Airborne_Again wrote:
You mean that “shrink-wrap” contracts are not legal in Germany? That would be wonderful!
Basically yes!
Of course, if you buy Software “shrink-wrap”, a consumer has to expect that there are some licensing rules applicable and if a) the license agreement is shown very early in the installation process and b) you have the opportunity to give back the software at full reimbursement after you had the chance to read them, that is typically ok.
But when talking about physical goods, any licensing terms that restrict the use of the physical good are typically ruled to be “surprising” to an average customer and therefore void.
The thing is that this product is not a certified product in the normal aviation sense. Somebody did some Minor Change paperwork for it, or it goes in under CS-STAN and there is supporting paperwork to keep installers happy. Is a list of display devices binding? It’s not an STC (which implies a Major Change). Most likely the supporting docs reference electrical loading, installation of a dedicated CB, etc.
It would be e.g. the Garmin STC which, under traditional industry interpretation, prohibits the connection of anything not on either the Garmin STC or its own STC. We did that e.g. here.
Obviously, I do not buy that entire position, because it is technically absolutely ridiculous to argue that e.g. using the output of Box X to feed Box Y (implemented as a unidirectional RS232, RS422, ARINC429, etc) invalidates the approval of X. The other way round, feeding Y with data from X with (which Y was not tested with) could obviously have undesirable results, but again if Y is some uncertified monitoring device, who cares? It’s all “own risk” anyway.
Peter wrote:
Obviously, I do not buy that entire position, because it is technically absolutely ridiculous to argue that e.g. using the output of Box X to feed Box Y (implemented as a unidirectional RS232, RS422, ARINC429, etc) invalidates the approval of X.
That’s not what FLARM Technology says. There is no restriction in unidirectional connections to additional Y boxes (secondary displays).
What they say is that the FLARM system does not work as intended unless at the FLARM box is connected – bidirectionally – to a display which is approved by them as primary display.
Please note that I’m not defending FLARM’s position but explaining it as I understand it.
Why is the data bidirectional?
Peter wrote:
Why is the data bidirectional?
Because you use the display controls to change settings for the FLARM box.
For those of you who installed Powerflarm devices in wood/fabric aircrafts, how do you ensure efficient reception?
I am told of an aircraft in which 4 antennas had to be installed and the reception is still poor (I have asked details about that specific case).
In my experience, two dipole antennas for wood/fabric airframes usually give good results, pending they are optimally located.
BOD wrote:
For those of you who installed Powerflarm devices in wood/fabric aircrafts, how do you ensure efficient reception?
Wood/fabric is no problem. Same with most composite, but carbon fiber…
Metal, or CF, is more of a problem and might require more than 1 antenna. Speaking of which, you’ll need for each PowerFlarm, 1 GPS, 1 ADSB, and 1 Flarm antenna as minimum. Metal aircraft, such as mine, require a top and bottom mounted antenna to cover the airspace around.
Either way, all info is to be found in the respective install manual…
FWIW, I’ve installed PowerFlarm on 3 aircraft of different material: Portable on a Falco (and a Jodel D11), TX1500 on a VariEze, and AT-1 on my homebuilt RV-6.9.
Now finalised the position of the Flarm antennas on my ship, the upper one is on the warm side of the windscreen, on a 45° inclined metal brace (far from ideal, no rear coverage), the lower one was recently installed inside the engine cowling, on the forward part of the baffling. Quite happy with the coverage.
One interesting tool regarding installation coverage is the FLARM live range analyzer and SAR info
Yesterday a friend of mine had his first flight on a RV-14A he built with his wife, and I flew some chase (well, I tried… man, those -14 are fast, doing KTAS180+ 
, no retracts 
), and here the report:
Airborne_Again wrote:
Because you use the display controls to change settings for the FLARM box.
But that happen once in a blue moon.
I share the view that Flarm is over-stepping their authority. It is just marketing using the “certification” word to get to their aim.
You could also generate the config commands with a separate box.
