Flarm in the US

On Aug 10, 11:34*am, sisu1a wrote:
How does one extract
the logs?

...ultimate log extractor:http://www.techfresh.net/wp-content/...ing-spider.jpg

FWIW I think the contest rental idea sounds like a great plan, and I'm
sure the FLARM guys would come down in price for bulk reasons as well
as the promotional factor.

Beyond discounted units for contest rentals, I think it would be in
FLARM's interests as well to sell the first hundred or two units in
USA for a significant discount to get the ball rolling towards
critical mass.

-Paul

The first 50 (I believe) units are offered at a discount of $1,495 and
I believe the ball is well and truly rolling. I am not sure if there
are any left or not for this discount pre-order, contact a dealer. I
suspect Butterfly/Flarm has pent-up demand worldwide for the
PowerFLARM from people who have been deferring purchase of the
traditional Flarm and other third party Flarm devices. So I'm a bit
dubious of focusing on trying to get discounts etc. I'd much rather
see the primary focus begin on making a contest rules decision ASAP.
Want to really "get the ball rolling", just mandate the damn things.

I think FLARM is a good idea in contests and other situations with
high glider densities, and the SSA and IGC need to seriously look at
mandating them in contests. However for the USA I am worried we don't
get into making this decision more complex than it need be. And I
worry that many of the posts here are heading in that direction. For
example the SSA should not twist itself in knots worrying about rental
units, schemes to offset costs, etc. I hope the SSA rules committee
focus on the safety issue and trying to solve a safety problem we
obviously have and make sure the cost is roughly bearable to most
contest pilots. The "market" can solve the other cases, either though
people or clubs sharing units or maybe somebody buying a handful of
units and renting them. Please don't get stuck trying to solve bigger
more complex problems that distract from the core issue. Focus now on
making the right decision for safety and making it ASAP so pilots
going into next year know what is happening. A quick decision will let
product ordering, and those other "market" forces happen more
smoothly. And the SSA does not worry about renting etc. of required
items like flight recorders or parachutes and most contest pilots own
their own but others certainly rent, borrow, use club equipment etc.
those to get by.

For similar sentiments of trying to keep things simple and focus in
making the right decision. I don't think it really helps our needs to
be thinking about involving AOPA or finding other creative markets for
Flarm. Involve AOPA? Why? We don't need advocates or other things
outside our own sport right now. We need to make adoption/rule
decisions asap and let pilots know what is happening. AOPA's position
on technology in this area related to ADS-B is also unfortunately
confused enough already but I don't want to get sidetracked on that
here. At the core of the mess with ADS-B is that it is a technology
that means so many different things to different potential users and
suffers from being this flying kitchen sink. Here we have a technology
developed for and likely the only realistic option for greatly
reducing the glider-on-glider contest collision risk. Run forward with
it, not sideways.

Darryl

On 8/9/2010 8:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Aug 9, 9:43 am, Steve wrote:
Curious about the use of Flarm in the US. Was told by another pilot
that the frequency used by Flarm is not approved for that category of
use in the US. Is that true? If it is, do they make units that use a
US approved frequency?

powerflarm units for use in USA will be available later this year.
older flarm units are not for use in USA.

See: http://www.powerflarm.aero/

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

The PowerFlarm specs specify that they transmit on 868 MHz. Is this
frequency permitted in the US?

--
Mike Schumann

On 8/10/2010 11:04 AM, noel.wade wrote:
Sorry to spam the thread. Just noticed on the Craggy website that the
powerFLARM _does_ include IGC flight logging. Cool!

http://www.craggyaero.com/powerflarm.htm

--Noel


Hmmm, the PowerFLARM website does not mention this feature.

On Aug 10, 12:41*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/9/2010 8:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:

On Aug 9, 9:43 am, Steve *wrote:
Curious about the use of Flarm in the US. Was told by another pilot
that the frequency used by Flarm is not approved for that category of
use in the US. Is that true? If it is, do they make units that use a
US approved frequency?

powerflarm units for use in USA will be available later this year.
older flarm units are not for use in USA.

See:http://www.powerflarm.aero/

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

The PowerFlarm specs specify that they transmit on 868 MHz. *Is this
frequency permitted in the US?

--
Mike Schumann

What you think FLARM have not thought of that?

Be a bit careful readying the PowerFLARM web site, it's clearly
focused on the European market.

PowerFLARM will operate on a different frequency in the USA than
Europe. Flarm already operates on a different frequencies in
Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the world. Flarm has had a 915
Mhz frequency planned for use the USA for quite a while, although I
don't know if that is the final decision or not. And current units
have neat automatic frequency section based on location. I don't know
for sure if PowerFLARM will do the automatically location based
frequency change but I've been told by the US distributor that units
purchased here will definitely run overseas (for example for traveling
contest pilots).

Darryl

On 8/10/2010 2:22 PM, noel.wade wrote:
On Aug 10, 12:16 pm, Mike
wrote:

The problem with PowerFlarm is that it does not include ADS-B Out. As a
result, it doesn't reliably receive any ADS-B in traffic data from a
ground station. If this was a true ADS-B In and Out solution, it would

Mike - Weren't you just debating about flying out of range of ground
stations, when talking about transponders? ADS-B from ground stations
falls into the same category.

In close proximity, I would expect ADS-B Out from another aircraft to
trigger my powerFLARM (ADS-B In) solution directly; no need for a
ground station relay!

--Noel


If the other traffic is equipped with ADS-B UAT (the FAA recommendation
for GA), and you our not within range of a ground station, PowerFLARM
will not see him.

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 10, 1:31*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/10/2010 2:22 PM, noel.wade wrote:



On Aug 10, 12:16 pm, Mike
wrote:

The problem with PowerFlarm is that it does not include ADS-B Out. *As a
result, it doesn't reliably receive any ADS-B in traffic data from a
ground station. *If this was a true ADS-B In and Out solution, it would

Mike - Weren't you just debating about flying out of range of ground
stations, when talking about transponders? *ADS-B from ground stations
falls into the same category.

In close proximity, I would expect ADS-B Out from another aircraft to
trigger my powerFLARM (ADS-B In) solution directly; no need for a
ground station relay!

--Noel

If the other traffic is equipped with ADS-B UAT (the FAA recommendation
for GA), and you our not within range of a ground station, PowerFLARM
will not see him.

--
Mike Schumann

Noel.

Read my earlier post in this thread that describes things needed for
ADS-R and TIS-B to work. The ADS-B dual-link design in the USA should
be a concern for us. The scary scenario is say running a ridge where
fully equipped UAT and ADS-B 1090ES just will not "see" each other
outside of GBT (ground station coverage). The GBT coverage will be
pretty impressive compared to say current SSR coverage but is just not
necessarily intended to say provide low level or close to terrain
coverage in places we might care about. This is one reason I don't
believe ADS-B technology alone in the USA can meet our needs until
somebody develops a dual-link layer receiver. Alternately different
locations might adopt UAT or 1090ES technology. I suspect what will
really happen shorter term is people will adopt PowerFLARM and rely
mostly on the flarm-flarm protocol to provide help with that type of
ridge running scenario and use the ADS-B stuff more for visibility of
GA and airline traffic (i.e. think of the ADS-B receiver stuff more as
a fancy enhancement of current PCAS capabilities).

The dual-link issue also affects the ability to track other gliders
over long ranges, that will work fairly well (and an interesting/
useful capability of ADS-B in general) if both gliders are on the same
link layer, but if one is a UAT and the other is on 1090ES the ground
infrastructure won't perform ADS-R unless the gliders are within each
other's service volume or the service volumes of similarly equipped
aircraft (I believe +/- 3,500' and 15 nm range). So your glider
buddies may appear and disappear off the traffic display at times.

Darryl

So if I'm reading Darryl and Mike correctly: The bottom-line is that
the different ADS-B options and reliance on ground-based coverage mean
that FLARM-to-FLARM communications are really the only solid solution
for collision-avoidance when close to terrain or out of ground-based-
coverage areas.

(Mike - before you reply and push the Navworx box yet again, please
prepare an explanation of how the Navworx unit gets around the very
same UAT versus 1090ES issue that you described moments ago. If UAT
and 1090ES don't talk to each other from aircraft-to-aircraft, then it
doesn't matter whether you run a powerFLARM or Navworx box - you're
going to miss out on some of the ADS-B traffic either way.)

--Noel

On 8/10/2010 3:29 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 10, 12:41 pm, Mike
wrote:
On 8/9/2010 8:51 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:

On Aug 9, 9:43 am, Steve wrote:
Curious about the use of Flarm in the US. Was told by another pilot
that the frequency used by Flarm is not approved for that category of
use in the US. Is that true? If it is, do they make units that use a
US approved frequency?

powerflarm units for use in USA will be available later this year.
older flarm units are not for use in USA.

See:http://www.powerflarm.aero/

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

The PowerFlarm specs specify that they transmit on 868 MHz. Is this
frequency permitted in the US?

--
Mike Schumann

What you think FLARM have not thought of that?

Be a bit careful readying the PowerFLARM web site, it's clearly
focused on the European market.

PowerFLARM will operate on a different frequency in the USA than
Europe. Flarm already operates on a different frequencies in
Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the world. Flarm has had a 915
Mhz frequency planned for use the USA for quite a while, although I
don't know if that is the final decision or not. And current units
have neat automatic frequency section based on location. I don't know
for sure if PowerFLARM will do the automatically location based
frequency change but I've been told by the US distributor that units
purchased here will definitely run overseas (for example for traveling
contest pilots).

Darryl

I am very careful in reading the PowerFlarm web site. No where is there
any indication that the information provided is European only and that
US models are different.

My whole message here is that people need to VERY carefully research
everything, as all of the options available, now or in the future, have
their own quirks and limitations. No one should assume anything that
isn't clearly documented.

--
Mike Schumann

On 8/10/2010 4:19 PM, noel.wade wrote:
So if I'm reading Darryl and Mike correctly: The bottom-line is that
the different ADS-B options and reliance on ground-based coverage mean
that FLARM-to-FLARM communications are really the only solid solution
for collision-avoidance when close to terrain or out of ground-based-
coverage areas.

(Mike - before you reply and push the Navworx box yet again, please
prepare an explanation of how the Navworx unit gets around the very
same UAT versus 1090ES issue that you described moments ago. If UAT
and 1090ES don't talk to each other from aircraft-to-aircraft, then it
doesn't matter whether you run a powerFLARM or Navworx box - you're
going to miss out on some of the ADS-B traffic either way.)

--Noel


The UAT vs 1090ES situation is a huge mess that the FAA has created.
Adding FLARM into the mix doesn't make it any easier (we now have 3
different systems that can't see each other).

It's frustrating that the FLARM guys can't just adapt their box to be
ADS-B UAT compliant (both in Frequency and Protocol) when deployed in
the US. That would eliminate 1/2 (or 1/3rd) of the problem and give
them a blockbuster product they could sell to the entire GA community,
not just the glider market.

Ultimately, the only likely solution to the low level collision
avoidance problem is that all ADS-B transceivers are going to have to
receive both UAT and 1090ES, or UAT is going to have to disappear from
the equation.

--
Mike Schumann

Has anyone noticed how big this unit is? It is way too big to fit
anywhere in my glider considering I already have a big moving map in
my panel.

FLARM on the ridge is a very good idea, but how many pilots will put a
unit in for FLARM to be effective as a system.

I like the idea of renting FLARM at contests where they are needed the
most, but I would be totally against a FLARM unit that does not have a
voice synthesizer. Looking at the darn display while in a thermal is
asking for trouble.

I would like to try the unit, but I am not ready to buy unless I see
it working in a real situation.