PowerFLARM Brick and PowerFLARM Remote Display Manuals Available

Mike, do us a favor and read Urs reply again instead of going on and on and on on an issue which no one but you is concerend about.

Ramy

On Monday, May 21, 2012 9:38:11 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
Mike, do us a favor and read Urs reply again instead of going on and on and on on an issue which no one but you is concerend about.

Ramy

What exactly do you want me to re-read in Urs's post? Just because people aren't posting their comments in RAS doesn't mean that this is not an issue that they aren't concerned about. Instead, maybe they are just quietly holding out on ordering their PowerFLARMs until they see how the dust settles..

On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:01:43 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Monday, May 21, 2012 9:38:11 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
Mike, do us a favor and read Urs reply again instead of going on and on and on on an issue which no one but you is concerend about.

Ramy

What exactly do you want me to re-read in Urs's post? Just because people aren't posting their comments in RAS doesn't mean that this is not an issue that they aren't concerned about. Instead, maybe they are just quietly holding out on ordering their PowerFLARMs until they see how the dust settles.

I am speechless...
Reread the whole post from Urs's 10 times, and maybe you will then notice that he says that "the PowerFLARM
hardware which currently ships is capable of doing it, but we prefer
to start as simple as possible. "
It is clear to everyone but you that PF does not currently support TIS-B since there is no point in supporting it now. *If* and when there will be a need to support it, it should be a software upgrade since the hardware supports it.

Ramy

On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:47:40 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:01:43 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Monday, May 21, 2012 9:38:11 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
Mike, do us a favor and read Urs reply again instead of going on and on and on on an issue which no one but you is concerend about.

Ramy

What exactly do you want me to re-read in Urs's post? Just because people aren't posting their comments in RAS doesn't mean that this is not an issue that they aren't concerned about. Instead, maybe they are just quietly holding out on ordering their PowerFLARMs until they see how the dust settles.

I am speechless...
Reread the whole post from Urs's 10 times, and maybe you will then notice that he says that "the PowerFLARM
hardware which currently ships is capable of doing it, but we prefer
to start as simple as possible. "
It is clear to everyone but you that PF does not currently support TIS-B since there is no point in supporting it now. *If* and when there will be a need to support it, it should be a software upgrade since the hardware supports it.

Ramy

That's exactly what I read. The hardware supports TIS-B, but they have no plans to support it unless they are forced into it. Not a very encouraging sign that the PowerFLARM people see the big picture and are interested in solving the broader GA collision avoidance problem.

It's pretty obvious that this is going to be a niche product focused totally on the soaring world. That's great if you are flying in a contest in the middle of nowhere. Not so great if you are flying near a Class B airspace..

On May 23, 7:20*am, Mike Schumann wrote:

That's exactly what I read. *The hardware supports TIS-B, but they have no plans to support it unless they are forced into it. *Not a very encouraging sign that the PowerFLARM people see the big picture and are interested in solving the broader GA collision avoidance problem.

It's pretty obvious that this is going to be a niche product focused totally on the soaring world. *That's great if you are flying in a contest in the middle of nowhere. *Not so great if you are flying near a Class B airspace.

Mike - YES, IT IS A NICHE PRODUCT. But why do you think this is a bad
thing? The focus on gliders is why its relatively low-cost, low-power-
draw, and has a nice broad range of features focused around those of
us who fly gliders. This is a GOOD THING.

Your hypothetical "Mass Market" systems are likely to be powered-
airplane-focused and thus will not necessarily have things like low
power-consumption or have as sophisticated predictive logic, so glider
users will likely receive too many false alarms or other problems
(which many people in this thread have already gone over).

And I'm pretty sure you've never developed a product in your life -
otherwise you'd understand the fallacy behind trying to launch a 100%
"it does it all" item on Day 1 (as you seem to criticize PF for not
doing this). Starting simple and building up features through
software revisions over time is a perfectly acceptable and logical
development path. They have started with some of the most important
features that directly address some of the biggest dangers, along with
providing a veritable toolbox full of ways to see and avoid all kinds
of air traffic.

Bottom-line: They don't *need* to show you "a copy of ATC's radar
picture" in order to have a good and meaningful product. PowerFLARM's
features right now provide a great value for the money, and give
glider pilots a lot more collision-avoidance capability than they've
ever had at any point in the history of aviation. Period.

For everyone else besides Mike: This is getting to the point where I
feel like we're all just feeding the troll... Can we all agree to stop
feeding the troll? Let him sit under his bridge and wait for the day
he can equip his ship with his dream system. In the meantime we can
all be practical - and safer - with PF.

--Noel

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:52:00 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:
On May 23, 7:20*am, Mike Schumann wrote:

That's exactly what I read. *The hardware supports TIS-B, but they have no plans to support it unless they are forced into it. *Not a very encouraging sign that the PowerFLARM people see the big picture and are interested in solving the broader GA collision avoidance problem.

It's pretty obvious that this is going to be a niche product focused totally on the soaring world. *That's great if you are flying in a contest in the middle of nowhere. *Not so great if you are flying near a Class B airspace.

Mike - YES, IT IS A NICHE PRODUCT. But why do you think this is a bad
thing? The focus on gliders is why its relatively low-cost, low-power-
draw, and has a nice broad range of features focused around those of
us who fly gliders. This is a GOOD THING.

Your hypothetical "Mass Market" systems are likely to be powered-
airplane-focused and thus will not necessarily have things like low
power-consumption or have as sophisticated predictive logic, so glider
users will likely receive too many false alarms or other problems
(which many people in this thread have already gone over).

And I'm pretty sure you've never developed a product in your life -
otherwise you'd understand the fallacy behind trying to launch a 100%
"it does it all" item on Day 1 (as you seem to criticize PF for not
doing this). Starting simple and building up features through
software revisions over time is a perfectly acceptable and logical
development path. They have started with some of the most important
features that directly address some of the biggest dangers, along with
providing a veritable toolbox full of ways to see and avoid all kinds
of air traffic.

Bottom-line: They don't *need* to show you "a copy of ATC's radar
picture" in order to have a good and meaningful product. PowerFLARM's
features right now provide a great value for the money, and give
glider pilots a lot more collision-avoidance capability than they've
ever had at any point in the history of aviation. Period.

For everyone else besides Mike: This is getting to the point where I
feel like we're all just feeding the troll... Can we all agree to stop
feeding the troll? Let him sit under his bridge and wait for the day
he can equip his ship with his dream system. In the meantime we can
all be practical - and safer - with PF.

--Noel

I have worked on quite a few product development efforts over the years. I totally understand time to market, and have no problem getting a product out early and adding features as you go along.

That's not the situation with PowerFLARM. When it comes to TIS-B, they don't appear to have any serious interest in adding the functionality to the product at all. If the PowerFLARM guys had this in their product plan, but haven't been able to get to it yet due to higher priority issues, I would be very sympathetic and would probably recommend that everyone take a serious look at this product.

As it stands, it appears to me that the development team has total tunnel vision on the needs of contest pilots, and are pretty much ignoring the recreational soaring pilot who is primarily concerned about conflicts with GA aircraft.

I also don't disagree with your assessment that ADS-B systems designed for the GA market won't necessarily meet the needs of the glider market, particularly competition flyers. However, that does not imply that PowerFLARM couldn't be a super product for the GA market if it supported TIS-B. One of the biggest problems we have in the soaring world are the limited production volumes for our gadgets. Marketing products developed for the glider market, to the much larger power market is a very effective way to spread development costs over significantly larger production volumes, permitting lower product costs for everyone.

Finally, what's with the continuous insults? People have different perspectives and have the right to express their views. RAS is not a marketing vehicle for any single vendor. Are my comments maybe hitting a raw nerve?

On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 3:47:40 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
...snip...
It is clear to everyone but you that PF does not currently support TIS-B since there is no point in supporting it now. *If* and when there will be a need to support it, it should be a software upgrade since the hardware supports it.
...snip...

Ramy, I may misunderstand ADS-B but if PF could just tell me a biz jet is about to skewer me from behind I wouldn't say "there is no point" having it in PF *NOW*. I fly near NY class B and having location of commercial jets would be more valuable than knowing where all the gliders are.

-Jim

On 5/25/12 5:03 AM, Jim wrote:
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 3:47:40 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
...snip...
It is clear to everyone but you that PF does not currently support TIS-B since there is no point in supporting it now. *If* and when there will be a need to support it, it should be a software upgrade since the hardware supports it.
...snip...

Ramy, I may misunderstand ADS-B but if PF could just tell me a biz jet is about to skewer me from behind I wouldn't say "there is no point" having it in PF *NOW*. I fly near NY class B and having location of commercial jets would be more valuable than knowing where all the gliders are.

-Jim

Jim

Maybe you could describe the avionics you have on board today to address
with your concern here. Do you fly with a transponder? What model? (some
Mode S transponders may give you a path to ADS-B data-out in future). Do
you have ADS-B data-out or have you looked at what is involved in
installing that? Do you have a PowerFLARM installed yet--and how much
1090ES direct traffic are you seeing reported by the PowerFLARM? Is your
glider certified or experimental? Do you talk to ATC where you fly?

This thread has devolved into a rant about TIS-B, it is not talking
about ADS-B per-se it talking about one particular feature, and for that
a PowerFLARM or and other ADS-B data-in device won't receive any TIS-B
data unless your glider has ADS-B data-out equipment installed and
configured correctly.

Wether PowerFLARM decodes TIS-B messages is really an academic question
right now since its virtually impossible to get ADS-B data-out in a
certified glider and it not clear whether simple installs begin done in
some experimental aircraft will continue working in the future as the
FAA tightens technical standards requirements.

But more importantly than any of this, if you are flying near busy
airspace and concerned about commercial jet traffic the one thing to be
thinking of before anything else, including PowerFLARM and/or ADS-B, is
a transponder. The transponder makes you visible to ATC, tells them you
are a glider (if squawking 1202) and most importantly of all make your
glider visible to TCAS II carried by virtually all airliners and many
fast jets, military transports etc. TCAS II is the only system that
issues instructions to pilots on how to avoid a collision, overriding
ATC instructions etc. An airliner or fast jet with TCAS II has the
warning range and energy to avoid whatever you are likely to do in a
glider. A glider pilot may be left with few options, trying to play
"chicken" on an invisible freeway with a fast opponent.

And if the commercial jet you are worried about has 1090ES data-out your
PowerFLARM will see it directly today, with higher precision than TIS-B
and no need for an expensive and complex ADS-B data-out installation. By
2020, and in practice likely earlier, the airlines and many other
aircraft (anybody who flies over FL180) have to equip with 1090ES
data-out. And you will see them all. But again, its much more important
that ATC and TCAS sees you, and also possibly (depending on the exact
situation) that you also in radio communication with ATC.

Darryl

On Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:52:28 AM UTC-4, Paul Remde wrote:
Hi,

FLARM has made the preliminary manuals for PowerFLARM Brick and PowerFLARM
Remote Displays available he

Manuals and Software Updates
http://powerflarm.us/manuals-softwar...release-notes/

The first Brick units will be used and tested at the Mifflin contest.

It is my understanding that hardware changes were made to the Brick to
improve the range. If they work well at Mifflin, existing Portable units
will need hardware upgrades.

It looks like we are finally in the home stretch in regard to PowerFLARM
availability - which is great news.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

Amen. The ONLY thing that will prevent you getting run
over by a jet is a transponder. If you get a transponder,
get a Mode S, suggest Trig.

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

T

On Friday, May 25, 2012 9:51:31 AM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On 5/25/12 5:03 AM, Jim wrote:
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 3:47:40 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
...snip...
It is clear to everyone but you that PF does not currently support TIS-B since there is no point in supporting it now. *If* and when there will be a need to support it, it should be a software upgrade since the hardware supports it.
...snip...

Ramy, I may misunderstand ADS-B but if PF could just tell me a biz jet is about to skewer me from behind I wouldn't say "there is no point" having it in PF *NOW*. I fly near NY class B and having location of commercial jets would be more valuable than knowing where all the gliders are.

-Jim

Jim

Maybe you could describe the avionics you have on board today to address
with your concern here. Do you fly with a transponder? What model? (some
Mode S transponders may give you a path to ADS-B data-out in future). Do
you have ADS-B data-out or have you looked at what is involved in
installing that? Do you have a PowerFLARM installed yet--and how much
1090ES direct traffic are you seeing reported by the PowerFLARM? Is your
glider certified or experimental? Do you talk to ATC where you fly?

This thread has devolved into a rant about TIS-B, it is not talking
about ADS-B per-se it talking about one particular feature, and for that
a PowerFLARM or and other ADS-B data-in device won't receive any TIS-B
data unless your glider has ADS-B data-out equipment installed and
configured correctly.

Wether PowerFLARM decodes TIS-B messages is really an academic question
right now since its virtually impossible to get ADS-B data-out in a
certified glider and it not clear whether simple installs begin done in
some experimental aircraft will continue working in the future as the
FAA tightens technical standards requirements.

But more importantly than any of this, if you are flying near busy
airspace and concerned about commercial jet traffic the one thing to be
thinking of before anything else, including PowerFLARM and/or ADS-B, is
a transponder. The transponder makes you visible to ATC, tells them you
are a glider (if squawking 1202) and most importantly of all make your
glider visible to TCAS II carried by virtually all airliners and many
fast jets, military transports etc. TCAS II is the only system that
issues instructions to pilots on how to avoid a collision, overriding
ATC instructions etc. An airliner or fast jet with TCAS II has the
warning range and energy to avoid whatever you are likely to do in a
glider. A glider pilot may be left with few options, trying to play
"chicken" on an invisible freeway with a fast opponent.

And if the commercial jet you are worried about has 1090ES data-out your
PowerFLARM will see it directly today, with higher precision than TIS-B
and no need for an expensive and complex ADS-B data-out installation. By
2020, and in practice likely earlier, the airlines and many other
aircraft (anybody who flies over FL180) have to equip with 1090ES
data-out. And you will see them all. But again, its much more important
that ATC and TCAS sees you, and also possibly (depending on the exact
situation) that you also in radio communication with ATC.

Darryl

There are two reasons that TIS-B support is not an "academic question".

1. TIS-B will not work without the aircraft outputting an ADS-B Out signal.. There are a lot of aircraft which are already equipped with ADS-B OUT capable hardware. The only thing stopping them from turning this functionality on are some misguided FAA regulations.

The more TIS-B capable equipment there is deployed, the stronger the political presure that we can bring to bear on the FAA to get off the time and relax the ADS-B OUT specs for VFR use. The PowerFLARM guys could be really helpful if they supported this effort. Arguing that TIS-B is a waste of time and is useless, undermines the efforts that AOPA, MITRE, and others are making to try to get the FAA to see the light.

2. For many pilots, both glider and GA power, TIS-B provides the kind of functionality that will get people off the fence to buy equipment now, rather than wait for everyone else to equip. I suspect that if PowerFLARM included TIS-B, and the FAA relaxed the ADS-B OUT specs, not only would many glider pilots buy PowerFLARMS, but they would also buy something like a Trig 21, which would make them visible to jet aircraft TCAS systems; a win/win for everyone.