A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 25th 12, 12:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Robert Fidler[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update

Like to share my observations flying with a portable flarm with just
installed updated firmware 1.20 which displays Mode C transponders. My son
purchase the unit last summer for the FAI contest at Ulvalde. He was
impressed with its operation. I have had 2 long flights in Florida in the
last week after borrowing his unit to fly in Florida this winter. The unit
has just been received back from Flarm after installation of all available
updates, (new antennas and whatever else the factory needed to correct on
the new US units) and must say, I am impressed. The system seems to operate
as adveritised. The disappointing point is that no other gliders flying at
Seminole are using a Flarm at this time. Operation of the unit is basically
idiot proof as you simply turn the unit on, let it boot up and fly, no long
setup required. I have had numerous hits on the unit but not one audible
warning for a take action inflight avoidance required. I have had visual
contact with numerous transponder equipped aircraft that have been
displayed on the flarm screen. The distane and altitude depiction of the
traffic aircraft seems to be absolutely correct.
With collisions being a major risk of flying gliders, I would recommend all
pilots consider installation of Flarm. Frankly, I want Flarm to be
mandatory in all Gliders, I hope all of you do too. Look at it this way,
this Flarm is progress, trust me.



Ads
  #2  
Old January 25th 12, 04:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,433
Default Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update

That all sounds great except for the "mandatory" part. STAY THE HELL OUT OF
MY COCKPIT!


"Robert Fidler" wrote in message
.com...
Like to share my observations flying with a portable flarm with just
installed updated firmware 1.20 which displays Mode C transponders. My son
purchase the unit last summer for the FAI contest at Ulvalde. He was
impressed with its operation. I have had 2 long flights in Florida in the
last week after borrowing his unit to fly in Florida this winter. The
unit
has just been received back from Flarm after installation of all available
updates, (new antennas and whatever else the factory needed to correct on
the new US units) and must say, I am impressed. The system seems to
operate
as adveritised. The disappointing point is that no other gliders flying at
Seminole are using a Flarm at this time. Operation of the unit is
basically
idiot proof as you simply turn the unit on, let it boot up and fly, no
long
setup required. I have had numerous hits on the unit but not one audible
warning for a take action inflight avoidance required. I have had visual
contact with numerous transponder equipped aircraft that have been
displayed on the flarm screen. The distane and altitude depiction of the
traffic aircraft seems to be absolutely correct.
With collisions being a major risk of flying gliders, I would recommend
all
pilots consider installation of Flarm. Frankly, I want Flarm to be
mandatory in all Gliders, I hope all of you do too. Look at it this way,
this Flarm is progress, trust me.




  #3  
Old January 25th 12, 06:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Derek Mackie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update

I'll admit to being one of the ones with a faulty unit from Uvalde and
disappointed that I was not able to see it in action. Before I sent
my unit back for the repairs I installed the ADS-B firmware and was
VERY impressed. It is easy and intuitive to use and I have high hopes
for whenever I get mine back. To me, it is an obvious addition to my
cockpit. I'm not rich, but I look at it this way: I spent $1500 for a
parachute that I hope never to use. If I ever do have to use it, it
will most likely be AFTER a mid-air. The way I see it, if I spend
$1500 on a unit that allows me to never use my parachute, that's a
pretty good deal.

Mandate ME? Never! Mandate the rest of you so I can see you?
Hmmmm.....

Derek
  #4  
Old January 25th 12, 07:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
kirk.stant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,257
Default Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update

On Jan 25, 9:54*am, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
That all sounds great except for the "mandatory" part. *STAY THE HELL OUT OF
MY COCKPIT!


If it would keep YOUR cockpit out of MY cockpit - then yes, it should
be mandatory!

Just like parachutes are mandatory at contests, or radios, or ELTs,
etc.

Heck, it should be mandatory for anything that flies!

Ok, now, seriously. Relax. No one wants the feds to mandate it -
look at what they are trying with ADS-B and how messed up that program
is!

In a perfect world, the FAA would just GIVE a PowerFLARM to every
pilot when he got his license!

That word "mandatory" sure presses a lot of buttons!

Kirk
66

  #5  
Old January 26th 12, 02:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update

I think any intelligent, safety conscious cross country glider (flying in area's where other gliders, tow-planes, etc are regularly operating) pilot would (out of respect to him/herself and his/her fellow pilots lives and safety) spend the $1600 to greatly improve his/her situation awareness relating to collision risk with gliders and other aircraft. I say this with as much restraint as possible.

I can say that in Uvalde last summer I came within 100m of a head on collision (open class gliders) twice on the same day. I can guarantee that neither of them saw me. I believe this was on the first or second contest day. It scared the **** out of me because the never flinched...and this kind of thing a risk we all needlessly assume when one or some pilots are not protecting all of us.

About 30 seconds later I picked up a FLARM equipped glider and was able to pick it up roughly 1 mile away and steer clear.

It seems fairly irrational to me NOT to take advantage of an affordable, available anti collision instrument which when operating properly (and in all aircraft) greatly decreases the risk of a surprise collision (the kind where each pilot is completely unaware that the other glider is approaching).

Unfortunately, the reality is that this kind of intelligent, rational action will not happen until yet another pilot (or pair of pilots...perhaps more) are killed in the next (now pointless) fatal collision. I would not be surprised if, ironically, it was a FLARM glider vs. a non FLARM glider.

Mandatory is a bad word, agreed. But pilots respecting safety intensely (their own as well as their fellow pilots (both glider and power)) is a great thing in my opinion. I wish we had more of these kind of pilots.

I have only been flying for 8-9 years to date... and very limited at that. I have now flown 4-5 contests. I have narrowly missed collision now at least 4 times. I wonder how many I did not see at all?

Flying without a electronic means of warning for collision is not an IF questions, it is a WHEN questions. Unfortunately, when the next big name contest or cross country pilot dies because of a midair...this debate will end.

Until then,

Sean
F2
  #6  
Old January 26th 12, 06:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
LK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update

On Jan 25, 6:39*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
I think any intelligent, safety conscious cross country glider (flying in area's where other gliders, tow-planes, etc are regularly operating) pilot would (out of respect to him/herself and his/her fellow pilots lives and safety) spend the $1600 to greatly improve his/her situation awareness relating to collision risk with gliders and other aircraft. *I say this with as much restraint as possible.

I can say that in Uvalde last summer I came within 100m of a head on collision (open class gliders) twice on the same day. *I can guarantee that neither of them saw me. *I believe this was on the first or second contest day. *It scared the **** out of me because the never flinched...and this kind of thing a risk we all needlessly assume when one or some pilots are not protecting all of us.

About 30 seconds later I picked up a FLARM equipped glider and was able to pick it up roughly 1 mile away and steer clear.

It seems fairly irrational to me NOT to take advantage of an affordable, available anti collision instrument which when operating properly (and in all aircraft) greatly decreases the risk of a surprise collision (the kind where each pilot is completely unaware that the other glider is approaching)..

Unfortunately, the reality is that this kind of intelligent, rational action will not happen until yet another pilot (or pair of pilots...perhaps more) are killed in the next (now pointless) fatal collision. *I would not be surprised if, ironically, it was a FLARM glider vs. a non FLARM glider.

Mandatory is a bad word, agreed. *But pilots respecting safety intensely (their own as well as their fellow pilots (both glider and power)) is a great thing in my opinion. *I wish we had more of these kind of pilots.

I have only been flying for 8-9 years to date... and very limited at that.. *I have now flown 4-5 contests. *I have narrowly missed collision now at least 4 times. *I wonder how many I did not see at all?

Flying without a electronic means of warning for collision is not an IF questions, it is a WHEN questions. *Unfortunately, when the next big name contest or cross country pilot dies because of a midair...this debate will end.

Until then,

Sean
F2


  #7  
Old January 26th 12, 08:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
bumper[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 431
Default Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update

On Jan 25, 7:54*am, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
That all sounds great except for the "mandatory" part. *STAY THE HELL OUT OF
MY COCKPIT!


Mandatory" is no stranger to aviation, so the gub'ment will not be
staying out of our cockpits

If we were not putting innocent lives at risk I could more easily see
your point. As an example, with some air space exeptions, transponder
use is not mandatory for gliders in the US. We've had one mid-air and
several close calls involving non-transponder equipped gliders near
Minden. Transponder use, though fairly high here , is not universal.
The specter of a glider vs airliner mid-air is unthinkable and would
doubtless devastate soaring. "Mandatory" would most certainly follow
such an accident . . . should it be implemented before rather than
after?

Some regulations are (I'll be kind) clueless and excessive, but some
are for the overall good. When on balance the benefit to society
outweighs the individual right to freedom, I have no problem with
"mandatory". At least so long as it's reasonable, effective, and the
least intrusive to get the job done.

I don't think there's much risk of PowerFlarm being mandated by the
FAA . . . ever. It's too practical, inexpensive, and sensible for a
government program. It works. Well. If you don't have one on order
yet, please do yourself and all your fellow pilots a favor and do it..
It's best to see what your are missing.

bumper

bumper
  #8  
Old January 26th 12, 04:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,433
Default Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update

Yes, words like "mandatory" do press my buttons. It seems that we give up
our rights bit by bit - "it's such a little thing, and it'll make everyone
safer". But once you give up a little, it's not hard to be asked for more
and near impossible to get back what you've lost. Tried to carry nail
clippers on an airliner lately?

Why don't we all try to look outside rather than spend our soaring
experience staring at color moving maps and relying on some other electronic
doo-dad to keep us from running into each other? So... If your Flim-FLARM
makes you invulnerable to collisions, why don't you give your parachute
away?

I was amazed to hear that serious consideration was given to cancelling a
contest because GPS might have been unavailable due to testing. Why not
"mandate" that everyone keep their camera mounts so that we don't "have to"
cancel a contest? Why not "mandate" that we can't have a contest without
sufficient observers at the turn points to verify that the gliders actually
flew over?

Though I may sound ****ed, I'm not - I'm just disappointed in the attitude
that everything can be fixed with electronics and regulations and that Big
Brother will protect us from the boogie man.

I wish winter would end.

"kirk.stant" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 9:54 am, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
That all sounds great except for the "mandatory" part. STAY THE HELL OUT
OF
MY COCKPIT!


If it would keep YOUR cockpit out of MY cockpit - then yes, it should
be mandatory!

Just like parachutes are mandatory at contests, or radios, or ELTs,
etc.

Heck, it should be mandatory for anything that flies!

Ok, now, seriously. Relax. No one wants the feds to mandate it -
look at what they are trying with ADS-B and how messed up that program
is!

In a perfect world, the FAA would just GIVE a PowerFLARM to every
pilot when he got his license!

That word "mandatory" sure presses a lot of buttons!

Kirk
66

  #9  
Old January 26th 12, 05:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,433
Default Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update

God, I wish winter would end...

So, I'm not intelligent or safety conscious because I don't want to buy the
same equipment that you think is cheap? I just spent about $3,000
installing a Mode S transponder in my glider when it's not required by any
regulation, but it should make me more visible to ATC, airliners, TCAS
equipped aircraft, etc. These are the things I'm worried about close to the
big airport 40 miles away. I'm just not interested in a device that will
only alert me (maybe) to other aircraft with the same equipment.

There's no room in my cockpit to install another box. Oh, yes, I could
replace something that I want in my panel, mount it on top of the glare
shield or jury-rig some sort of mount that hangs off the canopy frame, but
that would block my view outside thus requiring me to rely on the magic box
to protect me from the target blocked from my view by the box itself. And,
by the way, I had a close encounter with a VFR twin engined aircraft just
last week, but eyes outside for both of us prevented a collision.

If the contest committee wants to require FLARM to fly in sanctioned
contests, that's fine with me. I haven't flown a contest since GPS scoring
became required.

It seems to me that those wanting FLARM to be in all gliders are those who
want to fly in close proximity to a bunch of other gliders (contests). I,
and many like me, aren't interested in contests or gaggles. I fly in very
remote areas with relatively few aircraft and FLARM could only benefit me
within a few miles of the home airport. FLARM sounds good for you.

Maybe I'll change my opinion when there's something that doesn't depend on
equipment not likely to ever appear in the vast majority of other aircraft,
ADS-B, perhaps. When the airlines and general aviation crowd install FLARM,
come talk to me about it.


"Sean Fidler" wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
I think any intelligent, safety conscious cross country glider (flying in
area's where other gliders, tow-planes, etc are regularly operating) pilot
would (out of respect to him/herself and his/her fellow pilots lives and
safety) spend the $1600 to greatly improve his/her situation awareness
relating to collision risk with gliders and other aircraft. I say this with
as much restraint as possible.

I can say that in Uvalde last summer I came within 100m of a head on
collision (open class gliders) twice on the same day. I can guarantee that
neither of them saw me. I believe this was on the first or second contest
day. It scared the **** out of me because the never flinched...and this
kind of thing a risk we all needlessly assume when one or some pilots are
not protecting all of us.

About 30 seconds later I picked up a FLARM equipped glider and was able to
pick it up roughly 1 mile away and steer clear.

It seems fairly irrational to me NOT to take advantage of an affordable,
available anti collision instrument which when operating properly (and in
all aircraft) greatly decreases the risk of a surprise collision (the kind
where each pilot is completely unaware that the other glider is
approaching).

Unfortunately, the reality is that this kind of intelligent, rational action
will not happen until yet another pilot (or pair of pilots...perhaps more)
are killed in the next (now pointless) fatal collision. I would not be
surprised if, ironically, it was a FLARM glider vs. a non FLARM glider.

Mandatory is a bad word, agreed. But pilots respecting safety intensely
(their own as well as their fellow pilots (both glider and power)) is a
great thing in my opinion. I wish we had more of these kind of pilots.

I have only been flying for 8-9 years to date... and very limited at that.
I have now flown 4-5 contests. I have narrowly missed collision now at
least 4 times. I wonder how many I did not see at all?

Flying without a electronic means of warning for collision is not an IF
questions, it is a WHEN questions. Unfortunately, when the next big name
contest or cross country pilot dies because of a midair...this debate will
end.

Until then,

Sean
F2

  #10  
Old January 26th 12, 05:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,433
Default Flarm with Firmware 1.20 update

Many of your points are valid for your area of operation. Where I fly, we
see a couple of power planes on a busy day. We are, however, under the
arrival route to ABQ and so we see a lot more airline, military, and large
general aviation traffic at or above around 12,000 MSL. That's why, even
though not required, I installed a Mode-S transponder. ATC is not
interested in talking to me unless I go into the Class A or C areas but it's
my hope that they'll tell their clients about my presence. I'm not
confident of that happening, so I'll keep looking outside.

Equipment which I would agree is beneficial to everyone in your area doesn't
make a lot of sense to me where I fly. To me, it's like requiring east
coast fliers to carry desert survival equipment. When I lived in Alaska
back in the 70s, it was mandatory for GA pilots to be armed (gasp!), and to
have food, axd, knife, etc. Try that in New york!

Maybe I'm wrong (it's happened before), but it's my understanding that FLARM
only works with other FLARM-equipped aircraft. Maybe it was originally that
way and has since been corrected, but, if my assumption is correct, how
would it prevent a collision with an airliner?

As I said in another post, there's no place to put it in my cockpit anyway
whthout blocking my view outside.

"bumper" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 7:54 am, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
That all sounds great except for the "mandatory" part. STAY THE HELL OUT
OF
MY COCKPIT!


Mandatory" is no stranger to aviation, so the gub'ment will not be
staying out of our cockpits

If we were not putting innocent lives at risk I could more easily see
your point. As an example, with some air space exeptions, transponder
use is not mandatory for gliders in the US. We've had one mid-air and
several close calls involving non-transponder equipped gliders near
Minden. Transponder use, though fairly high here , is not universal.
The specter of a glider vs airliner mid-air is unthinkable and would
doubtless devastate soaring. "Mandatory" would most certainly follow
such an accident . . . should it be implemented before rather than
after?

Some regulations are (I'll be kind) clueless and excessive, but some
are for the overall good. When on balance the benefit to society
outweighs the individual right to freedom, I have no problem with
"mandatory". At least so long as it's reasonable, effective, and the
least intrusive to get the job done.

I don't think there's much risk of PowerFlarm being mandated by the
FAA . . . ever. It's too practical, inexpensive, and sensible for a
government program. It works. Well. If you don't have one on order
yet, please do yourself and all your fellow pilots a favor and do it..
It's best to see what your are missing.

bumper

bumper

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PowerFLARM Portable - Firmware Update Available - Mode C Traffic Now Supported Paul Remde Soaring 24 January 22nd 12 02:50 AM
FLARM UPDATE? Stephen Michalik Soaring 6 March 20th 11 05:24 PM
FLARM firmware release schedule Andy[_1_] Soaring 11 January 5th 11 07:09 PM
Garmin GPS496 Firmware Update John Smith Piloting 0 July 23rd 08 02:38 AM
Garmin 196 firmware update v3.1 released Aloft Piloting 0 August 13th 03 12:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.