Just pull the little red handle!

On Sep 1, 5:31*pm, Andy wrote:
On Aug 31, 7:40*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

The choice of the actual frequncy to be used has
been done for years (and your Flarm units will probalby tune to that
frequncy if you brought them here). The first chance for USA pilots to
adopt this technology will be the upcoming PowerFLARM product.

More clarity requested.

If Existing FLARM supports the freq to be allocated in US why are not
manufacturers of those units jumping on the US market and getting FCC
certification. *I know what freqs are supported by FLARM as I have the
documentation. What freq is being used for USA and where is that
published?

We've been over the frequency here, I've said 915 MHz, there was some
innocent confusion from others and Urs from Flarm confirmed its
915MHz. Its on the 915 MHz ISM band using spread spectrum
communications. This has actually been known in the Flarm community
for a long time. Discussed on Flarm forums and it is mentioned in some
Flarm documentation (but not all versions of all docs - no I don't
know why).

Why are we waiting for PowerFLAM with it's still undocumented new
features when FLARM products already exist?

Because there are no FCC approved Flarm products from any vendor that
can legally be sold in the USA.

Flarm is busting their ass to get the new generation RF unit in
PowerFLARM FCC approved, its non-trivial work. As in previous products
the RF unit is Flarm's technology and they are buried in work getting
the certification done. I doubt they would be able to stop work on a
new generation product right now and go help others certify existing
products. Flarm is not a multinational company with unlimited
resources, they are a small group of pretty clever engineers.

On the other hand, if Power FLARM is being built with an RF section
that is unique to USA then potential purchasers may want to know that.
It could limit both resale value and its usefulness for US pilots that
fly overseas.

I know enough to say that the RF unit on the PowerFLARM is
definitively not "unique to the USA". PowerFLARM units brought here
and brought overseas will work in any location.

So why is US PowerFLARM not identical with PowerFLARM being marketed
to the rest of the world and are the systems interoperable?

Andy

The USA is different from the rest of the world. Starting with we have
no Flarm installed base here and we have ADS-B data-out rolling out
here that touches a large number of aircraft unlike anywhere else.
That combination is unique. And I suspect that is largely driving
Flarm to enter the USA market with a combined ADS-B receiver/Flarm
product. With how complex things are already with ADS-B I am actually
glad they are doing that.

Darryl

Eric, as I posted earlier, on another thread, here in the UK I have
avoided the EASA paperwork problems by using a basic Flarm, held by
hook and loop tape on top of the instrument coaming, run from a
dedicated battery separate from the main glider instrument supply and
carried behind the seat, all of which I carry on to the glider as
personal equipment. The same battery drives the smallest PCAS unit,
fastened similarly and also personal carry on equipment. Total cost of
the two when I bought them was about £1000.

If you want to see a picture of my glider with its Flarm, PCAS, and
other bolt on goodies on the instrument panel, see :

http://picasaweb.google.com/cnich150...78413677251106
..


Chris N

JJ Sinclair schrieb:
We need something more reliable with predictable results.

Akaflieg Darmstadt is developing Soteira to extract pilots from the
aircraft by means of a small rocket. Their new training glider D-43 will
be the first plane to have the system built in.

http://www.akaflieg.tu-darmstadt.de/soteira/index.php

Regards, Erik.

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
On 9/1/2010 8:48 AM, Surfer! wrote:
snip

A Flarm is less than £1k, isn't it? And what are the EASA hoops you'd have
to jump through to put a small, self-contained box on top of your
instrument panel?

Sorry misread the post I replied to and thought he was saying we should all
have a ballistic thingie. However I do know people for whom a Flarm would
be hard to afford, and I'd also comment that the type that sites on top of
the instrument panel isn't a good choice if the coaming it sits on gets
ejected with the canopy. To my mind a Red Box style would be better for
those gliders as it won't involve any wiring between the canopy etc. and the
rest of the glider.

Originally Posted by Erik Braun

JJ Sinclair schrieb:
We need something more reliable with predictable results.

Akaflieg Darmstadt is developing Soteira to extract pilots from the
aircraft by means of a small rocket. Their new training glider D-43 will
be the first plane to have the system built in.

http://www.akaflieg.tu-darmstadt.de/soteira/index.php

Regards, Erik.

Mein Deutch ist frickinlousy. Not sure this is a viable idea, soon our max pilot weight will be so limited that only jockeys will be allowed to fly. We could add PLD's and butt kits to our chutes in the event we do egress successfully and come down in the woods miles from civilization. Perhaps a small, portable strobe light would be a good idea. Remember your snake bite kit for Florida and out west where rattlers are common. How about a set of water wings or a raft if we come down in a lake or river?

Talking with a friend of mine from Vietnam, an extra set of glasses in the event of a bailout would be a good idea, along with trying to secure those you are wearing to your head. The opening shock of a chute might dislodge most common eyeglasses, if they made it that far after the egress. Not sure I could see well enough then to avoid power lines and the like. Heads up folks.

Walt

"Walt Connelly" wrote in message ...

.... Snip ....

Talking with a friend of mine from Vietnam, an extra set of glasses in
the event of a bailout would be a good idea, along with trying to secure
those you are wearing to your head. The opening shock of a chute might
dislodge most common eyeglasses, if they made it that far after the
egress. Not sure I could see well enough then to avoid power lines
and the like. Heads up folks.

Good point Walt. I once lost the canopy of a HP-16 on takeoff. My hat was the first thing to leave the cockpit followed immediately by my glasses. (Both were found in the grass between the runway and taxiway. ) The chances of keeping your glasses during a bailout without the aid of an athletic strap are between slim and none.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/nocan.htm

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

On Sep 1, 5:51*pm, Andreas Maurer wrote:

US lawyers and US product liability.

Yes, that was understood to be one of the reasons FLARM was not
available in USA in the past. I have to wonder if making US Power
FLARM somehow different from PowerFLARM sold to the rest of the world,
and having a separate a US website, is perhaps an attempt to legally
separate the two PowerFLARM variants.

I don't see how that would work though if the manufacturing company
was the same and the alerting algorithms are common to all FLARM
products.

I've been subscribed to the PowerFLARM newsletter since Feb 2010 and
have not seen any information there, or on the PowerFLARM website,
that suggests a different product will be sold in USA.

Andy

On Aug 30, 12:35*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
Little red handle anyone?
JJ

If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.

In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
to me next year!

John Cochrane BB

I ordered my PowerFlarm yesterday. I'm looking forward to not running
into BB.

9B

On Sep 2, 7:38*am, Andy wrote:
On Sep 1, 5:51*pm, Andreas Maurer wrote:

US lawyers and US product liability.

Yes, that was understood to be one of the reasons FLARM was not
available in USA in the past. * I have to wonder if making US Power
FLARM somehow different from PowerFLARM sold to the rest of the world,
and having a separate a US website, is perhaps an attempt to legally
separate the two PowerFLARM variants.

I don't see how that would work though if the manufacturing company
was the same and the alerting algorithms are common to all FLARM
products.

You know there are often simple answers to simple questions without
getting into all these complex worries. The web content for the USA is
simply being coordinated by the USA distributor and others who want to
see appropriate USA technical content available. See other comments
below why this is needed.

I've been subscribed to the PowerFLARM newsletter since Feb 2010 and
have not seen any information there, or on the PowerFLARM website,
that suggests a different product will be sold in USA.

Yes it would be great to have more information on newsletters etc. I
don't know why that is not happening, besides the team just being
buried with work. I think most people are trusting that guys who have
delivered Flarm in the past with huge success know what they are
doing.

I've tried point out before, but will do so again, is that the reason
there needs to be a USA web site is the market is different and there
are some product differences. The market differs in ADS-B adoption/
mandates here and how ADS-B will work. Key USA issues/features like
ADS-R and TIS-B make no sense to have on a European web site but very
important to talk about on a USA web site. And because of differences
in ADS-B (and even transponders) what is said for one market can be
confusing or just plain wrong in another. The product difference I
have worried about are as simple as ButterFly is offering different
levels of flight recorder as standard in different markets, that has
already caused confusion here. That's why the flight recorder was not
mentioned on the European site and is mentioned on the Craggy Aero
site (-- I know Richard is actively working to make sure all the info
on his site is up to data and correct for the USA market) and also
needs to be on a USA product web site.

Darryl

On Sep 2, 3:49*am, "Surfer!" wrote:
"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message

...

On 9/1/2010 8:48 AM, Surfer! wrote:
snip

A Flarm is less than £1k, isn't it? And what are the EASA hoops you'd have
to jump through to put a small, self-contained box on top of your
instrument panel?

Sorry misread the post I replied to and thought he was saying we should all
have a ballistic thingie. *However I do know people for whom a Flarm would
be hard to afford, and I'd also comment that the type that sites on top of
the instrument panel isn't a good choice if the coaming it sits on gets
ejected with the canopy. *To my mind a Red Box style would be better for
those gliders as it won't involve any wiring between the canopy etc. and the
rest of the glider.

The wiring issue can be easily resolved by adding a "weak link" of
some sort, such as a simple connector which will disconnect easily
when the canopy ejects.

Ramy