PowerFLARM Results from Mifflin and elsewhere
On behalf of the FLARM team, thanks to all of the pilots who helped us at Mifflin and Perry, especially for the help gathering diagnostic log files. With your help, FLARM has been able to conclusively nail down the USA-specific range problem and prove out a solution, and also sort out a number of antenna and mounting issues. The result: all PowerFLARM® brick equipped pilots (plus a couple pilots using modified portables) had excellent range at Mifflin, the remaining portable pilots had adequate range, and we know what needs doing to update the portables.
PowerFLARM® Portable owners: please stand by for instructions about getting your units updated (don’t send them until we’re ready)…
All pilots now flying with FLARM: We encourage you to post your comments (good, bad, indifferent) about your experience with PowerFLARM® at Mifflin and other locations. Use the “Leave a Reply” feature below.
Thanks again from the FLARM Team !
6 Responses to PowerFLARM Results from Mifflin and elsewhere
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Log In
Register For This Site
A password will be e-mailed to you.
Hi, All;
This past weekend I was able to try out my PF with 3 other PF units at the same time. The units appeared to work as promised – with all four of us confirming target acquisitions, relative heights, and distances over and over again. Three of us spent about 3 hours in the same general vicinity due to completely overcast skies, sometimes challenging conditions, lowish ceilings, and weather blocking the North and South routes. At this point, we were the only three in the air so it was a good test for the PF. We were very active on the radio as well. There were other non PF gliders out earlier, and yes, everyone realizes visual lookout is still primary. Broadcasting location and intentions via radio as gliders move around is critical for situational awareness in limited airspace.
I believe we had set our PF ranges to 4 nm, with height differences 2000 to 3000 feet. We consistently ~saw~ each other at 4 nm – lots of time to know someone was in the general area. If they were outside the height parameters they did not show up as targets, as there was no threat. The ADS-B / Transponder showed targets consistently as well. With the clouds and weather, it was quite difficult at times to pick out gliders. I was thankful to know the whereabouts of the others when they were around. I try hard to keep a vigilante lookout, and yet several times, even knowing where they were, I COULD NOT pick them up visually – even at distances of only 1 – 1.5 nm. Eyeopening, so to speak.
Dan Cook and I were South of Fairmont Peak at one time and agreed to fly towards each other. I’m guessing we were about one nm apart at the time? Our altitude difference was about 100 feet – maybe less. Initially, the PFs showed us only as targets, as there was no collision hazard. As we turned toward each other both PFs went off at the same time, quickly going from green to amber, then to red at our closing speed of about 140 kts or so. I think I may speak for Dan and say we were both impressed with the result. It was disconcerting for both of us to continue flying toward each other only 100 ft apart. It didn’t take much time to close the gap. We were also on the radio during this test. Thanks to Dan for participating in the experiment. There was a lot of involved conversation after landing about everyone’s impressions and results.
My current setup has the panel partially blocking the PF antennae to one side. This is a well documented problem, causing some target signal loss or late acquisition. I noted that on the ~blocked~ side, it appeared to take longer to acquire a signal, and the target would go intermittent towards the blind side / rear (depending on how far away the target was – usually close to 4 nm away). Correct antennae placement is of utmost importance – as all the PF documentation reiterates. This next week I will be attaching the second / auxiliary, flat PF antennae (it comes with the PF package) to the top of my glare-shield with velcro. It is small, very light, and will not interfere with forward vision. I fully expect the PF to pick up and maintain targets easier / longer as there will no longer be any signal blockage.
I find the unit to be easy to use, almost idiot proof, and intuitive. Based on my limited experience, the unit does what it says it will and does it quite well. I highly recommend their use. Just my .02. YMMV.
Steve
Thanks Steve. A better antenna solution will be a dipole on the “A” port mounted on top of the panel. This will give better transmit coverage and receive coverage (adding the dipole to the “B” port will not help others see you, as PowerFLARM transmits only on “A”). We will be posting some installation notes with pictures here shortly.
Thanks again,
Best Regards, Dave
Hello all,
I had the opportunity to install and fly the entire 15 meter nationals with a PowerFLARM Brick. The unit was a very clean install, connecting directly to my LX V7 vario via RJ45. I use an Oudie as a PFD “Primary flight display” which is also connected directly to the LX V7 vario and now is receiving GPS data from the Brick “Awesome”… Due to limited time and space I had elected to leave the Butterfly display out of the process during the contest. I have since installed the display into my Ventus-2ax which now includes all targets of concern.
While flying the contest only other PowerFLARM equipped gliders were being displayed on the V7 and Oudie. The active sequence of events would be as follows.
-Traffic ID via oral alert from Oudie “Traffic 2 o’clock”
-Followed by a Red banner at the top of the Oudie screen with text information on the target
-If the target continued to remain a conflict the LX V7 Vario screen would change to a FLARM Screen and display the clock position of the target in bright Red.
**The V7 audio function of the vario would silence during this process, further directing your attention to the issue of conflict resolution.
One feature of the system is to discard traffic while circling but the unit continue to evaluate other gliders entering the thermal that might be a threat based on the intercept angle and altitude. I like this feature very much for contest flying.
I will not fly another contest without this device and now understand why the big push to make this required equipment for contest. Bottom line it improves safety 100% and raises SA…
Great experience all the way around, install to flying…
Regards,
John A. Banarhall
18H
I installed a PowerFlarm brick and 57mm Butterfly display at 15m nats. Took great care to get a good antenna installation. Results: excellent range, excellent discrimination between threat and non-threat gliders in thermals, useful PCAS warnings for TXP equipped power traffic. Even discovered one tow plane has an altitude encoder that reports (consistently) 300′ low
.
Highly recommended & very strongly encouraged for all competition pilots.
-Evan Ludeman / T8
Using PowerFLARM in the Uvalde Pre-Worlds and the recent 15-Meter Nationals in Mifflin was interesting. In both these contests I found PowerFlarm to enhance safety while not being overly distracting. There is a good deal of discussion of the competitive aspects of the technology but the safety aspect is proven and supported by my experience. The group looks to be serious about making the needed improvements, rolling out updates and generally providing the support required by a relatively new technology in a new market. Despite the challenges and my initial reluctant adoption PFLARM clearly provides enhanced safety for all glider pilots. When installing the PowerFlarm be sure review the commercially available cables now available from the glider equipment distributors including Cumulus Soaring for connecting various devices. Dave Nadler has really gone all out to get this technology working and available in the USA. Dave has gone above and beyond in this area and deserves a good deal of recognition for the technical and customer service he has provided.
Geez, now you’re making me blush…