On Aug 15, 11:44*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/15/2010 1:08 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Aug 14, 10:48 pm, *wrote:
I've made a very simple paper cutout model
that anybody interested in a PowerFLARM can print,
cut out, fold and stick together. You can use this
PowerFLARM in your cockpit.

Darryl,

I downloaded the pdf and very carefully followed the assembly
instructions, then installed it in my ship, it looks great! It was
real quiet for a long flight I used it on, but that's to be expected
since there are no other units on other ships yet. Afterward I wanted
to download my flightlog to OLC but am having trouble extracting the
IGC file. Also got any tips on how to get it to work with an HP310
running SYM?

TIA,
-Paul

Sorry you are having trouble Paul. Since these units are assembled by
the customer they do not include a factory warranty and it is hard to
guess what might be the problem. If you return the unit to me I will
get my service team to look at it straight away. Please enclose $200
with your return unit for inspection costs. Quote RMA #3AT-M3.

BTW I am also working on a UAT transceiver model for glider cockpits.
It consists of several hundred little paper cutouts of people and some
paper model meeting tables. And you can arrange and rearrange all the
little paper people around the meeting tables to show how UAT device
development works. (Oh I'm in trouble for that).

Darryl

Why the insulting attitude towards UAT???? *There are many people within
the FAA, MITRE, AOPA, and the avionics industry who have spent a decade
working on this technology. *The technology is great. *The deployment
strategy has been the problem, partly due to a lack of vision and focus
at the FAA and other foreign regulators, and a lot to do with the
logistical nightmare of converting from a 1940s technology to the 20th
century in a cost effective manner (just look at Digital TV for another
example of this kind of painful effort).

It doesn't help soaring the have glider pilots ****ing on people like
this. *There are people within the SSA (Bernald Smith for one), who have
been heavily involved in these issue for years and are trying to
represent soaring's interests within the broader aviation community.
When people in the FAA, AOPA, etc... read these kind of comments, what
do you think happens to our sport's credibility?

--
Mike Schumann

Gee Mike it was mostly put there because I miss hearing from you.

Our sport will have a lot more credibility if glider pilots were not
involved in so many-mid air collisions and don't get run into by fast
jets or scare airline pilots. I understand the *wish* to have a nice
single piece of technology that solves many problems. But people,
including you, who have strongly advocated UAT capabilities/technology
in the past would have more credibility of this was done with a calmer
and more holistic view of collision avoidance technology and UATs were
not presented as a silver technology bullet able to solve all
problems.

AOPA, EAA and FAA staff know well my concerns about ADS-D technology
and deployment, including for use in gliders, and don't need to read
r.a.s to find that out.

As I've stated before it would be great to give a low-cost UAT device
suitable for use in glider cockpits - including given how things are
look they are going a UAT transmitter to use with devices like the
PowerFLARM. However I get especially concerted when I see things like
UAT technology misrepresented by people as an obvious replacement for
transponders, people wanting to ignore serious issues like usability
and compatibility with existing glider cockpits, fanciful cost
projections and generally hyping UAT products. These are especially
concerning when they have a side effect of people delaying/skipping
adopting transponders where they should be used or technology like
Flarm in glider contests etc. So for reason alone I will keep
correcting UAT hype and exaggeration, and will do as well for other
collision avoidance technology. I'll praise UAT technology/products
when they deserve it. As I have said before UAT work to look at issues
of power consumption, RF specifications, GPS requirements etc. are all
interesting things, but they are long-term research and regulatory
projects, interesting maybe to many potential low-end users. There is
a huge difference between that kind of research and really developing
and convincing somebody to build a product that actually meets the
needs of our community.

The bureaucracy involved in all this is precisely one of the problems,
so I'm not going to apologize for making fun of that.

Darryl