On 8/16/2010 11:48 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 16, 3:48 am, Mike
wrote:
On 8/15/2010 11:59 PM, Rex wrote:



Mike.
There are people in the SSA that where presented with the idea of the
Soaring Safety Foundation purchasing 100 FLARM units to rent to all
National Soaring Championship contestants.
This concept worked at the WCG in Australia a few years back for GPS
FRs. Look how that turned out.
The idea was to plant the seed at contersts and have the contestants
experience and learn what Flarm could do. Those pilots would take the
experience back to their regions and Flarm would certainly have been
discussed and I believe implemented.

But the "Supreme Leaders" of the SSA clearly have choosen to wait
for ADS-B.

I know the arguement about how Flarm would not work in the USA because
it would not protect Gliders from the airplane traffic in general.

I maintain that the greatest, threat of midair for gliders are other
gliders. Yes we have had airplane Vs Glider mid-airs. In my 28 year
soaring career, I can mostly recall the mid-air incidents happening
in contest gaggles. I suppose I can be proven wrong by a statistical
analysis of all glider mid-air incidents. I do not think I am alone
in my recollection of events driving my impression of risks.

Now here we are. For some reason the folks at Flarm have decided to
not market the proven design of Flarm, but instead, develope the
Power Flarm for the US market. I think it is going to be great. But
is shameful that the Soaring Society did not do anything to appeal to
the producers of Flarm, or the SSA membership to demand this
technology be available 4-5 years ago.

I (not so) patiently wait for word that PowerFlarm has shipped. I
will shamelessly market them as a dealer as I shake my head at what we
could have done sooner.

We should not stand in the way of the development fof ADS-B, UAT,
ES1090..... but the soaring market is not going to drive that
technology. I am surprised that the SSA spends a dime to be at the
table.

The SSA needs to finally endorse and promote for technologly that is
already developed.

I suspect the next response wil be that the technology is not
available in the US so my views are pointless. My answer to this is
B.S. as a group the SSA COULD have made Flarm happen but ADS-B was
simply choosen no matter that is was and is decades away from being a
useful reality.

Flame on......

Rex

The reason FLARM didn't take off in the US has relatively little to do
with the SSA. A big reason is that the FLARM folks not only
discouraged, but prohibited its use in the US when they initially
introduced the product. If they had agressively gone after the US
market then it's entirely possible that they would have had the same
success in the US as in Europe.

Now, 10 years later, ADS-B is finally getting some traction, and the
FLARM guys decide the US market is lucrative after all.

As far as mid-airs go, the statistics may be weighted towards
glider-glider accidents due to the much higher risks associated with
contests. Probably less than 10% of US glider pilots participate in
contests. For those of us that don't, getting hit by a GA aircraft (or
a jet), is just as big a concern as getting nailed by another glider.
In this market, I don't see a lot of interest in a solution that doesn't
address the entire threat environment.

--
Mike Schumann

No solution addresses the entire threat environment. But you keep
coming back to seeming to think UATs and ADS-B do. And people are
interested in a solution that actually is available and actually is
usable to actually solve their problem(s).

Pilots are dying in glider on glider (and tow plane) collisions and
that problems just absolutely has to be addressed asap and Flarm is
clearly head and shoulders above any other choice of possible
technology that could help. And as we've been over several times
before is just no ADS-B product that provides collision alerts that
will likely work in a busy gaggle as no vendor or developer (except
Flarm) has focused work on the software needed for that scenario.

At least one benefit of the PowerFLARM unti with PCAS and 1090ES data-
in is it does span much more of the collision problem space than many
other options, including traditional FLARM units. And it starts with
the only practically avaiable glider-glider collision avoidance. With
PCAS it adds stuff that works today to help with many GA traffic
scenarios and has an ADS-B receiver that provides compatibility with
an ADS-B future in the USA. It needs an ADS-B transmitter to work
fully but by building the receiver part into the Flarm box you get the
data-in integration we need in our cockpits done properly (e.g. Flarm
serial display protocol for ADS-B traffic data, Flarm style alerts on
ADS-B data) etc. Talking any other ADS-B box UAT or 1090ES whether a
receiver or transceiver without that stuff (like the current Mitre
prototype or the Trig 1090ES receiver) is just a non-starter in out
market as a practical product (but for researching other long-term
technical and regulatory stuff the Mitre project does not need that
integration). There will be an increasing range of choices for devices
suitable for use in gliders for people who want to do full ADS-B with
the PowerFLARM as a receiver. Starting with the Trig TT21 today, and
hopefully also including UAT transmitters in future.

Darryl

You keep talking about PowerFlarm as if it were "available". It is not
currently shipping. Has it been submitted to the FCC yet for approval?
What is the estimated ship date?

ADS-B UAT transceivers are currently available and shipping and FCC
approved from Navworx and Garmin (granted the Garmin box is totally
overpriced and essentially obsolete).

Granted, there may not be any collision avoidance systems available for
ADS-B UAT transceivers that rival the sophistication of what FLARM
provides for gliders in Europe. There is no technical reason that
someone can't come up with the equivalent, or potentially even superior
solution as an open source or proprietary solution.

So rather than poo-poo any ADS-B solution, why not encourage people like
See-You, Clear Nav, and others to support both platforms and let the
best solution win.

--
Mike Schumann