transponders running as TABS devices, as they are full transponders underneath the TABS 1090ES Out part. The ATC visibility part is a large concern for me, especially around places like the Minden area which this thread started with. Without ATC visibility I would not recommend that device for use in that area. I'd love to eventually get my hands on one to confirm and to talk about it with the friendly NOCAL TRACON tech folks who cover the Reno area.

You also can't install this (or any other TABS) device in an aircraft with an existing Mode C or Mode S transponder.... so can't get visibility to ATC that way. I can't imagine any glider owner with a transponder in their glider who would want to pull it out and replace it with a SkyEcho 2 if that meant losing visibility to ATC... a large part of why they installed the transponder to start with.

The SkyEcho 2 also won't meet FAA 2020 ADS-B Out requirements, and although gliders are partially exempt, we still have folks who want to say overfly Class C airspace (but below 10,000').

It's a little confusing in some many ways the SkyEcho seems more targeted at UAVs (or maybe ultralights) but things like UAT In/FIS-B is more a GA feature, so it sure is an intersting product to follow for geeks like me, but kind of wedged into a space between others products, especially with full Mode S/1090ES Out transponders on one side. We'll see....

Other products with combined ADS-B and FLARM capabilities...

PowerFLARM today does 1090ES In (Direct only, no ADS-R and TIS-B) and FLARM. (effectively all PowerFLARM sold in the USA have the 1090ES In option).

LXNav PowerMouse is coming, apparently undergoing FCC approval, with its ADS-B In option it does 1090ES In (but unlike PowerFLARM it *does* ADS-R and hopefully TIS-B) and FLARM. (hopefully LXNav will be smart here and the PowerMouse sold in the USA will all have 1090ES In option).

Other vendors like AirAvionic have new FLARM products with 1090ES In capabilities coming, I wish they would start describing those product specs and capabilities more clearly and ideally clarifying their plans for the USA market. (their ATD57 display is still great however if anybody wants a dedicated FLARM display).

---

Alastair I assume you are in the UK? or elsewhere in Europe. I'm you not sure why you care about FLARM and the USA with a LXNav 9070, but if you really want to operate in the USA hopefully you have a standard PowerFLARM external box (i.e. a model with FCC approval) connected to the 9070.

You are a stud!

J

If you fly anywhere near other gliders then a simple proximity alarm
is going to get pretty annoying and be pretty useless. If you fly near
GA then ADSB is going to become essential. This is true of the US,
the UK, and probably EU. If you fly in a glider with finite battery
then an ADSB transceiver makes a whole lot more sense than a
transponder.

Regulation will need to catch-up, and the product set needs to
evolve. Flarm and UAVionix are working together. What they need is
to hear from gliderpilots about what solutions will work for us.
Otherwise all they will design for is GA.

My view is we want a combined Powerflarm / ADSB OEM module
that can slot into the native gliding navigation systems. With
software configurability to deal with the regional legalities of doing
this in the short term.


At 23:52 11 October 2018, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-7, Darryl
Ramm wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:30:05 AM UTC-7, Alastair
Lyas wrote:
Might be worth waiting for products combining both ADSB
and=20
Flarm?
=20
The uAvionix SkyEcho 2 is innovative in ways, but to me it has
lots of
li=
mitations and is just not that interesting for the USA glider market
at
lea=
st, which is why I've not mentioned it before on r.a.s. But here
goes...
=20
I always expect there is interesting stuff coming, but folks do
need to
=
be a little careful what they might decide to wait for. Well over a
decade
=
ago some folks in the Minden area were waiting for mythical UAT
devices
tha=
t never happened, lots of handwaving not grounded in reality, and
in some
c=
ases owners unfortunately were putting off transponder adoption
because of
=
that. Let's not repeat anything like that again. And for the SkyEcho
2 we
d=
on't need to wait to actually look at what this device does or does
not do
=
since documentation has been available for a while. And much of
my
comments=
below come from just reading that documentation... but OK, with
a pretty
g=
ood understanding of the underlying technology.
=20
The SkyEcho 2 does not include a FLARM transceiver, so in the
USA today
y=
ou would be adding a PowerFLARM to it via the FLARMBridge
option to get
FLA=
RM capability. That immediately makes it uninteresting to lots of
glider
ow=
ners. According to the documentation the combined devices do
*not* take
ADS=
-B traffic and output that on a FLARM serial protocol link so the
usual
tra=
ffic displays used in a glider can see them... it seems to only works
the
o=
ther way and takes FLARM traffic and adds it to what is being sent
over
GLD=
-90 protocol to GA EFBs etc. The reverse of what most glider pilots
want
in=
a cockpit (and what PowerFLARM does today for 1090ES Direct
traffic). And
=
I'll bet it converts PowerFLARMs more useful traffic warnings say
when
ther=
malling with other gliders into ADS-B warnings going off all the
time
nons=
ense. And given how the FLARM ICD (serial protocol) and GLD-90
works I
doub=
t there is any sane way not to have to do that. But OK, it is what it
is,
a=
nd very clearly this product is *not* aimed at gliders.
=20
I'm not sure uAvionix have promised USA FCC approval for that
device
yet.=
I expect they are likely to. It's not FCC approved today so can't
even be
=
advertised in the USA... which may well be why there is nothing
mentioned
o=
n their USA website or why they don't want to irritate the FCC by
even
talk=
ing about it. Having been to the FCC approval mosh pit (I was
going to
cal=
l it a dance :-)) several times before uAvionix should know very
well
what=
they are doing with FCC approval.
=20
Their launch for the product was very UK centric, which was
pretty
intere=
sting given how far behind overall ADS-B adoption is in Europe vs.
the
USA,=
they seem to be hoping to move that needle, ride on UK interest
in TABS
an=
d FIS-B trials and combining some FLARM capability. So quite a
intersting
k=
itchen sink of a product for those uses and very interesting that
uAvionix
=
are so growth oriented they are lookin at trying to seed that
market.
=20
So then you want to ask if you need an actual PowerFLARM
device to
conne=
ct to the SkyEcho 2 to do FLARM then what else does the SkyEcho
2
provide,=
and importantly is it a replacement for a transponder?
=20
Importantly the SkyEcho 2 *not* a full transponder but does
implement
TAB=
S/TSO-C199 so should provide compatibility with TCAS which is
obviously
imp=
ortant. I'd love to see one working. ATC will likely not see that
device
ho=
wever and that's going to be an issue in many places near busy
ATC areas.
=
ATC *does* sees Trig transponders running as TABS devices, as
they are
full=
transponders underneath the TABS 1090ES Out part. The ATC
visibility part
=
is a large concern for me, especially around places like the Minden
area
wh=
ich this thread started with. Without ATC visibility I would not
recommend
=
that device for use in that area. I'd love to eventually get my
hands on
on=
e to confirm and to talk about it with the friendly NOCAL TRACON
tech
folks=
who cover the Reno area.
=20
You also can't install this (or any other TABS) device in an
aircraft
wit=
h an existing Mode C or Mode S transponder.... so can't get
visibility to
A=
TC that way. I can't imagine any glider owner with a transponder
in their
g=
lider who would want to pull it out and replace it with a SkyEcho 2
if
tha=
t meant losing visibility to ATC... a large part of why they installed
the
=
transponder to start with.
=20
The SkyEcho 2 also won't meet FAA 2020 ADS-B Out
requirements, and
althou=
gh gliders are partially exempt, we still have folks who want to say
overfl=
y Class C airspace (but below 10,000').
=20
It's a little confusing in some many ways the SkyEcho seems
more
targeted=
at UAVs (or maybe ultralights) but things like UAT In/FIS-B is
more a GA
f=
eature, so it sure is an intersting product to follow for geeks like
me,
b=
ut kind of wedged into a space between others products, especially
with
ful=
l Mode S/1090ES Out transponders on one side. We'll see....
=20
Other products with combined ADS-B and FLARM capabilities...
=20
PowerFLARM today does 1090ES In (Direct only, no ADS-R and
TIS-B) and
FLA=
RM. (effectively all PowerFLARM sold in the USA have the 1090ES
In
option).=
=20
=20
LXNav PowerMouse is coming, apparently undergoing FCC
approval, with
its=
ADS-B In option it does 1090ES In (but unlike PowerFLARM it
*does* ADS-R
=
and hopefully TIS-B) and FLARM. (hopefully LXNav will be smart
here and
the=
PowerMouse sold in the USA will all have 1090ES In option).
=20
Other vendors like AirAvionic have new FLARM products with
1090ES In
capa=
bilities coming, I wish they would start describing those product
specs
and=
capabilities more clearly and ideally clarifying their plans for the
USA
m=
arket. (their ATD57 display is still great however if anybody wants
a
dedic=
ated FLARM display).
=20
---
=20
Alastair I assume you are in the UK? or elsewhere in Europe. I'm
you not
=
sure why you care about FLARM and the USA with a LXNav 9070,
but if you
re=
ally want to operate in the USA hopefully you have a standard
PowerFLARM
ex=
ternal box (i.e. a model with FCC approval) connected to the 9070.

You are a stud!

J

Oh we need stuff to "work together" and have "low power consumption". No **** batman. You just worked this out? I don't get the impression you have much of an idea of the technology here, but please do go explain to uAvionix and others what they should be doing for the glider market...


On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 1:45:03 AM UTC-7, Alastair Lyas wrote:
If you fly anywhere near other gliders then a simple proximity alarm
is going to get pretty annoying and be pretty useless. If you fly near
GA then ADSB is going to become essential. This is true of the US,
the UK, and probably EU. If you fly in a glider with finite battery
then an ADSB transceiver makes a whole lot more sense than a
transponder.

Regulation will need to catch-up, and the product set needs to
evolve. Flarm and UAVionix are working together. What they need is
to hear from gliderpilots about what solutions will work for us.
Otherwise all they will design for is GA.

My view is we want a combined Powerflarm / ADSB OEM module
that can slot into the native gliding navigation systems. With
software configurability to deal with the regional legalities of doing
this in the short term.


At 23:52 11 October 2018, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-7, Darryl
Ramm wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:30:05 AM UTC-7, Alastair
Lyas wrote:
Might be worth waiting for products combining both ADSB
and=20
Flarm?
=20
The uAvionix SkyEcho 2 is innovative in ways, but to me it has
lots of
li=
mitations and is just not that interesting for the USA glider market
at
lea=
st, which is why I've not mentioned it before on r.a.s. But here
goes...
=20
I always expect there is interesting stuff coming, but folks do
need to
=
be a little careful what they might decide to wait for. Well over a
decade
=
ago some folks in the Minden area were waiting for mythical UAT
devices
tha=
t never happened, lots of handwaving not grounded in reality, and
in some
c=
ases owners unfortunately were putting off transponder adoption
because of
=
that. Let's not repeat anything like that again. And for the SkyEcho
2 we
d=
on't need to wait to actually look at what this device does or does
not do
=
since documentation has been available for a while. And much of
my
comments=
below come from just reading that documentation... but OK, with
a pretty
g=
ood understanding of the underlying technology.
=20
The SkyEcho 2 does not include a FLARM transceiver, so in the
USA today
y=
ou would be adding a PowerFLARM to it via the FLARMBridge
option to get
FLA=
RM capability. That immediately makes it uninteresting to lots of
glider
ow=
ners. According to the documentation the combined devices do
*not* take
ADS=
-B traffic and output that on a FLARM serial protocol link so the
usual
tra=
ffic displays used in a glider can see them... it seems to only works
the
o=
ther way and takes FLARM traffic and adds it to what is being sent
over
GLD=
-90 protocol to GA EFBs etc. The reverse of what most glider pilots
want
in=
a cockpit (and what PowerFLARM does today for 1090ES Direct
traffic). And
=
I'll bet it converts PowerFLARMs more useful traffic warnings say
when
ther=
malling with other gliders into ADS-B warnings going off all the
time
nons=
ense. And given how the FLARM ICD (serial protocol) and GLD-90
works I
doub=
t there is any sane way not to have to do that. But OK, it is what it
is,
a=
nd very clearly this product is *not* aimed at gliders.
=20
I'm not sure uAvionix have promised USA FCC approval for that
device
yet.=
I expect they are likely to. It's not FCC approved today so can't
even be
=
advertised in the USA... which may well be why there is nothing
mentioned
o=
n their USA website or why they don't want to irritate the FCC by
even
talk=
ing about it. Having been to the FCC approval mosh pit (I was
going to
cal=
l it a dance :-)) several times before uAvionix should know very
well
what=
they are doing with FCC approval.
=20
Their launch for the product was very UK centric, which was
pretty
intere=
sting given how far behind overall ADS-B adoption is in Europe vs.
the
USA,=
they seem to be hoping to move that needle, ride on UK interest
in TABS
an=
d FIS-B trials and combining some FLARM capability. So quite a
intersting
k=
itchen sink of a product for those uses and very interesting that
uAvionix
=
are so growth oriented they are lookin at trying to seed that
market.
=20
So then you want to ask if you need an actual PowerFLARM
device to
conne=
ct to the SkyEcho 2 to do FLARM then what else does the SkyEcho
2
provide,=
and importantly is it a replacement for a transponder?
=20
Importantly the SkyEcho 2 *not* a full transponder but does
implement
TAB=
S/TSO-C199 so should provide compatibility with TCAS which is
obviously
imp=
ortant. I'd love to see one working. ATC will likely not see that
device
ho=
wever and that's going to be an issue in many places near busy
ATC areas.
=
ATC *does* sees Trig transponders running as TABS devices, as
they are
full=
transponders underneath the TABS 1090ES Out part. The ATC
visibility part
=
is a large concern for me, especially around places like the Minden
area
wh=
ich this thread started with. Without ATC visibility I would not
recommend
=
that device for use in that area. I'd love to eventually get my
hands on
on=
e to confirm and to talk about it with the friendly NOCAL TRACON
tech
folks=
who cover the Reno area.
=20
You also can't install this (or any other TABS) device in an
aircraft
wit=
h an existing Mode C or Mode S transponder.... so can't get
visibility to
A=
TC that way. I can't imagine any glider owner with a transponder
in their
g=
lider who would want to pull it out and replace it with a SkyEcho 2
if
tha=
t meant losing visibility to ATC... a large part of why they installed
the
=
transponder to start with.
=20
The SkyEcho 2 also won't meet FAA 2020 ADS-B Out
requirements, and
althou=
gh gliders are partially exempt, we still have folks who want to say
overfl=
y Class C airspace (but below 10,000').
=20
It's a little confusing in some many ways the SkyEcho seems
more
targeted=
at UAVs (or maybe ultralights) but things like UAT In/FIS-B is
more a GA
f=
eature, so it sure is an intersting product to follow for geeks like
me,
b=
ut kind of wedged into a space between others products, especially
with
ful=
l Mode S/1090ES Out transponders on one side. We'll see....
=20
Other products with combined ADS-B and FLARM capabilities...
=20
PowerFLARM today does 1090ES In (Direct only, no ADS-R and
TIS-B) and
FLA=
RM. (effectively all PowerFLARM sold in the USA have the 1090ES
In
option).=
=20
=20
LXNav PowerMouse is coming, apparently undergoing FCC
approval, with
its=
ADS-B In option it does 1090ES In (but unlike PowerFLARM it
*does* ADS-R
=
and hopefully TIS-B) and FLARM. (hopefully LXNav will be smart
here and
the=
PowerMouse sold in the USA will all have 1090ES In option).
=20
Other vendors like AirAvionic have new FLARM products with
1090ES In
capa=
bilities coming, I wish they would start describing those product
specs
and=
capabilities more clearly and ideally clarifying their plans for the
USA
m=
arket. (their ATD57 display is still great however if anybody wants
a
dedic=
ated FLARM display).
=20
---
=20
Alastair I assume you are in the UK? or elsewhere in Europe. I'm
you not
=
sure why you care about FLARM and the USA with a LXNav 9070,
but if you
re=
ally want to operate in the USA hopefully you have a standard
PowerFLARM
ex=
ternal box (i.e. a model with FCC approval) connected to the 9070.

You are a stud!

J

I can certainly read the specs off a website and wave my willy with a
lot of talk of what products are currently on the market.



At 09:18 12 October 2018, Darryl Ramm wrote:

Oh we need stuff to "work together" and have "low power
consumption". No
sh=
it batman. You just worked this out? I don't get the impression you
have
mu=
ch of an idea of the technology here, but please do go explain to
uAvionix
=
and others what they should be doing for the glider market...


On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 1:45:03 AM UTC-7, Alastair Lyas
wrote:
If you fly anywhere near other gliders then a simple proximity
alarm=20
is going to get pretty annoying and be pretty useless. If you fly
near=20
GA then ADSB is going to become essential. This is true of the
US,=20
the UK, and probably EU. If you fly in a glider with finite
battery=20
then an ADSB transceiver makes a whole lot more sense than
a=20
transponder.
=20
Regulation will need to catch-up, and the product set needs
to=20
evolve. Flarm and UAVionix are working together. What they
need is=20
to hear from gliderpilots about what solutions will work for
us.=20
Otherwise all they will design for is GA.=20
=20
My view is we want a combined Powerflarm / ADSB OEM
module=20
that can slot into the native gliding navigation systems. With=20
software configurability to deal with the regional legalities of
doing=20
this in the short term.
=20
=20
At 23:52 11 October 2018, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-7,
Darryl=20
Ramm wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:30:05 AM UTC-7,
Alastair=20
Lyas wrote:
Might be worth waiting for products combining both
ADSB=20
and=3D20
Flarm?
=3D20
The uAvionix SkyEcho 2 is innovative in ways, but to me it
has=20
lots of
li=3D
mitations and is just not that interesting for the USA glider
market=20
at
lea=3D
st, which is why I've not mentioned it before on r.a.s. But
here=20
goes...
=3D20
I always expect there is interesting stuff coming, but folks
do=20
need to
=3D
be a little careful what they might decide to wait for. Well over
a=20
decade
=3D
ago some folks in the Minden area were waiting for mythical
UAT=20
devices
tha=3D
t never happened, lots of handwaving not grounded in reality,
and=20
in some
c=3D
ases owners unfortunately were putting off transponder
adoption=20
because of
=3D
that. Let's not repeat anything like that again. And for the
SkyEcho=20
2 we
d=3D
on't need to wait to actually look at what this device does or
does=20
not do
=3D
since documentation has been available for a while. And much
of=20
my
comments=3D
below come from just reading that documentation... but OK,
with=20
a pretty
g=3D
ood understanding of the underlying technology.
=3D20
The SkyEcho 2 does not include a FLARM transceiver, so in
the=20
USA today
y=3D
ou would be adding a PowerFLARM to it via the
FLARMBridge=20
option to get
FLA=3D
RM capability. That immediately makes it uninteresting to lots
of=20
glider
ow=3D
ners. According to the documentation the combined devices
do=20
*not* take
ADS=3D
-B traffic and output that on a FLARM serial protocol link so
the=20
usual
tra=3D
ffic displays used in a glider can see them... it seems to only
works=20
the
o=3D
ther way and takes FLARM traffic and adds it to what is being
sent=20
over
GLD=3D
-90 protocol to GA EFBs etc. The reverse of what most glider
pilots=20
want
in=3D
a cockpit (and what PowerFLARM does today for 1090ES
Direct=20
traffic). And
=3D
I'll bet it converts PowerFLARMs more useful traffic warnings
say=20
when
ther=3D
malling with other gliders into ADS-B warnings going off all
the=20
time
nons=3D
ense. And given how the FLARM ICD (serial protocol) and GLD-
90=20
works I
doub=3D
t there is any sane way not to have to do that. But OK, it is
what it=20
is,
a=3D
nd very clearly this product is *not* aimed at gliders.
=3D20
I'm not sure uAvionix have promised USA FCC approval for
that=20
device
yet.=3D
I expect they are likely to. It's not FCC approved today so
can't=20
even be
=3D
advertised in the USA... which may well be why there is
nothing=20
mentioned
o=3D
n their USA website or why they don't want to irritate the FCC
by=20
even
talk=3D
ing about it. Having been to the FCC approval mosh pit (I
was=20
going to
cal=3D
l it a dance :-)) several times before uAvionix should know
very=20
well
what=3D
they are doing with FCC approval.
=3D20
Their launch for the product was very UK centric, which
was=20
pretty
intere=3D
sting given how far behind overall ADS-B adoption is in Europe
vs.=20
the
USA,=3D
they seem to be hoping to move that needle, ride on UK
interest=20
in TABS
an=3D
d FIS-B trials and combining some FLARM capability. So quite
a=20
intersting
k=3D
itchen sink of a product for those uses and very interesting
that=20
uAvionix
=3D
are so growth oriented they are lookin at trying to seed
that=20
market.
=3D20
So then you want to ask if you need an actual
PowerFLARM=20
device to
conne=3D
ct to the SkyEcho 2 to do FLARM then what else does the
SkyEcho=20
2=20
provide,=3D
and importantly is it a replacement for a transponder?
=3D20
Importantly the SkyEcho 2 *not* a full transponder but
does=20
implement
TAB=3D
S/TSO-C199 so should provide compatibility with TCAS which
is=20
obviously
imp=3D
ortant. I'd love to see one working. ATC will likely not see
that=20
device
ho=3D
wever and that's going to be an issue in many places near
busy=20
ATC areas.=20
=3D
ATC *does* sees Trig transponders running as TABS devices,
as=20
they are
full=3D
transponders underneath the TABS 1090ES Out part. The
ATC=20
visibility part
=3D
is a large concern for me, especially around places like the
Minden=20
area
wh=3D
ich this thread started with. Without ATC visibility I would
not=20
recommend
=3D
that device for use in that area. I'd love to eventually get
my=20
hands on
on=3D
e to confirm and to talk about it with the friendly NOCAL
TRACON=20
tech
folks=3D
who cover the Reno area.
=3D20
You also can't install this (or any other TABS) device in
an=20
aircraft
wit=3D
h an existing Mode C or Mode S transponder.... so can't
get=20
visibility to
A=3D
TC that way. I can't imagine any glider owner with a
transponder=20
in their
g=3D
lider who would want to pull it out and replace it with a
SkyEcho 2=20
if
tha=3D
t meant losing visibility to ATC... a large part of why they
installed=
=20
the
=3D
transponder to start with.
=3D20
The SkyEcho 2 also won't meet FAA 2020 ADS-B Out=20
requirements, and
althou=3D
gh gliders are partially exempt, we still have folks who want to
say
overfl=3D
y Class C airspace (but below 10,000').
=3D20
It's a little confusing in some many ways the SkyEcho
seems=20
more
targeted=3D
at UAVs (or maybe ultralights) but things like UAT In/FIS-B
is=20
more a GA
f=3D
eature, so it sure is an intersting product to follow for geeks
like=20
me,=20
b=3D
ut kind of wedged into a space between others products,
especially=20
with
ful=3D
l Mode S/1090ES Out transponders on one side. We'll see....
=3D20
Other products with combined ADS-B and FLARM
capabilities...
=3D20
PowerFLARM today does 1090ES In (Direct only, no ADS-R
and=20
TIS-B) and
FLA=3D
RM. (effectively all PowerFLARM sold in the USA have the
1090ES=20
In
option).=3D
=3D20
=3D20
LXNav PowerMouse is coming, apparently undergoing
FCC=20
approval, with
its=3D
ADS-B In option it does 1090ES In (but unlike PowerFLARM
it=20
*does* ADS-R
=3D
and hopefully TIS-B) and FLARM. (hopefully LXNav will be
smart=20
here and
the=3D
PowerMouse sold in the USA will all have 1090ES In option).
=3D20
Other vendors like AirAvionic have new FLARM products
with=20
1090ES In
capa=3D
bilities coming, I wish they would start describing those
product=20
specs
and=3D
capabilities more clearly and ideally clarifying their plans for
the=20
USA
m=3D
arket. (their ATD57 display is still great however if anybody
wants=20
a
dedic=3D
ated FLARM display).
=3D20
---
=3D20
Alastair I assume you are in the UK? or elsewhere in Europe.
I'm=20
you not
=3D
sure why you care about FLARM and the USA with a LXNav
9070,=20
but if you
re=3D
ally want to operate in the USA hopefully you have a
standard=20
PowerFLARM
ex=3D
ternal box (i.e. a model with FCC approval) connected to the
9070.

You are a stud!

J

Is RAS for the US only? Are you going to build a (fire)wall?


At 21:47 11 October 2018, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 2:30:05 AM UTC-7, Alastair
Lyas wrote:
Might be worth waiting for products combining both ADSB
and=20
Flarm?

The uAvionix SkyEcho 2 is innovative in ways, but to me it has lots
of
limi=
tations and is just not that interesting for the USA glider market at
least=
, which is why I've not mentioned it before on r.a.s. But here
goes...

I always expect there is interesting stuff coming, but folks do
need to
be=
a little careful what they might decide to wait for. Well over a
decade
ag=
o some folks in the Minden area were waiting for mythical UAT
devices that
=
never happened, lots of handwaving not grounded in reality, and in
some
cas=
es owners unfortunately were putting off transponder adoption
because of
th=
at. Let's not repeat anything like that again. And for the SkyEcho 2
we
don=
't need to wait to actually look at what this device does or does not
do
si=
nce documentation has been available for a while. And much of my
comments
b=
elow come from just reading that documentation... but OK, with a
pretty
goo=
d understanding of the underlying technology.

The SkyEcho 2 does not include a FLARM transceiver, so in the
USA today
you=
would be adding a PowerFLARM to it via the FLARMBridge option
to get
FLARM=
capability. That immediately makes it uninteresting to lots of
glider
owne=
rs. According to the documentation the combined devices do *not*
take
ADS-B=
traffic and output that on a FLARM serial protocol link so the usual
traff=
ic displays used in a glider can see them... it seems to only works
the
oth=
er way and takes FLARM traffic and adds it to what is being sent
over
GLD-9=
0 protocol to GA EFBs etc. The reverse of what most glider pilots
want in
a=
cockpit (and what PowerFLARM does today for 1090ES Direct
traffic). And
I'=
ll bet it converts PowerFLARMs more useful traffic warnings say
when
therma=
lling with other gliders into ADS-B warnings going off all the time
nonsen=
se. And given how the FLARM ICD (serial protocol) and GLD-90
works I doubt
=
there is any sane way not to have to do that. But OK, it is what it
is,
and=
very clearly this product is *not* aimed at gliders.

I'm not sure uAvionix have promised USA FCC approval for that
device yet.
I=
expect they are likely to. It's not FCC approved today so can't
even be
ad=
vertised in the USA... which may well be why there is nothing
mentioned on
=
their USA website or why they don't want to irritate the FCC by
even
talkin=
g about it. Having been to the FCC approval mosh pit (I was going
to call
=
it a dance :-)) several times before uAvionix should know very
well what
t=
hey are doing with FCC approval.

Their launch for the product was very UK centric, which was pretty
interest=
ing given how far behind overall ADS-B adoption is in Europe vs.
the USA,
t=
hey seem to be hoping to move that needle, ride on UK interest in
TABS and
=
FIS-B trials and combining some FLARM capability. So quite a
intersting
kit=
chen sink of a product for those uses and very interesting that
uAvionix
ar=
e so growth oriented they are lookin at trying to seed that market.

So then you want to ask if you need an actual PowerFLARM device
to
connect=
to the SkyEcho 2 to do FLARM then what else does the SkyEcho 2
provide,
a=
nd importantly is it a replacement for a transponder?

Importantly the SkyEcho 2 *not* a full transponder but does
implement
TABS/=
TSO-C199 so should provide compatibility with TCAS which is
obviously
impor=
tant. I'd love to see one working. ATC will likely not see that device
howe=
ver and that's going to be an issue in many places near busy ATC
areas.
AT=
C *does* sees Trig transponders running as TABS devices, as they
are full
t=
ransponders underneath the TABS 1090ES Out part. The ATC
visibility part
is=
a large concern for me, especially around places like the Minden
area
whic=
h this thread started with. Without ATC visibility I would not
recommend
th=
at device for use in that area. I'd love to eventually get my hands
on one
=
to confirm and to talk about it with the friendly NOCAL TRACON
tech folks
w=
ho cover the Reno area.

You also can't install this (or any other TABS) device in an aircraft
with
=
an existing Mode C or Mode S transponder.... so can't get visibility
to
ATC=
that way. I can't imagine any glider owner with a transponder in
their
gli=
der who would want to pull it out and replace it with a SkyEcho 2
if that
=
meant losing visibility to ATC... a large part of why they installed
the
tr=
ansponder to start with.

The SkyEcho 2 also won't meet FAA 2020 ADS-B Out
requirements, and
although=
gliders are partially exempt, we still have folks who want to say
overfly
=
Class C airspace (but below 10,000').

It's a little confusing in some many ways the SkyEcho seems more
targeted
a=
t UAVs (or maybe ultralights) but things like UAT In/FIS-B is more
a GA
fea=
ture, so it sure is an intersting product to follow for geeks like me,
but=
kind of wedged into a space between others products, especially
with full
=
Mode S/1090ES Out transponders on one side. We'll see....

Other products with combined ADS-B and FLARM capabilities...

PowerFLARM today does 1090ES In (Direct only, no ADS-R and
TIS-B) and
FLARM=
.. (effectively all PowerFLARM sold in the USA have the 1090ES In
option).=
=20

LXNav PowerMouse is coming, apparently undergoing FCC
approval, with its
A=
DS-B In option it does 1090ES In (but unlike PowerFLARM it
*does* ADS-R
an=
d hopefully TIS-B) and FLARM. (hopefully LXNav will be smart here
and the
P=
owerMouse sold in the USA will all have 1090ES In option).

Other vendors like AirAvionic have new FLARM products with
1090ES In
capabi=
lities coming, I wish they would start describing those product
specs and
c=
apabilities more clearly and ideally clarifying their plans for the
USA
mar=
ket. (their ATD57 display is still great however if anybody wants a
dedicat=
ed FLARM display).

---

Alastair I assume you are in the UK? or elsewhere in Europe. I'm
you not
su=
re why you care about FLARM and the USA with a LXNav 9070, but
if you
real=
ly want to operate in the USA hopefully you have a standard
PowerFLARM
exte=
rnal box (i.e. a model with FCC approval) connected to the 9070.