FLARM Technology for the US Gliding Community

On 9/17/2010 8:45 AM, cernauta wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:06:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


If a "European" FLARM is brought to US, and auto frequency selection
has not been defeated, it should be expected to switch to the same
frequency as used for US PowerFLARM.

Or still, you can select the geographic area, and the associated
frequency, by fiddling in the setup menu (using the "flarmtool" pc
interface).

Does anyone really know that Flarm actually selects a frequency and
transmits while in the USA? Since they prohibit it's use in the USA, it
seems more logical to shut off the transmitter when in the USA. If it's
legal reasons that are the basis for the prohibition, I would think
shutting it off gives far more protection from lawsuits or the FCC
regulations, when they clearly have the ability to disable it as desired.

--
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

On 9/17/2010 11:17 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 9/17/2010 8:45 AM, cernauta wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:06:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

If a "European" FLARM is brought to US, and auto frequency selection
has not been defeated, it should be expected to switch to the same
frequency as used for US PowerFLARM.
Or still, you can select the geographic area, and the associated
frequency, by fiddling in the setup menu (using the "flarmtool" pc
interface).
Does anyone really know that Flarm actually selects a frequency and
transmits while in the USA? Since they prohibit it's use in the USA,
it seems more logical to shut off the transmitter when in the USA. If
it's legal reasons that are the basis for the prohibition, I would
think shutting it off gives far more protection from lawsuits or the
FCC regulations, when they clearly have the ability to disable it as
desired.
Perhaps they could get an FCC waiver to use Flarm in the Worlds task
area, and allow Flarm to work in the task area (and nowhere else in the
USA) and only during the contest period, and only during the day. The
trick is getting the waiver, not the minor Flarm firmware additions.

--
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

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Perhaps they could get an FCC waiver to use Flarm in the Worlds task
area, and allow Flarm to work in the task area (and nowhere else in the
USA) and only during the contest period, and only during the day.

I'm not sure they would consider this, as the problem isn't the FCC but
definitely their fear of those insane US liability lawsuits. Why else
would they prohibit the use of FLARM not only in the USA but worldwide
when there is a US citizen on board?

On 9/17/2010 12:02 PM, John Smith wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Perhaps they could get an FCC waiver to use Flarm in the Worlds task
area, and allow Flarm to work in the task area (and nowhere else in the
USA) and only during the contest period, and only during the day.

I'm not sure they would consider this, as the problem isn't the FCC
but definitely their fear of those insane US liability lawsuits.
Do you know this from speaking with a principal in the Flarm company? Or
is that an assumption?
Why else would they prohibit the use of FLARM not only in the USA but
worldwide when there is a US citizen on board?

If "insane US liability lawsuits" are a problem, how will they avoid the
problem for PowerFlarm?

For that matter, how does Zaon avoid the same problem for their PCAS units?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

Eric Greenwell wrote:
I'm not sure they would consider this, as the problem isn't the FCC
but definitely their fear of those insane US liability lawsuits.

Do you know this from speaking with a principal in the Flarm company? Or
is that an assumption?

I know it from "second hand direct information", from knowing how
European people in general think about the USA liability insanity, and
last but not least the FLARM people say so on their faq page (only
available in German): www.flarm.com/support/faq/index.html

Besides, do you think they would go through the paperwork to have the
device approved by the FCC equivalents in many countries, but would
recoil at the idea to do it for the USA?

If "insane US liability lawsuits" are a problem, how will they avoid the problem for PowerFlarm?

No idea. But they are not that small startup company anymore but have
had a couple of years now to sort things out and have maybe found a way
to avoid the risk.

For that matter, how does Zaon avoid the same problem for their PCAS units?

No idea. Maybe they even don't and just gamble?

On 9/17/2010 12:58 PM, John Smith wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:
I'm not sure they would consider this, as the problem isn't the FCC
but definitely their fear of those insane US liability lawsuits.

Do you know this from speaking with a principal in the Flarm company? Or
is that an assumption?

I know it from "second hand direct information", from knowing how
European people in general think about the USA liability insanity, and
last but not least the FLARM people say so on their faq page (only
available in German): www.flarm.com/support/faq/index.html

Besides, do you think they would go through the paperwork to have the
device approved by the FCC equivalents in many countries, but would
recoil at the idea to do it for the USA?

My guesses: Perhaps the North America market was thought to be too small
and the FCC licensing too expensive; perhaps in the Euro zone, they did
not have to contend with "many countries"; licensing in at least one
country (Australia), was not done by Flarm.


If "insane US liability lawsuits" are a problem, how will they avoid
the problem for PowerFlarm?

No idea. But they are not that small startup company anymore but have
had a couple of years now to sort things out and have maybe found a
way to avoid the risk.


So, perhaps the problem is not USA and Canada's "insane liability laws",
but Flarm's understanding of them. It would be interesting to know
Flarm's reasoning and how it's changed over the years so that they are
now entering the market here.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

Eric Greenwell wrote:
It would be interesting to know Flarm's reasoning

They have an e-mail address.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

There is still no information that I could find on how the PCAS part
of the PowerFlarm will behave in a thermal full of gliders equipped
with Mod C transponders and PowerFlarms.

I would like to hear how would this unit be usable in such a
situation?

There is no way signals from Mod C transponders could be correlated
with FLARM so the PCAS would just get crazy and the unit unusable,
correct?

And what about a similar situation where gliders are only equipped
with Mod C transponders, I guess the same outcome the unit would be
unusable due to many signal sources in small area. I already
experienced this with Zaon MRX so I know this is the case.

So, how will it work? Anyone truly knows?

What I want is a pure FLARM! I don't need the annoyance of a PCAS when
I am in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders. I
also don't need ADS-B for a while until it will really be usable. Why
do I need to be early adopter of the ADS-B when I want to be an early
adopter of FLARM.

This box looks to me was designed for power pilots who don't fly very
close to a bunch of other aircraft equipped with transponders then the
PCAS is not a problem.

I am not about to purchase another annoying instrument I already have
one PCAS. It is great outside glider congested areas but not in a
contest. So unless I hear the PCAS issue is resolved in some way I am
not going to buy a unit to find out it is not doing what I need to do.

I am waiting to be corrected with FACTS.

AK

Facts? I think that's a different forum. RAS actually stands for
Rumors And Speculation.



On Sep 17, 2:22*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
Please correct me if I am wrong.

There is still no information that I could find on how the PCAS part
of the PowerFlarm will behave in a thermal full of gliders equipped
with Mod C transponders and PowerFlarms.

I would like to hear how would this unit be usable in such a
situation?

There is no way signals from Mod C transponders could be correlated
with FLARM so the PCAS would just get crazy and the unit unusable,
correct?

And what about a similar situation where gliders are only equipped
with Mod C transponders, I guess the same outcome the unit would be
unusable due to many signal sources in small area. I already
experienced this with Zaon MRX so I know this is the case.

So, how will it work? Anyone truly knows?

What I want is a pure FLARM! I don't need the annoyance of a PCAS when
I am in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders. I
also don't need ADS-B for a while until it will really be usable. Why
do I need to be early adopter of the ADS-B when I want to be an early
adopter of FLARM.

This box looks to me was designed for power pilots who don't fly very
close to a bunch of other aircraft equipped with transponders then the
PCAS is not a problem.

I am not about to purchase another annoying instrument I already have
one PCAS. It is great outside glider congested areas but not in a
contest. So unless I hear the PCAS issue is resolved in some way I am
not going to buy a unit to find out it is not doing what I need to do.

I am waiting to be corrected with FACTS.

AK

On Sep 17, 2:22*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
Please correct me if I am wrong.

There is still no information that I could find on how the PCAS part
of the PowerFlarm will behave in a thermal full of gliders equipped
with Mod C transponders and PowerFlarms.

I would like to hear how would this unit be usable in such a
situation?

There is no way signals from Mod C transponders could be correlated
with FLARM so the PCAS would just get crazy and the unit unusable,
correct?

And what about a similar situation where gliders are only equipped
with Mod C transponders, I guess the same outcome the unit would be
unusable due to many signal sources in small area. I already
experienced this with Zaon MRX so I know this is the case.

So, how will it work? Anyone truly knows?

What I want is a pure FLARM! I don't need the annoyance of a PCAS when
I am in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders. I
also don't need ADS-B for a while until it will really be usable. Why
do I need to be early adopter of the ADS-B when I want to be an early
adopter of FLARM.

This box looks to me was designed for power pilots who don't fly very
close to a bunch of other aircraft equipped with transponders then the
PCAS is not a problem.

I am not about to purchase another annoying instrument I already have
one PCAS. It is great outside glider congested areas but not in a
contest. So unless I hear the PCAS issue is resolved in some way I am
not going to buy a unit to find out it is not doing what I need to do.

I am waiting to be corrected with FACTS.

AK

This has already been discussed in threads here. As you point out PCAS
cannot work in crowded gaggles - so you disable the PCAS alarm in
those situation. As I've pointed out before it's not just that it will
be annoying, it is that the Mode C transponders fundamentally wont'
work properly in crowded gaggles. There is no other way "resolve" this
issue, so you turn it off. This is a product designed to work in
contest environments, the developers understand these issues.

Darryl