PowerFlarm BRICK range issues - are we alone????

Glider Pilot - Curmudgeonly, pedant with a predisposition to over
analysis leading to interminable debate on RAS ;-)

Primary exercise - jumping to indefensible conclusions - then debating
the nuances for months.

Bruce - who is being slightly disillusioned and whimsical.--

On 2012/10/05 4:46 AM, wrote:
I love RAS because I always learn something. Just now I learned the meaning of pedantic...which I had to look up. Great word and thanks Noel.





--Noel, who's being pedantic tonight...


--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:16:11 AM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:
On Oct 3, 3:47*am, Robert Fidler wrote:

I am not buying the Flarm until all these issues are resolved. I refused shipment of my ordered unit because all of these issues are not resolved. I think if people refused to purchase the unit until these issues are resolved, the factory would have the issues resolved. All I hear is the factory saying yeah we have fixed the problems and the customers coming back and stating, no, all of the problems are not fixed. Rest my case.



Come on now, this is a ridiculous attitude to have. How do you go

through life? Do you refuse to buy a car model if *any* one ever sold

has broken down? Do you refuse to buy *any* computer or software, if

it has ever had a single bug? Do you refuse to go into *any*

restaurant that's ever had even one bad review or complaint online?



The PowerFLARM system isn't perfect, and I (like many) are still

waiting for the IGC logging capability and some of the other tweaks).

But the system works perfectly fine as it is right now! Here are some

things to keep in mind:



1) FLARM is based on two-way radio signals. So the range and

performance is strongly affected by both _your_ installation _and_

your buddies' installation. In this thread here, we've heard some

details about one person's installation, but we haven't gotten

complete details on the people he's been flying with. His

installation could be _great_ but if his buddies haven't done a good

job then they'll all have "poor" performance.



Making judgements about the PowerFLARM when you only know details of

one unit/installation is like complaining about someone driving past

you at double your speed, while failing to mention that you're driving

a 3-cylinder Yugo at 45mph on a 70mph freeway. You're making

judgements while leaving out key parts of the context of the

situation!



2) FLARM IS ***NOT*** A RADAR SYSTEM. IT IS AN __ANTI-COLLISION__

SYSTEM. Sorry for shouting, but I think people's expectations here

have gotten wayyyy out of whack. You need to remember that first and

foremost, the mission of a FLARM is to protect you against a midair.

If it is performing well-enough to prevent a midair, then it is doing

its job. Yes, I'll admit that its really cool when you _can_ see

every piece of traffic at 6-8nm and make tactical decisions or find

your friends from a long ways off. But that is *not* the device's

intended function - that is a "bonus".



Now, what is acceptable mid-air collision avoidance? Your opinion may

be different from mine, but let's run the numbers on the "bad" 1.5nm

range. Let's take a worst-case-scenario of two gliders approaching

each other head-on just under cloudbase (so its realllly hard to

visually spot the other glider, and closing speed is maximized).

Let's say they're bombing along under a cloudstreet at 100mph, so the

closing-speed is 200mph. 200mph is 1 mile every 18 seconds. So at

1.5nm range you have over 25 seconds to react to a threat. STOP

reading this right now, stare at a wall, and count out 25 seconds.

I'll wait. Wow, when you count it out that's a pretty good chunk of

time, isn't it? Even IF you spend the first 5-10 seconds looking

around for the oncoming glider before you make a decision to change

your course, you'd still have enough time to make that evasive

maneuver.



Since most people are seeing traffic at least twice that distance

(~3-4nm), I'd argue the system is working acceptably and DOING ITS

JOB.



If you visually pick up on a glider before the FLARM does,

congratulations on your visual scan! This does not mean the FLARM has

failed you. FLARM is there to protect you against the gliders you

*don't* see - not the ones you do. Accident records show us that

gliders come close to one another a lot, without either pilot seeing

the other aircraft. THAT is the fundamental safety issue that FLARM

addresses.



And lastly: Not to be critical of the original poster, but why do you

need FLARM to tell you where your buddies are? Can't you call them on

the radio and ask them to report their location & altitude? Glider

pilots have been doing that for decades! Again, I'm not trying to

give the original poster a hard time; but for those who see this as a

"failure" of the FLARM system, I want to point out the fallacy of that

line of thinking.



FLARM *can* do some pretty cool things. But don't judge the system by

its "bonus" capabilities, judge it by its core mission and whether it

is succeeding at that. And from everything I've seen (including the

Standard Class Nationals that I flew in this year), it is delivering

on the promise of collision detection and alerting.



--Noel

Much to my surprise, I find myself having to defend Robert's (F2) position. Although I wouldn't have stated categorically that I won't buy PFlarm until absolutely all issues have been resolved, I also cancelled my order for a brick because I was unhappy with the reports of recent owners. In a subtle way, Noel is suggesting that it's irresponsible to not have Flarm and use it since it's the only available system of it's kind. I don't like being put in that box.

Funding questions for our expensive instrumentation aside, we all make decision about what to buy based on benefits and cost. Please respect the position of pilots who prefer to wait and see and let them continue to fly in contests. TA is making a dangerous proposal regarding mandatory use of PFlarm next year. Want to drive down contest entries beyond what happened this year? Go ahead, mandate Flarm.

Herb,J7

On Oct 5, 7:16*am, wrote:

Much to my surprise, I find myself having to defend Robert's (F2) position. *Although I wouldn't have stated categorically that I won't buy PFlarm until absolutely all issues have been resolved, I also cancelled my order for a brick because I was unhappy with the reports of recent owners. *In a subtle way, Noel is suggesting that it's irresponsible to not have Flarm and use it since it's the only available system of it's kind. *I don't like being put in that box.

No, Herb - that's not what I was suggesting.

What I was suggesting is that people need to be realistic about what
the PowerFLARM is currently delivering. If you wait for the "perfect"
system that will tell you about 100% of the traffic 100% of the time
at 10nm range no matter how you've installed the device or how others
have installed the device, then you're being completely unrealistic
and you've incorrectly set your expectations for what an "anti-
collision" system needs to do. We all _want_ the ultimate device; but
that's different from what we _need_ and, what is _good enough_ to do
the job.

The vast majority of glider midairs are glider-on-glider incidents,
and we've done the math here to show that the current PowerFLARM works
pretty well for that EVEN IF your installation (or "the other guy's"
installation) is not good and your range is only 1.5nm. As I and
others have explained in this thread, many of us see traffic at 4-8nm
- way better than the "worst case scenario" that some people have
reported.

There *were* some early teething problems with the devices, and
they're not yet "perfect". But in everyday use they work great and it
frustrates me to see people holding off on buying a functioning
product, just because a couple of people complain about them on the
internet. So my last point in the previous email was this: If you
refuse to accept the math that the PowerFLARM is working acceptably
AND you refuse to accept the testimony of dozens of satisfied
PowerFLARM users, then you're not "waiting" to buy the PowerFLARM. In
reality, you are looking for reasons _not_ to purchase it; you're
fooling yourself and you really don't want it. These occasional
complaints or the idea that the device isn't "perfect" are the excuse
you're (consciously or subconsciously) looking for.

Finally, I'm _not_ saying you can't be a safe pilot without a
PowerFLARM. I _am_ saying that I flew in the Nationals and we had 24
gliders in the air with PowerFLARM - and it was great. Running up and
down ridges and narrow convergence-lines under cloud (on the same
tasks as heavily-ballasted 18-meter ships, often-times going head-on
with other gliders), I am quite certain that the PowerFLARM helped
avoid several midairs.

--Noel

I try to keep my head out of the cockpit and rely on audio alerts (vario, PCAS, etc.) In my opinion, a Flarm product that has an audio alarm that is inaudible to a sizable portion of the users is defective.

Mike

On 10/5/2012 8:14 AM, noel.wade wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:16 am, wrote:

Much to my surprise, I find myself having to defend Robert's (F2) position. Although I wouldn't have stated categorically that I won't buy PFlarm until absolutely all issues have been resolved, I also cancelled my order for a brick because I was unhappy with the reports of recent owners. In a subtle way, Noel is suggesting that it's irresponsible to not have Flarm and use it since it's the only available system of it's kind. I don't like being put in that box.

No, Herb - that's not what I was suggesting.

What I was suggesting is that people need to be realistic about what
the PowerFLARM is currently delivering. If you wait for the "perfect"
system that will tell you about 100% of the traffic 100% of the time
at 10nm range no matter how you've installed the device or how others
have installed the device, then you're being completely unrealistic
and you've incorrectly set your expectations for what an "anti-
collision" system needs to do. We all _want_ the ultimate device; but
that's different from what we _need_ and, what is _good enough_ to do
the job.


--Noel


PowerFLARM is not working as promised. Right now, if you have it you
are a beta tester. If seems to me it is reasonable to refuse to be a
beta tester.

Also, I wonder if the problems will be fixed in the software, or if one
will have to purchase improved hardware.

On Oct 5, 8:52*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
I try to keep my head out of the cockpit and rely on audio alerts (vario, PCAS, etc.) *In my opinion, a Flarm product that has an audio alarm that is inaudible to a sizable portion of the users is defective.

Mike

Mike -

In all fairness you've just recently posted, calling yourself deaf.
The PowerFLARM guys can't be responsible for everyone's hearing! ;-)

I will say that - after I figured out how to adjust the volume of my
"rectangular" PF display - I find it to be quite loud in the cockpit.
I *do* have it on a gooseneck, sitting just in above/in-front-of my
knee so its not bured in the panel... But the speaker hole is in the
front of the display, pointing right at your face so panel-mounting it
shouldn't dampen the sound.

Have you maxed the volume? Have you asked PF/Butterfly about this?
It could be you have a defective/troubled display unit...

--Noel

On Oct 5, 9:14*am, Greg Arnold wrote:
On 10/5/2012 8:14 AM, noel.wade wrote:









On Oct 5, 7:16 am, wrote:

Much to my surprise, I find myself having to defend Robert's (F2) position. *Although I wouldn't have stated categorically that I won't buy PFlarm until absolutely all issues have been resolved, I also cancelled my order for a brick because I was unhappy with the reports of recent owners. *In a subtle way, Noel is suggesting that it's irresponsible to not have Flarm and use it since it's the only available system of it's kind. *I don't like being put in that box.

No, Herb - that's not what I was suggesting.

What I was suggesting is that people need to be realistic about what
the PowerFLARM is currently delivering. *If you wait for the "perfect"
system that will tell you about 100% of the traffic 100% of the time
at 10nm range no matter how you've installed the device or how others
have installed the device, then you're being completely unrealistic
and you've incorrectly set your expectations for what an "anti-
collision" system needs to do. *We all _want_ the ultimate device; but
that's different from what we _need_ and, what is _good enough_ to do
the job.

--Noel

PowerFLARM is not working as promised. *Right now, if you have it you

If you're going to make an assertion like this, please provide
evidence. Otherwise we can all just respond "Nuh-UHHhhhHH!" with
equal authority.

I will say that I'm annoyed the IGC logging function is not yet
working. But the manufacturers have proclaimed repeatedly that this
(and other tweaks and improvements) will be delivered by software; no
new hardware will be required.

--Noel

On 10/5/2012 9:28 AM, noel.wade wrote:
On Oct 5, 9:14 am, Greg Arnold wrote:
On 10/5/2012 8:14 AM, noel.wade wrote:









On Oct 5, 7:16 am, wrote:

Much to my surprise, I find myself having to defend Robert's (F2) position. Although I wouldn't have stated categorically that I won't buy PFlarm until absolutely all issues have been resolved, I also cancelled my order for a brick because I was unhappy with the reports of recent owners. In a subtle way, Noel is suggesting that it's irresponsible to not have Flarm and use it since it's the only available system of it's kind. I don't like being put in that box.

No, Herb - that's not what I was suggesting.

What I was suggesting is that people need to be realistic about what
the PowerFLARM is currently delivering. If you wait for the "perfect"
system that will tell you about 100% of the traffic 100% of the time
at 10nm range no matter how you've installed the device or how others
have installed the device, then you're being completely unrealistic
and you've incorrectly set your expectations for what an "anti-
collision" system needs to do. We all _want_ the ultimate device; but
that's different from what we _need_ and, what is _good enough_ to do
the job.

--Noel

PowerFLARM is not working as promised. Right now, if you have it you

If you're going to make an assertion like this, please provide
evidence. Otherwise we can all just respond "Nuh-UHHhhhHH!" with
equal authority.

Have you been reading RAS?


I will say that I'm annoyed the IGC logging function is not yet
working. But the manufacturers have proclaimed repeatedly that this
(and other tweaks and improvements) will be delivered by software; no
new hardware will be required.

--Noel

Hi Mike,

OK. I may concede that the Butterfly rectangular remote display has a
speaker that is not as loud as we would hope. Fortunately, there are
alternatives. The Butterfly 57 mm round display is quite loud. So is the
new LXNAV FlarmView. I have one on my desk and it is very loud. I have
them in stock for $255 and will add them to my web site very soon. Until
then you can see details at www.lxnav.com.

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
_______________________________________

"Mike the Strike" wrote in message
...

I try to keep my head out of the cockpit and rely on audio alerts (vario,
PCAS, etc.) In my opinion, a Flarm product that has an audio alarm that is
inaudible to a sizable portion of the users is defective.

Mike

On Oct 5, 12:02*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:
Hi Mike,

OK. *I may concede that the Butterfly rectangular remote display has a
speaker that is not as loud as we would hope. *Fortunately, there are
alternatives. *The Butterfly 57 mm round display is quite loud. *So is the
new LXNAV FlarmView. *I have one on my desk and it is very loud. *I have
them in stock for $255 and will add them to my web site very soon. *Until
then you can see details atwww.lxnav.com.

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
_______________________________________

Is there no provision for an external speaker? If not, Paul, I hope
you'll lobby flarm to provide it. There are enough wires dangling out
of this thing to assign two of them to audio out. Many people will use
PNAs, PDAs or clearnav for display. Do we have then no audio at all?
John Cochrane