Flarm in the US

What I'd like to see is a matrix or decision tree or expert system
type of diagram that walks me through the purchase decision process by
answering the questions I raised above. So if my biggest threat is
other gliders in contests and fast bizjet and airliner traffic near
NYC where I fly, and if I'm concerned that I should be more diligent
at watching for traffic, and if I have no current anti-collision
hardware, and if I'm not willing to buy something unless I know it
will be useful for at least 5 years (preferably longer), and if I'm on
a budget and don't want to or can't drop several thousand bucks into
new avionics, then I should buy X because that's the sweet spot in my
cost/benefit curve.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

Thank you Chip. You saved me from writing an essay covering those exact
points and saved everyone else from having to read my dreadful writing.

I'm one of those guys that is in the "I just can't afford to put any
more money into soaring..." situation. For the last 10 years, I've been
racing sports/club class with a setup that cost me less than $20k. That
includes the glider, instruments, AND the motorhome that I drag it all
around with. I know it looks like I'm a cheapo, but racing does not
account for even half of what I spend on soaring. My club gets most of
my soaring bucks. Dues, tows, little things like going halfsies on a
Pawnee...

Just want to chime in as one of the contest pilots flying on limited
budget.
In fact this I took a 5 year leave from contest flying due to budget
concerns but am happy to report that flew a regional contest this year
and am planning on doing so again in the coming years.

I too am flying a setup that cost well less the 20k.

I have to admit PowerFlarm is interesting in that in a few years it
may be good way for me to upgrade my 10 year old logger, my 15 year
old GPS and add some traffic alert capability.

Brian Case
HP16T

Very well said.

It is frustrating that the obviously bright guys behind PowerFLARM
couldn't take the next logical step and make their "FLARM" RF subsystem
compatible with ADS-B UAT for the US market.

ADS-B UAT operates at 978 MHz vs 868 MHz for FLARM. The ADS-B protocol
is different than FLARM, but provides essentially the same (if not more)
functionality.

Navworx has demonstrated that it is possible to get FCC approval for an
ADS-B UAT type transceiver that conforms to the ADS-B specs, but does
not necessarily meet all of the current FAA TSO requirements, including
GPS navigational integrity, antenna diversity, etc.

I suspect that using this precedent, it would also be possible to get
FCC approval for a reduced power version, if that was necessary to hit
the required price point.

The engineering (both hardware and firmware) for such a device could
significantly benefit from the investment that MITRE has made in their
low cost ADS-B transceiver project (using our tax dollars), which they
are licensing to anyone who is interested at a VERY reasonable one-time
licensing fee.

If the PowerFLARM unit was fully ADS-B compliant (both in and out), and
provided an interface to an external display device for both traffic and
weather, many of the issues that Chip has identified would be erased.

Furthermore, a low cost version of the unit, without the PCAS
functionality, could be sold to pilots who fly in areas that are slated
for ADS-B ground station coverage. In those environments the traffic
data broadcast by the ADS-B ground stations provides much more accurate
and reliable information for transponder equipped aircraft than any PCAS
device could possibly generate.

This kind of device, at the PowerFlarm price point, would be a
blockbuster product, not only to the soaring community but in the VFR GA
power market. It would obsolete the entire Zaon PCAS product line, as
the FAA's ground station roll out gathers momentum.

--
Mike Schumann

On 8/12/2010 8:59 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
Very well said.

It is frustrating that the obviously bright guys behind PowerFLARM
couldn't take the next logical step and make their "FLARM" RF
subsystem compatible with ADS-B UAT for the US market.
It may be a bit presumptuous to decide the "next logical step" for the
FLARM folks. Are you aware that besides FLARM and PowerFLARM, they also
operate SAFEmine (visit safe-mine.com)? I'm guessing they have plenty to
do with a proven device that is in widespread use (and being adapted
for other uses), and diving into the murky waters of the ADS-B market
probably looks like a poor opportunity at this time. And also because
those murky waters have some large sharks swimming in them, like Garmin
and the other aviation instrument companies.

I hope you get a chance to talk to Urs Rothacher of FLARM, as I have at
SSA conventions. I think a half hour on the phone would clear up a lot
confusion about FLARM and it's relation to ADS-B, and how much more
trouble the ADS-B out arena is compared to FLARM's niche.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net 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

Oh man, all this whining about what could be (but isn't) or should be
(but isn't) and how everything revolves (but doesn't) around the
wonderful UAT technology. Like is there a UAT fan club people can join
for this? Can anybody join? You guy get to dress up in costumes at
your meetings? Do you have fancy hats?

Am I missing something obvious here? If you had done any of this type
of stuff before and were lecturing a failing company who had no
frigging idea what they were doing your criticisms might sit better
with me. I am sure a lot of us wish Flarm had gotten into the USA
market years ago, but my time machine is broken and I cannot fix that.
Now they are, and they are doing it with a product that also supports
ADS-B (data-in) which I think is clever and responsible.

On Aug 12, 8:59 pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
Very well said.

It is frustrating that the obviously bright guys behind PowerFLARM
couldn't take the next logical step and make their "FLARM" RF subsystem
compatible with ADS-B UAT for the US market.

ADS-B UAT operates at 978 MHz vs 868 MHz for FLARM. The ADS-B protocol
is different than FLARM, but provides essentially the same (if not more)
functionality.

Navworx has demonstrated that it is possible to get FCC approval for an
ADS-B UAT type transceiver that conforms to the ADS-B specs, but does
not necessarily meet all of the current FAA TSO requirements, including
GPS navigational integrity, antenna diversity, etc.

I suspect that using this precedent, it would also be possible to get
FCC approval for a reduced power version, if that was necessary to hit
the required price point.

The engineering (both hardware and firmware) for such a device could
significantly benefit from the investment that MITRE has made in their
low cost ADS-B transceiver project (using our tax dollars), which they
are licensing to anyone who is interested at a VERY reasonable one-time
licensing fee.

If the PowerFLARM unit was fully ADS-B compliant (both in and out), and
provided an interface to an external display device for both traffic and
weather, many of the issues that Chip has identified would be erased.

Some of the major issues Chip raised was about airline and fast jet
traffic near New York and in that situations a UAT device is very
problematic. That dichotomy, the ongoing need for transponders in some
places and a separate solution for glider-on-glider collision
avoidance etc. (and to an extent a fuzzier problem in the middle with
glider-on-GA risks) is in many ways the root of a large part of Chip's
issue. And UATs do not make that primary dichotomy go away. You can't
just keep promoting UAT boxes and ignore the transponder issue.

So around New York or similar busy airspace I would hope Chip really
gets a transponder (Mode S Trig TT21 recommended if new but even a
Mode C unit, like a used Becker unit will provide service long into
the future). So to recap again why (sorry folks here I go again...) A
UAT is not compatible with TCAS, very few airliners or fast jets have
CDTI displays (certified ADS-B based traffic displays) yet and so
cannot "see" the UAT traffic. It is unclear at what rate those
aircraft will equip with CDTI displays. Yet effectively all those
aircraft have TCAS which can "see" a transponder and the larger ones
have TCAS II that will issue an RA to avoid a collision but it must to
see a transponder signal from the threat aircraft to do that . A UAT
will make the glider visible to ATC if there is an ADS-B ground
station connected to ATC (several years for USA coverage to finish)
but so will a transponder, and that works everywhere there is ATC
service now. I am a technology geek and like some of the things ADS-B
will enable but the last thing I want to see is glider pilots thinking
UAT devices are a replacement for transponders for gliders flying near
areas of high density airline and fast jet traffic. A transponder will
also make you visible to TCAD/TAS systems in soem GA aircraft and PCAS
systems as long as something else in interrogating the transponder.
People might well wish ADS-B and UAT was going to replace transponders
but it is just not technically capable of doing that for the
foreseeable future. I really wish it was possible, but it is not.
Sorry transponders costs money, I wish they cost less, but I have
trouble arguing they are overpriced for what they do, especially a
product like the Trig TT21. Now for folks flying well away from that
kind of busy airspace, please save your money, you don't need a
transponder.

Furthermore, a low cost version of the unit, without the PCAS
functionality, could be sold to pilots who fly in areas that are slated
for ADS-B ground station coverage. In those environments the traffic
data broadcast by the ADS-B ground stations provides much more accurate
and reliable information for transponder equipped aircraft than any PCAS
device could possibly generate.

The PowerFLARM will do TIS-B in a future firmware update. In a 1090ES
receiver the PCAS won't add significant unit cost, it will be all
fixed cost for software. And unlike TIS-B this provides some coverage
outside of ATC radar coverage and seems quite a few of us already use
PCAS systems working in many of those areas. I expect some other
vendors doing 1090ES receivers (esp. portable/non IFR receivers) to
also do PCAS as well like this because it works in all countries, it
works in the USA prior to widespread GBT deployment, unlike TIS-B it
works outside current radar coverage volumes (as long as you have
other transponder interrogators) and all the hardware you need is
already there in the 1090ES receiver for free. Its a nice to have
feature, and a beautiful competitive marketing tool to use to
effectively displace current PCAS products/uses if you can just say
your box does everything they do and a lot more (well at least for
Zaon MRX type devices). Smart marketing.

This kind of device, at the PowerFlarm price point, would be a
blockbuster product, not only to the soaring community but in the VFR GA
power market. It would obsolete the entire Zaon PCAS product line, as
the FAA's ground station roll out gathers momentum.

Some GA pilots will buy a PowerFLARM as is but it is really a
different market, you need different focus, compatibility with
different displays, different feature sets (is an IGC flight recorder
of significant differentiation to most GA pilots? Wouldn't they much
rather want Garmin TIS display support?), etc. I've got a background
in getting new high-tech products to market and part of what I do is
consulting to startups and investors. One thing that makes me happy to
find is young companies with a focus on depth not width, an inane
knowledge of and focus on a customer base where they can be successful
and then longer term ability to grow into new/broader markets. Go read
Geoffrey Moor's "Crossing the Chasm", that gives a good lay-
perspective on entering new markets for technology companies. Flarm is
a small company, but to me has all those good focus characteristics,
and is played right the ability to grow into new markets. And they are
making choices like including an ADS-B 1090ES receiver in the
PowerFLARM that does allow interesting future market applications
(worldwide, not just the USA), many with just software additions/
changes.

The "obviously smart guys at Flarm" have an actually working glider-on-
glider and glider-on-towplane collision warning technology proven over
years or use. They have a custom developed radio protocol tuned to the
needs of gliders in avoiding mid-air collisions. They have lots of
academic and practical research on making this stuff really work. And
they have the ability to improve that protocol as they have done in
the past at their own pace. If I was them the absolute last thing I
would want to do is tie myself to be being dependent on a slow moving
inflexible bureaucratic process, and including in the USA a very
complex dual-link system with ground based processing. Yet they are
also smart enough to realize that in the future broader aviation
traffic awareness systems are going to be based on ADS-B and they have
a product in the PowerFLARM that can interact in both their own
specialized environment, and just work off the shelf today, and
provide ADS-B data-in for that broader interoperability.

Most of the rest of the world does not care about UAT technology. It's
largely an FAA aberration. Mmm lets see, a UAT based product aimed at
gliders. Well not much market there outside maybe a few hundred USA
glider pilots. Well not unless somebody convinces the FAA to make UATs
mandatory for gilders, hang gliders, parachutists, etc. Boy I hope
nobody here wants to see that blanket regulatory requirement.

Those "obviously smart guys at Flarm" probably understand the benefits
of market differentiation in the glider market, where they dominate,
and appreciate that the "Crossing the Chasm" challenge of entering a
larger market with different needs is non-trivial. But to me it looks
like they are kind of already planting the seeds for some new
applications with the ADS-B receiver capability in the PowerFLARM.
Seems pretty smart to me.

If the UAT efforts underway manage to produce low-cost UAT
transmitters and receivers that is great, that should be goodness for
some of the lower-end aviation market in the USA. Including in gliders
where it could make a perfectly good UAT transmitter to be used with
some of the PowerFLARM ADS-B receivers. And I hope that actually
happens, a great long slow process to solve all those UAT transmitter
issues, probably good stuff for other companies to take the lead on.

Sigh.


Darryl

The concept that collision avoidance in gliders is substantially
different than for powered airplanes is fundamentally flawed. We all
share the same airspace and need the same types of system.

A GA Power aircraft collision avoidance system needs to be able to
recognize that it is approaching a glider, who's flight path may be
erratic and needs a wide birth.

A glider based system, obviously would benefit from advanced logic to
help minimize false alarms on tow and while flying in gaggles. There is
no reason that the same system would be inappropriate on GA powered
aircraft.

If we are going to get reasonably priced hardware for the US glider
market, we need to leverage the market volume provided by the GA power
applications, which are 10-100x larger.

Maybe UAT's time has passed. Maybe 1090ES is going to become the
defacto standard, given the continuing transponder requirements in the
US. Then we should bight the bullet and deploy that, not a 3rd
incompatible technology that just muddies the water further.

I think that Chip's analysis is correct. Until the vendors, the SSA,
AOPA, and the FAA lay out a rational long term strategic blueprint of
where all this is headed, there is going to be a lot of hesitation on
the part of a lot of pilots to invest significant $$s in half baked
measures that have questionable futures.

--
Mike Schumann

Thanks Darryl for your detailed explanations.

Those who think its "no big deal" to add an
approved transmitter (UAT, transponder, etc)
might want to read this as a cautionary tale:

http://www.ackavionics.com/406%20Page.html

This is only the 2010 installment of a multi-
year saga.

You are not going to get low cost and all
features and availability in finite time...

Hope this helps,
Best Regards, Dave

On 8/13/2010 6:22 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
Thanks Darryl for your detailed explanations.

Those who think its "no big deal" to add an
approved transmitter (UAT, transponder, etc)
might want to read this as a cautionary tale:

http://www.ackavionics.com/406%20Page.html

This is only the 2010 installment of a multi-
year saga.

You are not going to get low cost and all
features and availability in finite time...

Hope this helps,
Best Regards, Dave

Sorry, Dave, but your link reminded me of a a little 80-page gem - amazingly
still available on the web at reasonable (cheap!) prices: "The Free Enterprise
Patriot" by John Rickey. I'm sure some of the engineers at ACK Technologies
would laugh themselves to tears from a reading of Rickey's timeless
gem...originally serialized in "Research/Development" magazine Sep. 1963-April
1964.

I'm sure the bureaucratic approval process has 47 years of improvement since then!

Chortlingly,
Bob W.

In article Westbender writes:
On Aug 12, 4:48=A0pm, Dave Hoppe wrote:
I'm waiting for one more response regarding flarm frequency and
approval status in the US.

And here it is:

Dave,

no problems, I'm very glad to help you!

It is a free frequency (SRD). In Europe we use 868Mhz, in the US it
will be 433Mhz. PowerFLARM automatically chooses the right frequency
for the place you are at - this means you can also use yours in europe
e.g. on competitions without having to change settings.

FCC approval is on its way and is going to be done before first units
start shipping.

Cheers
Marc


Well, not really a free frequency. 433 MHz is in the middle of an
amateur radio band. That frequency is used for various other services
as well, including, I think, the common wireless yard thermometers.

Alan

On Aug 14, 7:01*am, (Alan) wrote:
* Well, not really a free frequency. *433 MHz is in the middle of an
amateur radio band. *That frequency is used for various other services
as well, including, I think, the common wireless yard thermometers.

* * * * Alan

In the US, FLARM will operate around 915MHz, with frequency hopping.
This is in one of the 'license free' bands.

Urs
FLARM