PowerFLARM Range Issues - Part Two with info from todays flights

Ramy,

As long as there is no audio alert there is no need to look at the display, correct?

This is correct, yes. On the other hand, if a pilot uses the display to detect
buddies, this does require a focus and attention change and increases
head-down time.

We're considering making the vertical range configurable for future
versions. There are other factors involved, though, amongst them
processing limitations and compatibility with Classic FLARM.

Best
--Gerhard
--
Gerhard Wesp
Development Manager, Avionics
FLARM Technology GmbH
Baar, Switzerland
CH-020.4.033.059-8

On 10/10/2012 5:57 AM, wrote:
As long as there is no audio alert there is no need to look at the display, correct?
This is correct, yes. On the other hand, if a pilot uses the display to detect
buddies, this does require a focus and attention change and increases
head-down time.

Detecting your buddies by using the radio is even more distracting, in
my experience. It's not just my distraction when I call or listen to my
buddies, also the distraction of hearing other groups of buddies trying
find each other.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On 10/10/2012 11:24 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 10/10/2012 5:57 AM, wrote:
As long as there is no audio alert there is no need to look at the display,
correct?
This is correct, yes. On the other hand, if a pilot uses the display to detect
buddies, this does require a focus and attention change and increases
head-down time.

Detecting your buddies by using the radio is even more distracting, in my
experience. It's not just my distraction when I call or listen to my buddies,
also the distraction of hearing other groups of buddies trying find each other.


"Indeed," (he says, having zero experience w. P-Flarm). But I think Dr. Vesp's
point was the Flarm folks have little desire to go "off target"
(developmentally speaking), "target" being anti-collision detection/alerts.

Hey! Come to think of it that might not be a bad idea when it comes to radio
use, either!!! (Let there be no glider-initiated calls containing anything
more than "Here I am [and by implication, don't hit me]." Arguably, everything
else is "frequency clutter".

Bob - it's starting to feel like winter! - W.

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:24:25 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 10/10/2012 5:57 AM, wrote:

As long as there is no audio alert there is no need to look at the display, correct?

This is correct, yes. On the other hand, if a pilot uses the display to detect

buddies, this does require a focus and attention change and increases

head-down time.



Detecting your buddies by using the radio is even more distracting, in

my experience. It's not just my distraction when I call or listen to my

buddies, also the distraction of hearing other groups of buddies trying

find each other.



--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to

email me)

I am with both Ramy and Eric on this. I am also surprised.

It is troubling to me that Flarm is making this filtering decisions for us. It should not. The Flarm unit must send out any and all traffic it sees, unless explicitly filtered by the user.

For example, I can foresee a range of products where the filtering is done in an external unit where the pilot can further select what he wants to see.. And the output is actual voice/auditory so there is no heads down at all! Your current scheme would hinder these kind of applications. I think this would be possible today in applications such as XCSoar running on a Dell Streak.

In addition, as Eric just mentioned, Flarm can actually help cut down the ever increasing amount of distracting radio chatter by tema flying pilots which affects everyone's concentration while flying.

Yes, I understand Flarm intended this to be a collision avoidance product. But the fact is that Flarm is really a position beacon and hopefully getting into most gliders. Very powerful concept. We cannot just ignore what the market is asking for.

Apple initially did not intend for the iPhone to run any third party apps

Please think about that.

With Best Regards,

David

On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 18:40:47 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:24:25 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:

On 10/10/2012 5:57 AM, wrote:



As long as there is no audio alert there is no need to look at the display, correct?



This is correct, yes. On the other hand, if a pilot uses the display to detect



buddies, this does require a focus and attention change and increases



head-down time.







Detecting your buddies by using the radio is even more distracting, in



my experience. It's not just my distraction when I call or listen to my



buddies, also the distraction of hearing other groups of buddies trying



find each other.







--



Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to



email me)



I am with both Ramy and Eric on this. I am also surprised.



It is troubling to me that Flarm is making this filtering decisions for us. It should not. The Flarm unit must send out any and all traffic it sees, unless explicitly filtered by the user.



For example, I can foresee a range of products where the filtering is done in an external unit where the pilot can further select what he wants to see. And the output is actual voice/auditory so there is no heads down at all! Your current scheme would hinder these kind of applications. I think this would be possible today in applications such as XCSoar running on a Dell Streak.



In addition, as Eric just mentioned, Flarm can actually help cut down the ever increasing amount of distracting radio chatter by tema flying pilots which affects everyone's concentration while flying.



Yes, I understand Flarm intended this to be a collision avoidance product.. But the fact is that Flarm is really a position beacon and hopefully getting into most gliders. Very powerful concept. We cannot just ignore what the market is asking for.



Apple initially did not intend for the iPhone to run any third party apps



Please think about that.



With Best Regards,



David

To perceive that "the fact is that Flarm is really a position beacon" and to "foresee a range of products where the filtering is done in an external unit" is to fundamentally misunderstand it. (I am talking here about the Flarm collision awareness aspect of PowerFlarm and not the ADSB components.)

Flarm works by broadcasting highly tailored predictions of a glider's future flight path and comparing that with the broadcast predictions from other Flarm equipped gliders. The fact that it is not simply a position beacon is central to how it operates. In order that both/all involved receive compatible warnings it is necessary for all units to be using compatible algorithms - otherwise one glider could receive a conflict warning while the other does not. This aspect has been discussed endlessly in Europe with regard to the proprietary nature of the Flarm algorithm. If a company wanted to piggy-back a glider collision warning product on the Flarm frequencies then I suspect that it would have to contend with legal challenges from Flarm and, more importantly, convince potential purchasers that it has written prediction algorithms as sophisticated as those that Flarm has spent many years developing and proving.

Irrespective of the teething issues have emerged with the "Power" aspects of Butterfly PowerFlarm product, Flarm itself in Europe has proved itself to be highly successful in attracting attention to an approaching glider that may not have been seen. IMHO it is very unlikely that an alternative will emerge in the foreseeable future. What there is a strong market for is various alternative displays of Flarm collision data (i.e. computed by Flarm and output to the display) on third party specialised displays or included in Nav programs - e.g. I use the SeeYou Mobile Flarm display for buddy or soaring situation awareness and the simple European LED Flarm display + SYM voice for conflict awareness.

John Galloway

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:48:20 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 18:40:47 UTC+1, wrote:

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:24:25 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:



On 10/10/2012 5:57 AM, wrote:







As long as there is no audio alert there is no need to look at the display, correct?







This is correct, yes. On the other hand, if a pilot uses the display to detect







buddies, this does require a focus and attention change and increases







head-down time.















Detecting your buddies by using the radio is even more distracting, in







my experience. It's not just my distraction when I call or listen to my







buddies, also the distraction of hearing other groups of buddies trying







find each other.















--







Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to







email me)







I am with both Ramy and Eric on this. I am also surprised.







It is troubling to me that Flarm is making this filtering decisions for us. It should not. The Flarm unit must send out any and all traffic it sees, unless explicitly filtered by the user.







For example, I can foresee a range of products where the filtering is done in an external unit where the pilot can further select what he wants to see. And the output is actual voice/auditory so there is no heads down at all! Your current scheme would hinder these kind of applications. I think this would be possible today in applications such as XCSoar running on a Dell Streak.







In addition, as Eric just mentioned, Flarm can actually help cut down the ever increasing amount of distracting radio chatter by tema flying pilots which affects everyone's concentration while flying.







Yes, I understand Flarm intended this to be a collision avoidance product. But the fact is that Flarm is really a position beacon and hopefully getting into most gliders. Very powerful concept. We cannot just ignore what the market is asking for.







Apple initially did not intend for the iPhone to run any third party apps







Please think about that.







With Best Regards,







David



To perceive that "the fact is that Flarm is really a position beacon" and to "foresee a range of products where the filtering is done in an external unit" is to fundamentally misunderstand it. (I am talking here about the Flarm collision awareness aspect of PowerFlarm and not the ADSB components.)



Flarm works by broadcasting highly tailored predictions of a glider's future flight path and comparing that with the broadcast predictions from other Flarm equipped gliders. The fact that it is not simply a position beacon is central to how it operates. In order that both/all involved receive compatible warnings it is necessary for all units to be using compatible algorithms - otherwise one glider could receive a conflict warning while the other does not. This aspect has been discussed endlessly in Europe with regard to the proprietary nature of the Flarm algorithm. If a company wanted to piggy-back a glider collision warning product on the Flarm frequencies then I suspect that it would have to contend with legal challenges from Flarm and, more importantly, convince potential purchasers that it has written prediction algorithms as sophisticated as those that Flarm has spent many years developing and proving.



Irrespective of the teething issues have emerged with the "Power" aspects of Butterfly PowerFlarm product, Flarm itself in Europe has proved itself to be highly successful in attracting attention to an approaching glider that may not have been seen. IMHO it is very unlikely that an alternative will emerge in the foreseeable future. What there is a strong market for is various alternative displays of Flarm collision data (i.e. computed by Flarm and output to the display) on third party specialised displays or included in Nav programs - e.g. I use the SeeYou Mobile Flarm display for buddy or soaring situation awareness and the simple European LED Flarm display + SYM voice for conflict awareness.



John Galloway

You misunderstood what I wrote. I was *not* referring to the filtering Flarm does for the purpose of collision resolution. I was referring to the filtering it does for traffic that is currently not a threat and that pilots could use for purposes stated elsewhere in this thread. And for which, I repeat, I do think there is a potenital market for third party products.

I thought I was very clear about that by acknowledging I understood the original purpose of Flarm. I am not advocating that third party devices implement the complex collision detection algorithms Flarm has developed. Although in theory there is no reason they couldn't, or even improve on them.


David

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:03:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:48:20 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:

On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 18:40:47 UTC+1, wrote:



On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:24:25 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:







On 10/10/2012 5:57 AM, wrote:















As long as there is no audio alert there is no need to look at the display, correct?















This is correct, yes. On the other hand, if a pilot uses the display to detect















buddies, this does require a focus and attention change and increases















head-down time.































Detecting your buddies by using the radio is even more distracting, in















my experience. It's not just my distraction when I call or listen to my















buddies, also the distraction of hearing other groups of buddies trying















find each other.































--















Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to















email me)















I am with both Ramy and Eric on this. I am also surprised.















It is troubling to me that Flarm is making this filtering decisions for us. It should not. The Flarm unit must send out any and all traffic it sees, unless explicitly filtered by the user.















For example, I can foresee a range of products where the filtering is done in an external unit where the pilot can further select what he wants to see. And the output is actual voice/auditory so there is no heads down at all! Your current scheme would hinder these kind of applications. I think this would be possible today in applications such as XCSoar running on a Dell Streak.















In addition, as Eric just mentioned, Flarm can actually help cut down the ever increasing amount of distracting radio chatter by tema flying pilots which affects everyone's concentration while flying.















Yes, I understand Flarm intended this to be a collision avoidance product. But the fact is that Flarm is really a position beacon and hopefully getting into most gliders. Very powerful concept. We cannot just ignore what the market is asking for.















Apple initially did not intend for the iPhone to run any third party apps















Please think about that.















With Best Regards,















David







To perceive that "the fact is that Flarm is really a position beacon" and to "foresee a range of products where the filtering is done in an external unit" is to fundamentally misunderstand it. (I am talking here about the Flarm collision awareness aspect of PowerFlarm and not the ADSB components.)







Flarm works by broadcasting highly tailored predictions of a glider's future flight path and comparing that with the broadcast predictions from other Flarm equipped gliders. The fact that it is not simply a position beacon is central to how it operates. In order that both/all involved receive compatible warnings it is necessary for all units to be using compatible algorithms - otherwise one glider could receive a conflict warning while the other does not. This aspect has been discussed endlessly in Europe with regard to the proprietary nature of the Flarm algorithm. If a company wanted to piggy-back a glider collision warning product on the Flarm frequencies then I suspect that it would have to contend with legal challenges from Flarm and, more importantly, convince potential purchasers that it has written prediction algorithms as sophisticated as those that Flarm has spent many years developing and proving.







Irrespective of the teething issues have emerged with the "Power" aspects of Butterfly PowerFlarm product, Flarm itself in Europe has proved itself to be highly successful in attracting attention to an approaching glider that may not have been seen. IMHO it is very unlikely that an alternative will emerge in the foreseeable future. What there is a strong market for is various alternative displays of Flarm collision data (i.e. computed by Flarm and output to the display) on third party specialised displays or included in Nav programs - e.g. I use the SeeYou Mobile Flarm display for buddy or soaring situation awareness and the simple European LED Flarm display + SYM voice for conflict awareness.







John Galloway



You misunderstood what I wrote. I was *not* referring to the filtering Flarm does for the purpose of collision resolution. I was referring to the filtering it does for traffic that is currently not a threat and that pilots could use for purposes stated elsewhere in this thread. And for which, I repeat, I do think there is a potenital market for third party products.



I thought I was very clear about that by acknowledging I understood the original purpose of Flarm. I am not advocating that third party devices implement the complex collision detection algorithms Flarm has developed. Although in theory there is no reason they couldn't, or even improve on them.





David

Perhaps an example might help illustrate what I mean.

An external device connected to the Flarm data port into which I can enter the code of a glider I am flying with. Every 10 minutes (for example), as long as he is within Flarm range, I hear a natural voice report where my buddy is: "XY is 20 degrees to your left at 5 miles, 5000 feet".

Similarly, you get low, need a thermal. A buddy, "ZW" is thermaling 3 miles from you, within Flarm range. You enter his code into the third party device or app and you get a voice vector to his thermal.

No conflict with the core Flarm collision alert system. Ne heads down. Pure value added.

David

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:03:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:48:20 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:

On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 18:40:47 UTC+1, wrote:



On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:24:25 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:







On 10/10/2012 5:57 AM, wrote:















As long as there is no audio alert there is no need to look at the display, correct?















This is correct, yes. On the other hand, if a pilot uses the display to detect















buddies, this does require a focus and attention change and increases















head-down time.































Detecting your buddies by using the radio is even more distracting, in















my experience. It's not just my distraction when I call or listen to my















buddies, also the distraction of hearing other groups of buddies trying















find each other.































--















Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to















email me)















I am with both Ramy and Eric on this. I am also surprised.















It is troubling to me that Flarm is making this filtering decisions for us. It should not. The Flarm unit must send out any and all traffic it sees, unless explicitly filtered by the user.















For example, I can foresee a range of products where the filtering is done in an external unit where the pilot can further select what he wants to see. And the output is actual voice/auditory so there is no heads down at all! Your current scheme would hinder these kind of applications. I think this would be possible today in applications such as XCSoar running on a Dell Streak.















In addition, as Eric just mentioned, Flarm can actually help cut down the ever increasing amount of distracting radio chatter by tema flying pilots which affects everyone's concentration while flying.















Yes, I understand Flarm intended this to be a collision avoidance product. But the fact is that Flarm is really a position beacon and hopefully getting into most gliders. Very powerful concept. We cannot just ignore what the market is asking for.















Apple initially did not intend for the iPhone to run any third party apps















Please think about that.















With Best Regards,















David







To perceive that "the fact is that Flarm is really a position beacon" and to "foresee a range of products where the filtering is done in an external unit" is to fundamentally misunderstand it. (I am talking here about the Flarm collision awareness aspect of PowerFlarm and not the ADSB components.)







Flarm works by broadcasting highly tailored predictions of a glider's future flight path and comparing that with the broadcast predictions from other Flarm equipped gliders. The fact that it is not simply a position beacon is central to how it operates. In order that both/all involved receive compatible warnings it is necessary for all units to be using compatible algorithms - otherwise one glider could receive a conflict warning while the other does not. This aspect has been discussed endlessly in Europe with regard to the proprietary nature of the Flarm algorithm. If a company wanted to piggy-back a glider collision warning product on the Flarm frequencies then I suspect that it would have to contend with legal challenges from Flarm and, more importantly, convince potential purchasers that it has written prediction algorithms as sophisticated as those that Flarm has spent many years developing and proving.







Irrespective of the teething issues have emerged with the "Power" aspects of Butterfly PowerFlarm product, Flarm itself in Europe has proved itself to be highly successful in attracting attention to an approaching glider that may not have been seen. IMHO it is very unlikely that an alternative will emerge in the foreseeable future. What there is a strong market for is various alternative displays of Flarm collision data (i.e. computed by Flarm and output to the display) on third party specialised displays or included in Nav programs - e.g. I use the SeeYou Mobile Flarm display for buddy or soaring situation awareness and the simple European LED Flarm display + SYM voice for conflict awareness.







John Galloway



You misunderstood what I wrote. I was *not* referring to the filtering Flarm does for the purpose of collision resolution. I was referring to the filtering it does for traffic that is currently not a threat and that pilots could use for purposes stated elsewhere in this thread. And for which, I repeat, I do think there is a potenital market for third party products.



I thought I was very clear about that by acknowledging I understood the original purpose of Flarm. I am not advocating that third party devices implement the complex collision detection algorithms Flarm has developed. Although in theory there is no reason they couldn't, or even improve on them.





David

David, your post was very clear. You are the voice of reason. Wish I could be as clear (and polite) as you. Now lets hope folks are listening.

Ramy

Similarly, you get low, need a thermal. A buddy, "ZW" is thermaling 3 miles from you, within Flarm range. You enter his code into the third party device or app and you get a voice vector to his thermal.



No conflict with the core Flarm collision alert system. Ne heads down. Pure value added.

There *is* head-down time in this example. First, you have to identify ZW
on the display and figure out that he's actually climbing. Focus and attention
change, 2-3 seconds? Second, 'you enter his code into the third party device'---that's user interaction, potentially distracting you for 10+ seconds.

As I said, we *are* considering making the vertical range considerable, also in
view of other applications. However, simply outputting all traffic that we see
is not an option and has never been implemented either, neither in Classic nor in PowerFLARM.

Best
--Gerhard

On Oct 12, 12:10*am, wrote:
Similarly, you get low, need a thermal. A buddy, "ZW" is thermaling 3 miles from you, within Flarm range. You enter his code into the third party device or app and you get a voice vector to his thermal.

No conflict with the core Flarm collision alert system. Ne heads down. Pure value added.

There *is* head-down time in this example. *First, you have to identify ZW
on the display and figure out that he's actually climbing. *Focus and attention
change, 2-3 seconds? *Second, 'you enter his code into the third party device'---that's user interaction, potentially distracting you for 10+ seconds.

As I said, we *are* considering making the vertical range considerable, also in
view of other applications. *However, simply outputting all traffic that we see
is not an option and has never been implemented either, neither in Classic nor in PowerFLARM.

Best
--Gerhard

Today when a team of pilots is flying together and one of them gets
low there is often a frantic exchange on the radio with the struggling
pilot asking the thermalling pilot for an accurate position fix.

Not only is this exchange distracting for everyone listening in, but
even more so for the termalling pilot, who wants to help his friend.
He is now forced into significant heads-down time to find his own
accurate position so he tell his friend exactly where he is. And as
you surely know, it is often not easy to verbally communicate this.
Doing so he also now risks losing his own concentration and getting
thrown out of his own thermal. So now we have two pilots with
significant heads-down time. Happens all the time.

So if we really care about minimizing heads-down time and minimizing
overall distractions, I'd say the scenario I presented is a pretty
good improvement.

Now I understand the counter argument you presented and I thought more
about it.

My solution to that is simple. The third party app or device can as
easily keep track of all thermalling/climbing gliders withing Flarm
range at all times and present them to the pilot in some order of
preference such as some smart combination of distance and climb rate.
Then all the struggling pilot needs to do is, for example, tap on the
first one on the list (~1 second) and voila, he gets the voice vector.

All am saying is that it would be highly beneficial to keep a forward
looking approach because it has been shown again and again we don't
really know what the killer app is going to be that will stimulate the
widest adoption. And the widest adoption is what the Flarm concept
(and we all) needs for it to really succeed.

Best,

David
(proud early adopter of many many devices, including a Brick
PowerFlarm).