PowerFLARM Brick and PowerFLARM Remote Display Manuals Available

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

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

Manuals and Software Updates
http://powerflarm.us/manuals-software-updates-and-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.

[Dixie Sierra]

On May 10, 9:52 am, "Paul Remde" <p...@remde.us> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FLARM has made the preliminary manuals for PowerFLARM Brick and PowerFLARM
> Remote Displays available here:
>

> Manuals and Software Updateshttp://powerflarm.us/manuals-software-updates-and-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.

What's the latest on the cost of the Butterfly display and will it
display Mode C and Mode S traffic? For that matter, what's the status
of Mode C, Mode S in Power Flarm?

I'm all in favor in PowerFlarm. However, contest flying is a small
portion of my overall flying. Awareness of glider threats is
important. But in my environment, awareness of GA threats is equally
important.

It may be a while before PowerFlarm is all that we want it to be? But
what is it now with respect to Mode C and Mode S threat display?

thanks,
Doug

[bumper]

On Sunday, May 13, 2012 3:16:57 PM UTC-7, Dixie Sierra wrote:
>
> It may be a while before PowerFlarm is all that we want it to be? But
> what is it now with respect to Mode C and Mode S threat display?
>
> thanks,
> Doug

The Mode C and Mode S functions seem to work well. The display was recently improved via software upgrade (ver. 2.00 and then 2.01). Functionality, threat altitude and range, have been quite good from the getgo. I'm comparing the PCAS function to the Zaon MRX and the ProxAlert R5.

bumper

[Paul Remde]

"Dixie Sierra" <thems...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b6fc47e0-0799-4933...@j28g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

__________________________

Hi Doug,

The PowerFLARM software does support the display of FLARM, ADS-B and Mode
S/C traffic.

The remote displays that are provided by FLARM for use with the PowerFLARM
Brick do display all those traffic types.

[Paul Remde]

"Paul Remde" <pa...@remde.us> wrote in message
news:jos4m3$pef$1...@dont-email.me...

__________________________

I should add that the Butterfly Display57 and Rectangular display also now
display all types of traffic from PowerFLARM units.

Paul Remde

[Richard]

> Doug- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Doug,

PowerFlarm does display Mode C, Mode S and ADS-B

But it only displays the Mode C when it is interrogated and that may
be after it already passed you.

Maybe someone knows how often transponders are interrogated in
different types of airspace and what we can expect.

57mm Butterfly display alone is an additional $75 for the first
purchasers, Prices for the displays alone are at

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


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Mike Schumann]

On Monday, May 14, 2012 6:31:57 PM UTC-5, Paul Remde wrote:
> "Dixie Sierra" <thems...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b6fc47e0-0799-4933...@j28g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 9:52 am, "Paul Remde"

Note that PowerFLARM does NOT support TIS-B data transmitted by ADS-B ground stations, which is very disappointing.

[Peter von Tresckow]

"Mike Schumann" <mi...@traditions.com> wrote in message
news:31491127.1380.1337048349190.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbih30...

From what I understand is that you only get TIS-B if you are ADS-B out. That
kind of surprised me as well when I found out about that bit of info, but
that's the way it works.

Peter

[Three Uniform]

I have been reading the manuals and I noticed that there is no audio
output on the brick (like there is on the portable)
The sound is generated autonomously by the display unit.
The documentation is sparse. I also could not find any info on an
audio output or sound spec of the display units.

This is relevant for people who intend to route the audio output
signal into their sound system, e.g. to their headphones (motor
gliders)
Also the bright red LED solution that Bumper wrote about (controlling
a LED with the audio signal) will not be possible with the brick.
3U

[Mike Schumann]

The

On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:07:22 AM UTC-5, vontresc wrote:
> "Mike Schumann" <> wrote in message

ADS-B ground stations only transmit TIS-B data in response to receiving an ADS-B OUT signal from an aircraft. The TIS-B data only includes aircraft within the vicinity of the ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft.

However, even if you are ADS-B Out equipped (e.g. with a Trig 21 transponder and a GPS source), and the ADS-B ground station is broadcasting TIS-B data, PowerFLARM does not handle this data. That is a MAJOR shortcoming of this device.

[Darryl Ramm]

Actually its more than that. Yes you need ADS-B data-out, and you need that ADS-B data-out set up properly to also flag your aircraft can receive ADS-B data-in for the ADS-B ground stations to broadcast TIS-B data describing aircraft flying "near" your aircraft. But even with all that the PowerFLARM simply does not implement TIS-B--it does not decode TIS-B format messages. That reflects its European roots, TIS-B is a USA only thing. How important if at all this is is to be seen. Getting ADS-B data-out in most aircraft, including gliders, is currently such a pain in the ass that all this is mostly academic.

And remember you only get TIS-B if those threat aircraft are transponder equipped and flying under SSR radar coverage and TIS-B services are deployed for where you are flying (ie. the radar facilities are providing TIB data to the ADS-B ground infrastructure. For glider applications this is a lot less interesting amount of airspace than where PCAS works today, but at least TIS-B does provide direction data if you happen to ba in an area where it works and you have all the crap needed to receive it.

In the big picture TIS-B was supposed to encourage early adoption of ADS-B/help during a transition to ADS-B technology. But it is unclear whether TIS-B will see much use in GA aircraft at all.... if we don't get much ADS-B adoption soon (pretty much stalled by the FAA's own STC requirements etc.) and then get to ~2020 with a sudden rush of forced ADS-B data-out installations then the TIS-B data won't be that important, as there just won't be a gradual transition to worry about and instead traffic systems will rely more on ADS-B direct and ADS-R. (and importantly I suspect ADS-B direct will dominate since I suspect 1090ES data-out deployment is going to dwarf UAT data-out). The PowerFLARM does ADS-B direct today (e.g. you see airliners and any GA aircraft with 1090ES data-out and via PCAS you see (range and altitude but no direction) all Mode C and Mode S aircraft (as long as something (SSR radar or TCAS/TCAD etc.) is interrogating their transponders).

All this is USA specific. In Europe things look much much better and like they will remain 1090ES only. I expect the FAA's deployment of ADS-B based technology to fill case studies in future of how not to deploy/encourage adoption of new technology.

Darryl

[Dave Nadler]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:02:20 AM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> I expect the FAA's deployment of ADS-B based technology to fill
> case studies in future of how not to deploy/encourage adoption
> of new technology.

Actually, it is already a case study.
FAA's Don Walker, in his Reno SSA-convention presentation,
said FAA expects no more than 15% of GA to adopt UAT.
It is already a dead duck.
Of course, you can buy a great receive-only UAT gadget for your
iPad to get weather - not what FAA expected or planned, but the
obvious marketplace/technology result of what they did...

What a giant waste of our tax dollars...

From Mifflin, where they might fly today,
See ya, Dave "YO electric"

[Darryl Ramm]

And for that 15% adoption the FAA stuffed its dual-link stupidity down out throats...

And there are already better (e.g. as good or better WX products, better coverage) Satellite WX products available for relatively low cost. Good job FAA, using our taxpayer funds to compete with privately funded innovation.

Darryl

[ursus]

> Note that PowerFLARM does NOT support TIS-B data transmitted by ADS-B ground stations, which is very disappointing.

TIS-B will be discontinued. Investing in a soon to be obsolete
technology is not our top priority…
Nevertheless, we never said we would *not* do it, the PowerFLARM
hardware which currently ships is capable of doing it, but we prefer
to start as simple as possible.
We don’t see it as much of a shortcoming as you *will* get all the
aircraft which are on TIS-B already displayed (just non-directional)
plus you get more (aircraft that TIS-B cannot or does not feel like
broadcasting)

[Mike Schumann]

TIS-B is NOT going to be discontinued. Maybe sometime after 2020 when all aircraft are ADS-B equipped, TIS-B will no longer be useful and be phased out, but until then it is a standard part of the US ADS-B deployment.

The non-directional PCAS functionality that is currently implemented in PowerFLARM is extremely primitive compared to the information that is available from TIS-B. For those of us who recreationally fly near or under Class B airspace, accurately seeing the location of all other GA aircraft in my vicinity is a BIG deal. For a glider pilot (and even a GA pilot), PowerFLARM would be a very compelling option if it supported TIS-B and there was a reasonably low cost way to transmit an ADS-B OUT signal. Without TIS-B support, I have absolutely no interest in PowerFLARM; There currently are, lower cost TIS-B compatible solutions available from a variety of vendors (Navworx, SageTech, etc.).

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:58:02 PM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:37:31 PM UTC-5, ursus wrote:
> > > Note that PowerFLARM does NOT support TIS-B data transmitted by ADS-B ground stations, which is very disappointing.
> >
> > TIS-B will be discontinued. Investing in a soon to be obsolete
> > technology is not our top priority…
> > Nevertheless, we never said we would *not* do it, the PowerFLARM
> > hardware which currently ships is capable of doing it, but we prefer
> > to start as simple as possible.
> > We don’t see it as much of a shortcoming as you *will* get all the
> > aircraft which are on TIS-B already displayed (just non-directional)
> > plus you get more (aircraft that TIS-B cannot or does not feel like
> > broadcasting)
>
> TIS-B is NOT going to be discontinued. Maybe sometime after 2020 when all aircraft are ADS-B equipped, TIS-B will no longer be useful and be phased out, but until then it is a standard part of the US ADS-B deployment.

TIS-B IS going to be discontinued, that is and has always been the exact goal of the FAA.... This is like having an argument with a three year old. Not discontinued, but phased out... same f'ing thing. TIS-B was always intended to be an incentive to encourage ADS-B adoption/something to ease a transition to ADS-B and then to be discontinued/phased out.

As I've already commented, TIS-B is likely to get uninteresting fast around 2020 when FAA mandated data-out adoption in the USA fleet is likely to mean significant carriage of 1090ES data-out (which the PowerFLARM sees today) and that ADS-B direct signal will supplant TIS-B, and work everywhere, not reliant on radar coverage etc. Its now almost half way though 2012... and effectively nobody can bureaucratically/financially afford to install ADS-B data-out that is a requirement to receive TIS-B. So likely not many years left in this big picture until TIS-B is just uninteresting.

And TIS-B is only a 'standard part' where its actually currently deployed, congrats if you have local/approach/TRACON and/or area/ARTCC TIS-B coverage today where you fly. Most folks probalby have no idea what exactly is deployed where and can't find out. Yes the FAA is really marketing it that poorly..

> The non-directional PCAS functionality that is currently implemented in PowerFLARM is extremely primitive compared to the information that is available from TIS-B. For those of us who recreationally fly near or under Class B airspace, accurately seeing the location of all other GA aircraft in my vicinity is a BIG deal. For a glider pilot (and even a GA pilot), PowerFLARM would be a very compelling option if it supported TIS-B and there was a reasonably low cost way to transmit an ADS-B OUT signal. Without TIS-B support, I have absolutely no interest in PowerFLARM; There currently are, lower cost TIS-B compatible solutions available from a variety of vendors (Navworx, SageTech, etc.).

If and ... and if... and if ... then I'll get a PONY! My own PONY! And my pony will love me. And I'll go riding off into the sunset on my pony!

Meanwhile most folks don't want to wait for highly unlikely "if" to come true, they want stuff today. Few people here are going to care at all about this if that ADS-B data-out install in a glider costs several to $5k or so. Its all just what-if masturbation.

Many USA pilot here have PowerFLARM already installed or have bricks on order and are happy to have a product that addresses directly important needs they have. Please go buy whatever of this wonderful ADS-B hardware you want, bolt whatever PDA and magical traffic/collision avoidance software to that and actually see how well it all works.

And for other folks who think this is important. Remember TIS-B relies on terrestrial SSR radar coverage, so many GA airports and gliderports won't have any TIS-B services at low-altitudes or in the traffic pattern etc. (near the pattern is where I most worry about GA traffic).

For most of us TIS-B support in PowerFLARM is just entirely academic at the moment since we can't install ADS-B data-out in (certified) gliders and ADS-B data-out equipment manufacturers, including Trig, have not yet managed to sort out final ADS-B "b-rev" compliance hardware with the FAA bureaucracy. And even when these issues are sorted out us owners of certified aircraft are likely to (for at least the next handful of years) face a multi-$k cost for the IFR GPS required to install ADS-B data-out. And TIS-B (or ADS-R) won't work without that stupidly expensive ADS-B data-out capability. And those with experimental gliders thinking of skirting around the ADS-B data-out IFR GPS requirements might unfortunately find things magically stop working for them near 2020 (who knows?, but that's one possible scenario).

Darryl

[kirk.stant]

Ok Mike, please explain exactly what hardware/software setup you can install right now, TODAY, in your glider that provides detection of aircraft near you that is equivalent to seeing aircraft that are using Mode A/C, Mode S, 1090ES, and FLARM collision avoidance (glider to glider only, of course).

List the hardware, and approximate cost.

And can it be done legally.

Put up or shut up. Show us your installation in your glider.

TIS-B is a sick joke...

Kirk
66

[Mike Schumann]

For starters, you can buy a Navworx ADS-B transceiver for ~$2,600. This interfaces with a variety of GPS navigation devices. You get ADS-B IN/OUT including TIS-B and weather.

[Darryl Ramm]

The request was to put up or shut up, not asking for "for starters.." fluff. So please put up or shut up like Kirk asked...

What is actually installed in your glider?

What are all the parts needed (UAT transceivers, antennas, altitude encoders, GPS sources, displays, display software,...). Models/part numbers? Available today?

What exactly does it do/what features does it have?

How is it legally installed?

What does it all cost to purchase and install?

How many of these systems are flying in other gliders?

---

The claim here was this UAT technology was great for glider pilots worried about GA traffic. Unfortunately that story is full of holes, including the glaring problem that UAT is incompatible with current TCAS/TCAD and PCAS systems, which means a glider with just a UAT transceiver won't be visible to traffic systems that are used today in many airliners, corporate aircraft, private jets, military aircraft etc. (TCAS) and GA aircraft (TCAD and PCAS). UAT technology is just not the direction that I suspect that many glider pilots who really care about GA traffic threats will go. I especially expect they are likely to want to install a transponder. That transponder is compatible with today's TCAS/TCAD and TCAS systems and also makes the glider visible to ATC today, the UAT transceiver will make you visible to ATC as ADS-B services roll out across the USA (but remember not visible to TCAS/TCAD/PCAS etc.). Of course folks who fly with a PowerFLARM in busy GA (and airliner) also benefit greatly from installing a Mode C or Mode S transponder (and maybe in future 1090ES data-out if costs/complexity of doing ever gets addressed). To be fair I would prefer to see the cost of a transponder included in the cost of any system proposed as "great for GA traffic avoidance"... even if the PowerFLARM does PCAS today without needing a transponder installed.

Just in case anybody wants to take this silliness further here are some more questions to think though....

0. NavWorx spec power consumption for the ADS600B, as 0.7A @ 14VDC (=~ 0.8A @ 12 VDC?) *without* a display or external GPS or altitude encoder. This exceeds the total power consumption for many gliders (even transponder equipped ones). What is the actual power consumption seen in use in gliders with a display and other needed hardware? (and yes we've been over this power consumption before on r.a.s. as making the NavWorx ADS-B boxes a non-starter but Mike still loves this mangy pony...).

1. The NavWorx transceiver is just a box with no display. What exact traffic display works well in a glider?

2. Does that traffic display system issue traffic warnings? On screen? Audible beeps? Voice? Where is all the explained in detail?

3. How will the traffic display/warning (if any) system handle situations where there are several close aircraft (e.g. thermalling with other gliders, on-tow, in a busy traffic pattern).

4. Can the system be upgraded to see Flarm/PowerFLARM equipped gliders?

5. Can the traffic data/warnings be displayed on standard glider flight computers or gliding PDA/PNA software? (e.g. esp. using the publicly documented defacto-standard Flarm traffic display protocol).

6. Who has or is developing an STC for install of this transceiver in certified gliders? (STCs are currently required for any ADS-B data-out for all certified aircraft in the USA).

7. I don't believe the NavWorx ADS600-B transceiver is currently TSO approved. Is TSO approval a requirement for install in a certified aircraft (eg. is it required as a part of the process for granting of the required STC)? When is the TSO approval for the transceiver expected?

8. The Navworx ADS600-B transceiver has an internal GPS but that GPS does not meet the 2020 carriage mandate requirements. Will that GPS continue to be work OK with the FAA ground infrastructure or is the FAA likely to require it to be upgraded to an external IFR TSO'ed GPS for ADS-B services to be provided to the aircraft - and what will that upgrade cost?

9. What are some of the typical circle of error for TIS-B traffic threats for different (e.g. approach vs. en-route) SSR radar sources. (TIS-B based threat location is complicated by both the position uncertainty of the SSR radar data, movement of the targets between radar sweeps and delays propagating that data thought all the infrastructure out to ADS-B. This makes TIS-B less useful for close threats and the traffic threat/display software needs to handle this, doing things like reverting to a non-directional threat warning for "close" aircraft. How all this works and how "close" is close (how would you like a few nautical mile threat position uncertainty?). All this are critical details that I would want to see proven by use in gliders before I'd hype TIS-B as anything anybody should actually deploy.).

10. How does the traffic display/warning system handle threat aircraft that are closer than the positional error (i.e. the traffic system really does not know where they are relative to your own aircraft). How does this affect things like warnigns of transponder equipped tow planes when on tow etc.

11. When leaving (or conversely entering) areas/altitudes of TIS-B and ADS-R service coverage how does the traffic display system tell the pilot that those traffic features are now available (or conversely have become unavailable). And be careful, you don't want the traffic system distracting you all the time with status messages.

And if anybody thinks though all these and is still keen I've got *lots* more of these questions :-(

Sigh...


Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, May 14, 2012 5:19:04 PM UTC-7, Richard wrote:
> On May 13, 3:16 pm, Dixie Sierra <themsnyd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 10, 9:52 am, "Paul Remde"

Richard

Mode C or S transponders all require an external interrogator to be seen by PCAS systems and the PCAS capability in the PowerFLARM is no different. Mode S transponders are capable of some special transmissions even when not interrogated, e.g. higher-end Mode S transponders will broadcast an "acquisition squitter" about 1/sec. This is intended to work with TCAS but does not include altitude information so is usually ignored by PCAS. And of course if a Mode S transponder is transmitting a 1090ES/ADS-B data-out signal then the PowerFLARM will use that ADS-B provided GPS location and not worry about using PCAS for that threat.

Interrrgaors include ground based SSR radar systems as well as airborne TCAS and TCAD systems. Approach radar sweeps every 4 seconds and enroute radar sweeps every 12 second. Of course your transponder may be being interrogated by multiple different radar sites. Each pass of a SSR radar antenna/beam interrogates the transponder multiple times, from few to many tens or hundreds of rapid interrogations depending on the radar. In high traffic density environments transponders may be being interrogated hundreds or more times per second. Transponder specs require them to be able to handle interrogation rates around one thousand per second. None of this is usually indicated in any meaningful detail by the blinky light/display indicator thing on the transponder, that usually just flashes to show something is happening, not anything that useful about the interrogation rate. TCAS systems interrogating Mode C transponders are especially bandwidth pigs here, hammering nearby transponders at very high rates as the TCAS equipped aircraft gets close to a transponder equipped threat (a real waste of bandwidth and part of the reason that Europe went Mode S transponders only.... and why IMNSHO the USA should have had a long term roadmap (starting a decade or more ago) to go Mode S only + 1090ES and avoid all this dual link ADS-B crap).

While you want to be careful in remote areas just assuming PCAS will work, it is often a surprise to pilots that their transponders get interrogated at all in many of these areas. Maybe its a radar site you did not think of or often overflying TCAS equipped aircraft. I have flown for years with a Zaon MRX (and a transponder) and been really impressed with the MRX and I think the PCAS capability in PowerFLARM is very important feature.


Darryl

[Mike Schumann]

One thing that is being missed here, is that there are two fundamental categories of glider pilots. There are competition pilots who regularly fly in close proximity to other gliders and who want a system that is designed for that environment. Nobody is disputing that FLARM is a good solution for this application, if all of the other aircraft are FLARM equipped.

There is a second, much larger group of recreational glider pilots, who just want an accurate overview of where all the other aircraft are that are in their vicinity, so they can keep their distance and avoid ever getting close enough to anyone else to trigger an FLARM type of alarm. Many, if not most of these pilots fly near major metropolitan areas, and are, or shortly will be, within range of ADS-B ground stations.

Until there is widespread adoption of ADS-B out equipment in the GA (and airliner) fleet, TIS-B is going to be a very useful feature to give pilots a reason to equip their aircraft with collision avoidance equipment NOW vs waiting for some new technology.

Obviously, to make TIS-B work, you need to generate an ADS-B Out signal. Both the SSA and AOPA should be working with the FAA to resolve any regulatory issues in enabling the deployment of currently available ADS-B OUT technologies in all gliders and GA aircraft. It obviously doesn't make any sense that these low cost systems are OK in Experimental but not in certified aircraft.

Maybe you should redirect some of our negative insulting energy towards the FAA and its idiotic ADS-B Out policies, instead of fellow glider pilots who are trying to make flying safer.

[kirk.stant]

Again, what can you install today in your glider and detect traffic with? With a PowerFLARM, you will get warning of all Mode C, Mode S, and ADS-B traffic - and gliders with FLARM.

Install a Mode S transponder and the big boys will see you, too.

You can call your favorite glider equipment supplier today and get that equipment and install it in your glider for about $4k - and be ready for ADS-B out when that mess gets sorted out.

How much to install the equivalent level of ADS-B/TIS-B in/out hardware & software? Today?

Your argument (and denigration of PFlarm) seems to be centered on 1. "its for racers" and 2. "TIS-B is better and gives me more data".

The first is arguably false. Even if there are no other FLARM - equipped gliders where you fly, the PowerFLARM will give you good warning of other traffic around. Yes, it doesn't give bearing or real range for mode C/S traffic, but that's the same as PCAS which is extremely helpful in getting your eyes out looking for traffic. And guess what - unless all the gliders you fly with are ADS-B out or Mode C/S equipped - you won't see them on ADS-B either!

The second is more subject to opinion - your theoretical TIS-B setup will give you an approximate location of Mode A/S traffic, so that is better than PF. And if you can use the other data, whatever it is (weather?) then obviously PF does not support that (you would need a separate sat wx receiver, if you really cared). But PF gives you position for 1090ES traffic, and collision avoidance for PF equipped gliders.

You decide. Go ahead and wait for the future, and when you are flying to the gliderport using your jetpack, bask in the knowledge that you have the FAA's fancy system in your glider.

I'll drive to the field in my old Jeep and have a system that actually works.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Mike Schumann]

My only denigration of PowerFLARM is the disappointment that they have no plans to support TIS-B. If TIS-B were supported, we could all agree that PowerFLARM is the best solution for the glider market and move on to the issue of how we can get an economical solution for ADS-B OUT so that TIS-B will actually work as designed.

Anyone who is equipped today with a TRIG 21 and a flight computer that can output its GPS location data in all likelihood has all the hardware they need to implement ADS-B Out. The only problem is cutting thru the FAA red tape so you can actually cable up the GPS to the Trig 21 and turn it on. Once you do that, any ADS-B ground station within range of your glider will start transmitting TIS-B data.

I suspect that there are quite a few PowerFLARM customers who have also ordered or have installed Trig 21 transponders. I'm sure these guys would really appreciate the added TIS-B functionality, so they can accurately see where the other transponder equipped traffic is coming from and where it is going, rather than getting a non-directional PCAS type of alarm, with no idea of whether they have an airliner coming up from behind, or a GA aircraft somewhere up ahead.

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:57:48 PM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> My only denigration of PowerFLARM is the disappointment that they have no plans to support TIS-B. If TIS-B were supported, we could all agree that PowerFLARM is the best solution for the glider market and move on to the issue of how we can get an economical solution for ADS-B OUT so that TIS-B will actually work as designed.

But why settle for TIS-B? If everybody had a PowerFLARM and a 1090ES transponder, you wouldn't need TIS-B (which has a high probability of never actually working as designed). So why not spend as much effort getting the FAA to stop wasting time on TIS-B and push universal 1090ES/FLARM for everybody by 2020 - it would be easier and less expensive!

> Anyone who is equipped today with a TRIG 21 and a flight computer that can output its GPS location data in all likelihood has all the hardware they need to implement ADS-B Out. The only problem is cutting thru the FAA red tape so you can actually cable up the GPS to the Trig 21 and turn it on. Once you do that, any ADS-B ground station within range of your glider will start transmitting TIS-B data.

Again. You can't do that right now. You CAN install and use a PF and a Mode S transponder.

> I suspect that there are quite a few PowerFLARM customers who have also ordered or have installed Trig 21 transponders. I'm sure these guys would really appreciate the added TIS-B functionality, so they can accurately see where the other transponder equipped traffic is coming from and where it is going, rather than getting a non-directional PCAS type of alarm, with no idea of whether they have an airliner coming up from behind, or a GA aircraft somewhere up ahead.

Have you actually ever used a traffic detection device to spot traffic? I have for many years. Even the simple MRX PCAS provides all the info necessary to find traffic in time to avoid it. The most important warning is that someone is near - that gets you out of the cockpit and scanning in earnest (what we pretend to do all the time but actually don't, really). Then it gives you an approximate range and range rate - is the traffic getting closer and how fast (good clue on whether its a glider co-speed or a fast mover running you down), Finally, it gives you an altitude difference and direction of change - so you know to look high or low or level, and can see if the traffic is climbing or descending through your altitude or maintaining altitude. All this put together allows you to prioritize your search and makes traffic detection an order of magnitude easier than just scanning hoping to see something. Of course, adding accurate bearing and range is nice - and you will get that from more and more fast movers as 1090ES is implemented in newer jets. And since you do not compete or ever plan on letting other gliders near you in the air or share a thermal with them, we don't have to mention the specific benefits of FLARM ;^)

If you are curious why I continue to point all this out, it is because I want fence sitters on the PowerFLARM issue to really understand the differences between ADS-B/TIS-B and PowerFLARM.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Mike Schumann]

No one will dispute that having a non-directional PCAS type of device is a big improvement over pure eyeballs. Having a copy of the ATC radar picture in your cockpit is another order of magnitude improvement over that.

Your argument that it would be easier to convince the FAA to require FLARM deployment by 2020 rather than relaxing the GPS specs to permit the commercialization of low cost ADS-B OUT transmitters defies reality. The FAA and the international ATC community is firmly committed to ADS-B as the technology blueprint for the future. In the US, TIS-B is part of that blueprint, and is 50% deployed. The remaining ground station infrastructure will be completed by the end of 2013.

It is obvious to everyone, including key people within the FAA, that low cost ADS-B OUT transmitters must be available for the GA community. This IS going to happen. The only question is when. My gut instinct is that it will be sooner rather than later.

When low cost ADS-B Out solutions are widely available, the avionic systems that support TIS-B will completely obsolete existing non-directional PCAS type systems. When this time comes, there are going to be a lot of unhappy PowerFLARM customers out there if these units don't support TIS-B.

[Ramy]

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

[Mike Schumann]

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.

[Ramy]

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

[Mike Schumann]

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.

[noel.wade]

On May 23, 7:20 am, Mike Schumann <m...@traditions.com> 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

[Mike Schumann]

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?

[Jim]

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

[Darryl Ramm]

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

[Dave Nadler]

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 here:
>
> Manuals and Software Updates
> http://powerflarm.us/manuals-software-updates-and-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"

[Mike Schumann]

T

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.

[Darryl Ramm]

Its academic/irrelevant because nobody effectively can use it without the ADS-B data-out problem (esp. certified gliders requiring an STC and a certified IFR GPS) being solved. That is the definition of irrelevant...

> 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.

No its likely a lot more complex than that. Including bandwidth concerns (even if the FAA is already screwed there in part because of UAT's data-out likely poor adoption) and it's the data-out itself that the FAA wants users to adopt--arguing they don't need to encoruage that goes against some pretty well ingrained direction at the FAA. If you know otherwise go and get AOPA and EAA and other lobbyists working on this. I doubt anybody cares what a few hundred glider pilots think.

> 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.

Political pressure? What are you smoking? The FAA has a multiple $B ADS-B and Nextgen deployment, that is problematic and has potential to blow up in their face. You think they care about what a few hundred glider pilots think? But keep waving the flag and harping ADS-B for gliders like you have been and the regulators might well take the bait and want to make that ADS-B data-out mandatory for gliders.

> 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.

TIS-B is a protocol, not a product. How well a TIS-B based traffic display/warning system will work in a glider is an open question. We fly behind tow planes, thermal with other gliders, often fly in and out of TIS-B service coverage, etc. The display/warning system needs to handle that without distracting or confusing pilots. And this needs a lot of development work to suit our environments. You've advocated TIS-B multiple times here recently but have never responded to any request to name any display systems that uses TIS-B that would work in a glider today. And some of the current ADS-B/TIS-B display products intended for the GA applications are a joke and more cartoon displays than serious traffic awareness/collision avoidance products.

Urs, CEO of Flarm, has just said clearly that PowerFLARM might in future implement TIS-B support. That's the only choice I see for this ever being usable in gliders, assuming the data-out problem is solved. I do not see any other company ever having a market focus, business case, experience, and R&D chops to tackle this. So if the FAA is able to address the current serious road-blocks for ADS-B data-out and TIS-B (and do that enough ahead of time before FAA TIS-B support is decommissioned) then many Flarm will get to this. If not then they have not wasted a whole bunch of time and money on it. Seems the exactly right business choice for me.

You've been on r.a.s for years going on and on and on about how great ADS-B and in particular UAT technology will be. The reality is the PowerFLARM, is here today and delivers what most of us want. PowerFLARM (and transponders) are already and will continue to define the traffic awareness/collision avoidance technology landscape in the USA glider market. Flarm and its partners have tens of thousands of devices installed worldwide, they have done an incredible service to the glider community, and have amazingly been able to do this without listing to any of your advice. I suspect this current whining about PowerFLARM is because you've been so wrong hyping UAT in the past. If you don't like what Flarm is doing or don't want a PowerFLARM then go buy something else and install it. And if it works tell folks about it, and exactly what it costs and what it does. We are still waiting for _any_ word from you on what you fly with today in your glider and how to get any of this stuff you keep talking about installed in any glider.

Darryl