Power Flarm

[bad bear]

Over a year ago there was a thread about FLARM and the only criticism was that it did not give traffic information on transponder equipped aircraft.
Well now there is a new upgraded version called Power Flarm which gives traffic info on any ADSB, mode "S" and Flarm aeroplane or glider. A very large number of UK gliders carry Flarm so if you would like an electronic aid to back up your look out this might be the answer.In Germany, Austria and Switzerland Flarm equipage is way over 50% below FL100).
for more info see this website ....LX avionics Ltd - Traffic Alert Systems (http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/traffic-monitor.htm)
In many parts of the world ADSB should replace the old fashioned obsolete transponder in the next 5 - 10 years

hope to be seen by you somewhere in the open FIR somewhere soon

bb

[Daysleeper]

Been a long time coming, but £1,580 :{

And no mode C (promised by summer...) and looks like they couldn't resolve the lateral inaccuracies on transponders.

Still it is a step in the right direction.

[IO540]

Power Flarm is good but there is no azimuth (direction) data on Mode C targets.

I spoke to them about this at length but they don't appear to be interested in doing such a product.

I don't know if ZAON have good patents on their Mode C azimuth or whether it is something else...

[bookworm]

Power Flarm is good but there is no azimuth (direction) data on Mode C targets.

I'd be interested in knowing how pilots equipped with these detectors (e.g. the Zaon MRX too) operate in practice. So it shows something at your level, range decreasing. What action do you take?

[englishal]

I am not convinced about the non directional ones.....

(Zaon XRX interfaced to Garmin Aera 550) - Monitor it and try and visually acquire. 99% of the time when the GPS says TRAFFIC and you see the yellow dot on the screen, you visually acquire it very shortly afterwards. The XRX is pretty good if well mounted and certainly within the front 270 degrees is accurate IMHE.

[SDB73]

I'm seriously considering buying a PowerFlarm for VFR in the UK / nearby europe.

I'm buying it on a "better than not having it" basis, married to an "it's extra information, not to be relied upon, but you never know" attitude.

Ignoring whether the entire concept of TCAS / PCAS, etc is good or bad, can anyone tell me any reason not to buy one, and instead to buy a competing product?

[Rod1]

I wrote an article for Flyer a while back about what was available and how to get the best out if it. I am going to do a flight test on PF as soon as it has the mode C side sorted.

No direction indication is not an issue. See and avoid is 8 times more effective if you know there is traffic in your area and miss something by 500ft and you have missed it. I am talking VFR only, the devices are intended to assist see and avoid not replace it.

Rod1

[SDB73]

Thanks Rod.

Do you know whether there's a quick / straightforward way of getting hold of that article?

With what's out in the marketplace now, power lark seems to be the most useful, in light of the fact it seems to be the only one which detects pretty much anything. Would you agree, or would you advise something different? Or is it more complicated than that!?

[Rod1]

I will go with;

Or is it more complicated than that!?:ok:

Rod1

[Robin400]

Regarding azimuth (direction) data on Mode C targets.

My training manual for the Honeywell TCAS states,
"The TCAS traffic display on the VSI is not considered accurate enough to support horizontal manoeuvres".
In practice the one visually acquired proved not to be the conflict on receipt of a TA or RA.
This is probably why flarm are not interested in info from old mode A/C transponders.

[chrisN]

Re Bookworm’s question, what to do if a non-azimuth alert is received on PCAS (MRX) – cut and pasted from an earlier document:

“I had a near approach by a powered aircraft which came up from behind me, detectable only by PCAS (a transponder detector even more compact that Flarm, which I also have.) Not being able to see it, or anything else in the forward visible arc, I did a turn and watched it go by. It was close-ish, but probably never on an actual collision course, and plenty of room for my turn. But suppose it had been on a collision course, with the pilot’s head down? Would you rather have no alert, or get one? I was glad I got one.”

Chris N

[Jan Olieslagers]

I seem to remember a comment that FLARM with its variants is a private initiative of one company, who reserve the right to change the communication parameters of the system at their discretion, and force users to payable upgrades.

If this really be the case, it is a NO NO for me. Can anyone confirm, or gainsay?

Any safety-related matter and equipment should conform to protocols and parameters under public control.

As I understand this is the case for ADS-B. The best compromise I can imagine is to transmit one's own information under an "official" format, like ADS-B or mode-S transponder, and to receive and display information from as many sources as can be managed.

Linking to another thread: electrical power goes to transmitting, not to receiving. Transmitting in multiple formats would consume lots of electrical power, receiving and decoding and displaying several formats much less.

[chrisN]

Jan, I am not a salesman or spokesman for Flarm, nor an apologist for them, but I have been advocating its use in gliding, and GA more generally, because it is the only thing that does what it does. I also advocate PCAS where possible, for the same reason.

With those caveats, my understanding is as follows (and open to correction if anybody knows better).

Flarm presumably has intellectual property rights over its technology and algorithms.

GPS (or strictly GNSS, I believe) is free to use, courtesy of the USA.

Flarm has required free (not paid for) mandatory software updates every 3 years. I have had this done twice. The only paying for element was the first time I took it to the UK agent (fuel cost), and the second time I bought a lead so I could do it myself. The updates themselves are free. My understanding is that they want this done so that all units in use have the latest algorithms, and are mutually compatible.

Flarm (the original company) have licensed others – notably Butterfly who make Powerflarm – to use the same technology and algorithms. I expect they charge for it – why wouldn’t they?

If you want to invent your own, or persuade another company to enter the market with a competitive product, I don’t know how you can do that without reverse engineering to get compatibility with Flarm, which presumably would then invoke their IPR. If not compatible with Flarm, what use would two incompatible systems be?

It may not be an ideal free-for-all competitive market place, but in my view it is better than the alternative. We lost 20 people in 23 years of gliding collisions in the UK (including several power pilots who collided with gliders – most recently, 2009, Grob with cadet and instructor). Since Flarm (only partly taken up so far), no collisions with working Flarms in both.

I have tried to get Continental Europe data, but there is no authoritative source. Anecdotal evidence is that since Flarm came into Alpine glider flying, collisions have diminished. I have heard, worldwide, of only one case of two working Flarm-equipped gliders colliding. (But there may be more I have not heard of.)

I would be interested to learn of any better or more complete statistics.

In my opinion, ADS-B may be a long-term solution with wider compatibility, and may or may not eventually co-habit with Flarm, or merge into some sort of son-of-Flarm – but if we did nothing while waiting for that Nirvana, we would perhaps carry on killing 4 people every 5 years in gliding in the UK, and goodness knows how many more elsewhere. I was not prepared to wait for Nirvana.

Chris N.

[Rod1]

The advantage of Power Flarm and one or two others is that it combines technologies. You get ADS-B (which will eventually be the standard in 10 – 20 years) plus transponder detection (mode S + C maybe) plus Flarm. Power Flarm is over a year late and the specs have been a bit fluid, so we will see. On big advantage is it works at greater range than std Flarm which is better for higher speed aircraft.

Chris and I have tried to raise the collision avoidance issue and we have had some limited input into some of the specs for devices following various articles in Flyer and Gliding mags.

Rod1

[SDB73]

Thanks for all the input.

I think I've misunderstood something. Is PowerFlarm not yet available? If that's the case, is it worth holding off buying something or getting something else in the mean time?

[Rod1]

PowerFlarm is available without the mode C detection. This is imminent…

Rod1

[BackPacker]

Will that be fixed through a software update or will the hardware need to be upgraded?

[Rod1]

Firmware is the promise but let’s see what we get. If you want an alternative at lower cost but only for permit aircraft have a look at the TM 250.

Rod1

[chrisN]

See : LX avionics Ltd. Radio transceivers, Mode S transponders, variometers, flight recorders (http://www.lxavionics.co.uk) for the UK agents, and info.

Also data on other options.

(I have no commercial interest - just a customer, at their full retail prices without discount - and I ask them for advice/information on occasions.)

Chris N.