Another FLARM thread

The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
start a new one.

I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
report again. I had read it when it was first published but since
FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
It's worth a read:

http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf

I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
were implemented. I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
heading referenced display was ever developed.

The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
situation. It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
and alerts.

That thread can be found at

http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=

Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
with it?

How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? Do all FLARM
manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
given situation be manufacturer dependent? So far I'm only aware of
one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
other FLARM systems.

Andy

On Aug 13, 11:00*am, Andy wrote:
The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
start a new one.

I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
It's worth a read:

http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf

I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
heading referenced display was ever developed.

The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
and alerts.

That thread can be found at

http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=

Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
with it?

How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
other FLARM *systems.

Andy

All manufactures use the same core Flarm technology/protocol versions
etc. and will issue the same alerts. Flarm even has a fancy system
that will expire all firmware on a certain date, effectively allowing
them to update over-the-air protocols etc.

I think that reading that report is a good reminder in general that
even with a well designed simple UI that these systems are the sort of
things that at a minimum pilots need to spend time getting used to.

(And sorry to twist this thread as well but...) One thing missing in
that "other thread" is that if we are worried about mid-air collisions
in contests then Flarm has an important feature of being able to
disable "spying" on your competitors but still provides traffic alert
warnings. Even PCAS can help by looking at climb rates of nearby
gliders (yes I'm talking about you Ramy! :-)). Flarm and ADS-B could
potentially allow you to see all nearby gliders, their altitudes,
climb rates etc. And a UAT could receive FIS-B weather information.
All good stuff in many situations but some of that is going to be a
headache for contest rules folks and contest organizers in future. At
least Flarm devices with their contest mode handles the Flarm side of
that well today, although it will be interesting to see what happens
if some gliders have ADS-B data-out. I pity the poor guys on the rule
committee dealing with all this.

Darryl

On Aug 13, 11:35*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 13, 11:00*am, Andy wrote:





The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
start a new one.

I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
It's worth a read:

http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf

I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
heading referenced display was ever developed.

The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
and alerts.

That thread can be found at

http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=

Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
with it?

How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
other FLARM *systems.

Andy

All manufactures use the same core Flarm technology/protocol versions
etc. and will issue the same alerts. Flarm even has a fancy system
that will expire all firmware on a certain date, effectively allowing
them to update over-the-air protocols etc.

I think that reading that report is a good reminder in general that
even with a well designed simple UI that these systems are the sort of
things that at a minimum pilots need to spend time getting used to.

(And sorry to twist this thread as well but...) One thing missing in
that "other thread" is that if we are worried about mid-air collisions
in contests then Flarm has an important feature of being able to
disable "spying" on your competitors but still provides traffic alert
warnings. Even PCAS can help by looking at climb rates of nearby
gliders (yes I'm talking about you Ramy! :-)). Flarm and ADS-B could
potentially allow you to see all nearby gliders, their altitudes,
climb rates etc. And a UAT could receive FIS-B weather information.
All good stuff in many situations but some of that is going to be a
headache for contest rules folks and contest organizers in future. At
least Flarm devices with their contest mode handles the Flarm side of
that well today, although it will be interesting to see what happens
if some gliders have ADS-B data-out. I pity the poor guys on the rule
committee dealing with all this.

Darryl- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Soooo, aside from first needing to be anywhere NEAR Ramy, what is it I
need to 'spy' on him??

On 13 Aug, 19:00, Andy wrote:
The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
start a new one.

I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
It's worth a read:

http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf

I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
heading referenced display was ever developed.

The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
and alerts.

That thread can be found at

http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=

Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
with it?

How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
other FLARM *systems.

Andy

Andy,

We have not published any follow up to the 2007 SGU trial and there
has been no modification to the Flarm software or hardware to correct
the direction of the alert display from track to heading. In practice
the track versus heading issue that we identified is only a
significant problem when the crabbing angle is very noticeable such as
low airspeed ridge or wave soaring. It rarely shows in thermal
soaring.

I think that the 2007 trial report is still valid - the main
difference is that Version 4.** software, released later, seems to be
subtly better in terms of appropriateness of alerts.

There is as yet no formalised training in the UK for Flarm users.
Some of us think that this is very important - especially as we now
have a generation of ab initios who are learning to fly in Flarm
equipped gliders.

There are several manufacturers who sell equipment that includes Flarm
functionality under license. As Darryl explains, they all use the
same algorithm. Given the close proximity that gliders operate in
and their distinctive modes of flight it would make no sense to use
different algorithms within one region otherwise there could easily
arise the situation that one unit predicts a collision risk whereas
the other does not.

I see Flarm as primarily being the glider-optimised collision alert
software and the discussions of "Flarm versus ADSB" as a red herring
because whatever hardware platform is used a single common predictive
algorithm is essential. Any ADSB manufacturer/s that wished to
include an effective glider anti-collision system alternative to Flarm
would have to arrange between manufacturers to write and agree common
algorithms ( could they do that and would they have the gliding
expertise?) or use the Flarm algorithm under license - which would
make far more sense.

As regards the u.r.a.s. debate about how to respond to head on
alerts, the main thing to emphasise is that Flarm is an aid to see
and avoid. The alert tone is far more important to me than the
directional display. In the cruise when an alert sounds look out and
around. If the alert is from ahead it will usually be from a glider
that you can acquire visually very quickly. If not then a quick
glance at the display is helpful. If the the other glider is in our
blind spot then my personal view is that a small but early correction
according to the internationally recognised rules of the air is the
best action. When thermalling with other Flarm equipped gliders the
Flarm audio alert mainly serves as an intermittent warning to keep
looking out and the visual display is of limited use - as the Flarm
manual points out.

As regards the view that Flarm is no use unless all gliders have one,
I don't think that is entirely true - the value is basically in
proportion to the fraction of gliders that have it, but that value is
magnified for an individual if he tends to fly in the company of
specific other gliders that are also Flarm equipped. All, I think, of
the gliders at our club that I am likely to fly cross country with
have Flarms as do all the club two seaters - the most intensive
circuit fliers. So although there are still many non-Flarmed glides
gliders the ones that I am most likely to encounter are Flarm
equipped.

John Galloway

On Aug 13, 3:04*pm, johngalloway wrote:
On 13 Aug, 19:00, Andy wrote:



The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
start a new one.

I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
It's worth a read:

http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf

I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
heading referenced display was ever developed.

The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
and alerts.

That thread can be found at

http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=

Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
with it?

How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
other FLARM *systems.

Andy

Andy,

We have not published any follow up to the 2007 SGU trial and there
has been no modification to the Flarm software or hardware to correct
the direction of the alert display from track to heading. *In practice
the track versus heading issue that we identified is only a
significant problem when the crabbing angle is very noticeable such as
low airspeed ridge or wave soaring. * It rarely shows in thermal
soaring.

I think that the 2007 trial report is still valid - the main
difference is that Version 4.** software, released later, seems to be
subtly better in terms of appropriateness of alerts.

There is as yet no formalised training in the UK for Flarm users.
Some of us think that this is very important - especially as we now
have a generation of ab initios who are learning to fly in Flarm
equipped gliders.

There are several manufacturers who sell equipment that includes Flarm
functionality under license. *As Darryl explains, they all use the
same algorithm. * Given the close proximity that gliders operate in
and their distinctive modes of flight it would make no sense to use
different algorithms within one region otherwise there could easily
arise the situation that one unit predicts a collision risk whereas
the other does not.

I see Flarm as primarily being the glider-optimised collision alert
software and the discussions of "Flarm versus ADSB" as a red herring
because whatever hardware platform is used a *single common predictive
algorithm is essential. *Any ADSB manufacturer/s that wished to
include an effective glider anti-collision system alternative to Flarm
would have to arrange between manufacturers to write and agree common
algorithms ( could they do that and would they have the gliding
expertise?) or use the Flarm algorithm under license - which would
make far more sense.

As regards the u.r.a.s. debate about how to respond to head on
alerts, *the main thing to emphasise is that Flarm is an aid to see
and avoid. *The alert tone is far more important to me than the
directional display. *In the cruise when an alert sounds look out and
around. *If the alert is from ahead it will usually be from a glider
that you can acquire visually very quickly. *If not then a quick
glance at the display is helpful. *If the the other glider is in our
blind spot then my personal view is that a small but early correction
according to the internationally recognised rules of the air is the
best action. * When thermalling with other Flarm equipped gliders the
Flarm audio alert mainly serves as an intermittent warning to keep
looking out and the visual display is of limited use - as the Flarm
manual points out.

As regards the view that Flarm is no use unless all gliders have one,
I don't think that is entirely true - the value is basically in
proportion to the fraction of gliders that have it, but that value is
magnified for an individual if he tends to fly in the company of
specific other gliders that are also Flarm equipped. *All, I think, of
the gliders at our club that I am likely to fly cross country with
have Flarms as do all the club two seaters - the most intensive
circuit fliers. So although there are still many non-Flarmed glides
gliders the ones that I am most likely to encounter are Flarm
equipped.

John Galloway

A question, to John or anyone who knows-
FLARM has skipped the US but now we hope PowerFlarm will come (I have
one on order). For some the cost of PowerFlarm will be too much but
the cost of Flarm only (no mode c detection) would make it more likely
to get bought/installed. Do we think Flarm only is a coming soon? I
see that Butterfly makes them.

Brian

On Aug 13, 3:04*pm, johngalloway wrote:
On 13 Aug, 19:00, Andy wrote:





The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
start a new one.

I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
It's worth a read:

http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf

I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
heading referenced display was ever developed.

The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
and alerts.

That thread can be found at

http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=

Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
with it?

How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
other FLARM *systems.

Andy

Andy,

We have not published any follow up to the 2007 SGU trial and there
has been no modification to the Flarm software or hardware to correct
the direction of the alert display from track to heading. *In practice
the track versus heading issue that we identified is only a
significant problem when the crabbing angle is very noticeable such as
low airspeed ridge or wave soaring. * It rarely shows in thermal
soaring.

I think that the 2007 trial report is still valid - the main
difference is that Version 4.** software, released later, seems to be
subtly better in terms of appropriateness of alerts.

There is as yet no formalised training in the UK for Flarm users.
Some of us think that this is very important - especially as we now
have a generation of ab initios who are learning to fly in Flarm
equipped gliders.

There are several manufacturers who sell equipment that includes Flarm
functionality under license. *As Darryl explains, they all use the
same algorithm. * Given the close proximity that gliders operate in
and their distinctive modes of flight it would make no sense to use
different algorithms within one region otherwise there could easily
arise the situation that one unit predicts a collision risk whereas
the other does not.

I see Flarm as primarily being the glider-optimised collision alert
software and the discussions of "Flarm versus ADSB" as a red herring
because whatever hardware platform is used a *single common predictive
algorithm is essential. *Any ADSB manufacturer/s that wished to
include an effective glider anti-collision system alternative to Flarm
would have to arrange between manufacturers to write and agree common
algorithms ( could they do that and would they have the gliding
expertise?) or use the Flarm algorithm under license - which would
make far more sense.

As regards the u.r.a.s. debate about how to respond to head on
alerts, *the main thing to emphasise is that Flarm is an aid to see
and avoid. *The alert tone is far more important to me than the
directional display. *In the cruise when an alert sounds look out and
around. *If the alert is from ahead it will usually be from a glider
that you can acquire visually very quickly. *If not then a quick
glance at the display is helpful. *If the the other glider is in our
blind spot then my personal view is that a small but early correction
according to the internationally recognised rules of the air is the
best action. * When thermalling with other Flarm equipped gliders the
Flarm audio alert mainly serves as an intermittent warning to keep
looking out and the visual display is of limited use - as the Flarm
manual points out.

As regards the view that Flarm is no use unless all gliders have one,
I don't think that is entirely true - the value is basically in
proportion to the fraction of gliders that have it, but that value is
magnified for an individual if he tends to fly in the company of
specific other gliders that are also Flarm equipped. *All, I think, of
the gliders at our club that I am likely to fly cross country with
have Flarms as do all the club two seaters - the most intensive
circuit fliers. So although there are still many non-Flarmed glides
gliders the ones that I am most likely to encounter are Flarm
equipped.

John Galloway

On Aug 13, 3:04*pm, johngalloway wrote:
On 13 Aug, 19:00, Andy wrote:





The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
start a new one.

I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
It's worth a read:

http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf

I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
heading referenced display was ever developed.

The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
and alerts.

That thread can be found at

http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=

Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
with it?

How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
other FLARM *systems.

Andy

Andy,

We have not published any follow up to the 2007 SGU trial and there
has been no modification to the Flarm software or hardware to correct
the direction of the alert display from track to heading. *In practice
the track versus heading issue that we identified is only a
significant problem when the crabbing angle is very noticeable such as
low airspeed ridge or wave soaring. * It rarely shows in thermal
soaring.

I think that the 2007 trial report is still valid - the main
difference is that Version 4.** software, released later, seems to be
subtly better in terms of appropriateness of alerts.

There is as yet no formalised training in the UK for Flarm users.
Some of us think that this is very important - especially as we now
have a generation of ab initios who are learning to fly in Flarm
equipped gliders.

There are several manufacturers who sell equipment that includes Flarm
functionality under license. *As Darryl explains, they all use the
same algorithm. * Given the close proximity that gliders operate in
and their distinctive modes of flight it would make no sense to use
different algorithms within one region otherwise there could easily
arise the situation that one unit predicts a collision risk whereas
the other does not.

I see Flarm as primarily being the glider-optimised collision alert
software and the discussions of "Flarm versus ADSB" as a red herring
because whatever hardware platform is used a *single common predictive
algorithm is essential. *Any ADSB manufacturer/s that wished to
include an effective glider anti-collision system alternative to Flarm
would have to arrange between manufacturers to write and agree common
algorithms ( could they do that and would they have the gliding
expertise?) or use the Flarm algorithm under license - which would
make far more sense.

As regards the u.r.a.s. debate about how to respond to head on
alerts, *the main thing to emphasise is that Flarm is an aid to see
and avoid. *The alert tone is far more important to me than the
directional display. *In the cruise when an alert sounds look out and
around. *If the alert is from ahead it will usually be from a glider
that you can acquire visually very quickly. *If not then a quick
glance at the display is helpful. *If the the other glider is in our
blind spot then my personal view is that a small but early correction
according to the internationally recognised rules of the air is the
best action. * When thermalling with other Flarm equipped gliders the
Flarm audio alert mainly serves as an intermittent warning to keep
looking out and the visual display is of limited use - as the Flarm
manual points out.

As regards the view that Flarm is no use unless all gliders have one,
I don't think that is entirely true - the value is basically in
proportion to the fraction of gliders that have it, but that value is
magnified for an individual if he tends to fly in the company of
specific other gliders that are also Flarm equipped. *All, I think, of
the gliders at our club that I am likely to fly cross country with
have Flarms as do all the club two seaters - the most intensive
circuit fliers. So although there are still many non-Flarmed glides
gliders the ones that I am most likely to encounter are Flarm
equipped.

John Galloway

This thread further confirms for me that the most appropriate path for
sailplanes in the US is Flarm-based solutions - this is particularly
the case for contest scenarios, but also any situation where glider-
glider collisions are the biggest threat. While General Aviation
implementations of ADS-B should be useful for avoiding collisions with
General Aviation or commercial aircraft, the unique characteristics of
soaring flight paths make solutions customized to that environment far
more useful in the glider-glider scenario.

I fly out of Minden, NV where there is moderate glider traffic, a busy
international airport to the north and plenty of GA and corporate jet
operations. By far the most conflicting traffic I observe is other
gliders (and I would argue that gliders are harder rather than easier
to pick up in a visual scan). The false positive issues associated
with high density glider operations for non-glider-optimized
solutions, especially contests, ridge environments, cloud streets,
etc. make technology optimized for solving the glider-glider problem
far more attractive to me. I don't want a solution that overwhelms me
with false alerts at exactly the moment I need it the most.

It's also pretty clear to me that few, if any, non-glider focused
manufacturers are going to go to the trouble of solving the glider-
glider problem well - not soon, probably not ever. Therefore I think
the best path forward is to put support around a standard solution
that solves the glider-glider problem first and layers on the other
scenarios as practical. PowerFlarm seems like that solution. Waiting
for ADS-B UAT as an alternative will take too long and in the end not
solve the highest priority problem, unless a Flarm licensee does it,
in which case endorsing Flarm now as the most critical standard is
still the right thing to do.

9B

I'm still trying to track down two flarm questions. Maybe r.a.s.
readers know the answers.

1. Does the Power-Flarm include a flight recorder? If so are there
plans to make it ICG approved? Obviously, the fact that regular flarm
also serves as an igc flight recorder is a big plus for pilots. The
various websites are silent on this issue, leading me to suspect power
flarm does not have any recorder capability. But I can't imagine they
would leave that out, or at least a non-igc recorder that can produce
an igc file.

2. What is the status for the US of the various LX flarm products? The
LX website lists all sorts of interesting licensed flarm products
http://www.lxnavigation.si/avionics/products.html
including the "mini box" the "red box", the colibri/flarm, and
displays. There are also the full fledged computers with integrated
flarm. Are these for sale in the US? Will they be? How are they
affected by FCC certification of power flarm and its frequency?

I've gotten various answers to both questions. Does anybody know?

John Cochrane

The only unit I've actually owned so far was the OZFLARM. It was
easily updated with Flarmtool. The pilot and glider info can be
changed, and the frequency could be selected for use in different
countries.
Any of the FLARMs that I have used will create an IGC file. Some
have full IGC certification for use on records, etc. On most, there is
no ENL recorded but some have an ENL option. They also output NMEA
data to a PDA or other flight display or computer.
There are various systems available, including "black box" types for
use with your PDA software (SeeYou, XCSoar, WinPilot, etc) or with
external display easily mounted in the panel. Some have USB
connections for downloading the log or updating firmware.
There is an audio module available for traffic alerts: "Traffic 1
o'clock 300' higher" etc.
Even in the USA I have seen LX8000 advertised for sale with internal
FLARM.
On the last day of a contest, one entry (a self-launcher) lost
communication with his GPS as he was warming up, couldn't fix it and
was going to scrub the day. I was running the grid... Had him close
the engine bay, taped and signed it, told him to take a tow. He used
the igc file from his (non-ENL) OZFLARM and won the day.
The one time my FLARM screamed at me unexpectedly, I was grateful
for the input:
Under a cloud street, head-on, within 200' horizontally and
vertically, high cruise speeds. Timely and accurate information.
Jim

Links...
Original Swiss FLARM:
http://www.flarm.com/

Butterfly Aero:
http://www.butterfly.aero/powerflarm/fly/

LX Avionics:
http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/power-flarm.htm

Triadis Speech Alert:
http://www.swiftavionics.com.au/prod...lert%20System/

One US dealer for PowerFLARM:
http://www.craggyaero.com/powerflarm.htm

One US dealer for LX:
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/lx.htm#LX8000

Version 4 update details:
http://www.flarm.com/support/updates/index_en.html

On Aug 14, 8:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
I'm still trying to track down two flarm questions. Maybe r.a.s.
readers know the answers.

1. Does the Power-Flarm include a flight recorder? If so are there
plans to make it ICG approved? Obviously, the fact that regular flarm
also serves as an igc flight recorder is a big plus for pilots. The
various websites are silent on this issue, leading me to suspect power
flarm does not have any recorder capability. But I can't imagine they
would leave that out, or at least a non-igc recorder that can produce
an igc file.

2. What is the status for the US of the various LX flarm products? The
LX website lists all sorts of interesting licensed flarm productshttp://www.lxnavigation.si/avionics/products.html
including the "mini box" the "red box", the colibri/flarm, and
displays. There are also the full fledged computers with integrated
flarm. Are these for sale in the US? Will they be? How are they
affected by FCC certification of power flarm and its frequency?

I've gotten various answers to both questions. Does anybody know?

John Cochrane

I'm 90% sure that the PowerFlarm distributor for the US told me that
the unit includes an IGC logger - otherwise you wouldn't be able to
determine what mode the pilot was using in a contest. The idea would
be that you would be required to submit the PowerFlarm log. It does
raise a question about what happens if the PowerFlarm logger fails to
produce a good file. The rules would need to deal with how to handle
the use of backup logs that don't have whatever Flarm uses to validate
the mode of operation.

I don't know about IGC approval. It seems like the units are pretty
new, so they may not even be submitted yet - if approval is part of
the plan.

9B