PowerFLARM Mode S question

On Oct 25, 9:51*pm, Andy wrote:
On Oct 25, 12:28*pm, brianDG303 wrote:





Dear Mike,
if you are really interested in why there is a reaction to your posts,
you might want to read back through them. They do border on the
offensive at times, And perhaps it is you who are doing the jumping:
your comment "what we have is a bunch of people who's view is that the
PowerFLARM savior has come and that their 50% solution is good enough"
is a pretty good leap. What we have is a bunch of people who think
that IF powerflarm is available by next season and IF enough people
get them, we stand a very good chance of one or two or three fewer
dead glider pilots.

Anyway, I personally think there was value in the discussion, even if
it went on a little long. It is an important topic and your comments
certainly pointed out all the possible downsides of PowerFlarm vs ADS-
B. In my mind immediate large scale adoption of Powerflarm (assuming
the product becomes available) followed by the development a practical
ADS-B option in the future is a best-case scenario. I think where you
are ending up at odds with pretty much everyone is the idea that
powerflarm will push ADS-B aside. Perhaps Powerflarm will just be a
step to ADS-B. In any case, the real issue is glider pilots dying. In
Europe Flarm seems to be helping glider pilots live, and that is the
fact that has gotten our attention.

see you up there, fly safe,

Brian

It's a classic case of someone with an engineering background debating
someone with a legal background - one is an analyst the other is an
advocate. One is deductive, the other is inductive (e.g. facts -
analysis - answer vs. answer - supporting facts and analysis). Both
have their place in the world. You just have to decide which thought
process makes the most sense in any given situation because they
aren't equally valid in every case.

I do agree that this is an important safety issue so direct debate on
the details of such a complex topic are entirely appropriate, even if
it gets a bit heated. *I'm thankful we have people in the community
who are willing to drill into all the butt-numbing details and explain
it to the rest of us.

It's important.

9B- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No vendor can engineer,build a prototype, submit it to the FAA and
FCC, get it certified, and produce itn and get libility insurance
coverage for the certain lawsuits that will follow,for a limited
market, (there are what maybe, 5000 gliders in the USA) assuming 1/2
of them would by the ADS-B system for gliders, and market it at a
"resonable" or "cheap" ...cost...only the FAA can take 1935 fuel
induction and magneto system from a 1935 John Deere tractor and stamp
'aircraft' on them and raise the cost of them to thousands of
dollars...check your tow plane....

On Oct 25, 6:10*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 10/25/2010 12:46 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:



On 10/24/2010 7:10 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
I think it's pretty clear - Mike admits that when PowerFlarm gets FCC
approval he will unequivocally support it as the optimal solution for
gliders. His arguments to-date have been uniformly based on
PowarFlarm's pending approval.

Mike, are you going to change your argument or be consistent?

9B

When the product is FCC approved, and you can get a datasheet and a
manual then we can have a discussion on the pluses and minuses. I am
open minded to any solution that not only addresses glider on glider
threats, but also glider / GA and glider / airliners threats.

It's not like PowerFlarm is a completely new, untested concept, or that
the people bringing it to market are unknown ciphers. They've done this
before, to the tune of 10,000+ installations, and it's reasonable to
assume they'll do it again, so there is simply no point not to have the
discussion NOW. Your recalcitrance on this makes you look very
unreasonable, and casts doubt your arguments, deserved or not.

I'm not opposed to having a discussion about future products. *I've
participated in these before. *My objection is in misrepresenting future
products as things that currently exist, while simultaneously
disparaging products that currently do exist as being "future" products.

--
Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike, You (and others of course) are invited to the PASCO safety
seminar this Saturday in Oakland http://www.pacificsoaring.org/board/...Flyer-2010.pdf
to see the PowerFlarm in your own eyes and ask Urs Rothacher, the
PoweFlarm designer, any question you may still have.

Ramy

On 10/25/2010 4:01 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Oct 24, 9:50 pm, Mike
wrote:

Navworx exists. PowerFlarm does not.

You can hook up Navworx to a variety of GPS units to graphically see
aircraft in your vicinity. You might not like the cost, power
consumption or the selection of display devices that are supported, but
it will work in a glider and it will show you the accurate position and
altitude all of the other transponder equipped aircraft in your area if
you are within range of an ADS-B ground station.
--
Mike Schumann

WRONG

Too much power.
No STCs.
Too expensive.
No effective collision warning.

That "power thing" is a real issue: when transponders finally got into
the 450-500 milliamp range, there were still a lot of pilots griping
that it was too much drain, that they'd have to add an extra battery,
and it would greatly increase the cost of the installation. I suspect
any unit with a drain over 750 milliamps will be a non-starter with most
glider pilots.

And don't forget, the PowerFlarm has an IGC recorder, something you
don't get with the ADS-B only solutions.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

On Oct 26, 1:51*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 10/25/2010 4:01 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:

On Oct 24, 9:50 pm, Mike
wrote:

Navworx exists. *PowerFlarm does not.

You can hook up Navworx to a variety of GPS units to graphically see
aircraft in your vicinity. *You might not like the cost, power
consumption or the selection of display devices that are supported, but
it will work in a glider and it will show you the accurate position and
altitude all of the other transponder equipped aircraft in your area if
you are within range of an ADS-B ground station.
--
Mike Schumann

WRONG

Too much power.
No STCs.
Too expensive.
No effective collision warning.

That "power thing" is a real issue: when transponders finally got into
the 450-500 milliamp range, there were still a lot of pilots griping
that it was too much drain, that they'd have to add an extra battery,
and it would greatly increase the cost of the installation. I suspect
any unit with a drain over 750 milliamps will be a non-starter with most
glider pilots.

And don't forget, the PowerFlarm has an IGC recorder, something you
don't get with the ADS-B only solutions.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

Right. Note Mode S transponders draw less power !
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"
(though YO has "adequate" electrical power available)

On Oct 25, 11:51*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 10/25/2010 4:01 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:



On Oct 24, 9:50 pm, Mike
wrote:

Navworx exists. *PowerFlarm does not.

You can hook up Navworx to a variety of GPS units to graphically see
aircraft in your vicinity. *You might not like the cost, power
consumption or the selection of display devices that are supported, but
it will work in a glider and it will show you the accurate position and
altitude all of the other transponder equipped aircraft in your area if
you are within range of an ADS-B ground station.
--
Mike Schumann

WRONG

Too much power.
No STCs.
Too expensive.
No effective collision warning.

That "power thing" is a real issue: when transponders finally got into
the 450-500 milliamp range, there were still a lot of pilots griping
that it was too much drain, that they'd have to add an extra battery,
and it would greatly increase the cost of the installation. I suspect
any unit with a drain over 750 milliamps will be a non-starter with most
glider pilots.

And don't forget, the PowerFlarm has an IGC recorder, something you
don't get with the ADS-B only solutions.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Confirmed. My total power drain when I am not transmitting is 350ma. A
transponder would more than double my current drain, cutting my
battery life by more than 1/2. Since upgradingto the Becker Radio
this is not as much of an issue but with my old Terra Radio I quickly
ran out of enough battery to transmit with even at these low power
draw numbers. Especially at high altitude.

Brian