I don't think that people in the US are against FLARM or a similar type of
device. I think that the risk environment in the US is different than in
Europe due to the much larger amount of power VFR traffic, which poses at
least as much of a threat to gliders as other gliders. My concern is with
introducing another technology that doesn't address the entire problem,
which then diverts everyone from implementing the technology (ADS-B) which
really could solve this for everyone.

The only negatives that I can see with an ADS-B based approach is the cost,
and the very slow FAA rollout schedule. I don't understand why inherently
ADS-B technology needs to be more expensive than FLARM. If it's a
certification issue, I would suspect that the FAA would be willing to be
flexible if the options are certified units that are unaffordable, vs. cheap
units that are self certified (like Light Sport Aircraft) which would be
widely deployed by gliders, ultralights, LSAs and UAVs which otherwise
couldn't afford the technology.

The FAA rollout schedule is also not necessarily a show stopper. Without
FAA ground stations, ADS-B equipped gliders won't be visible to air traffic
control or TCAS equipped planes. However, ADS-B equipped aircraft are fully
visible to each other, just like FLARM equipped planes are in Europe. The
bonus, once the FAA catches up with everybody else, is that ADS-B users will
then be fully integrated into the air traffic control system (plus be able
to receive Nexrad weather, etc.).

Mike Schumann

"Robert Danewid" wrote in message
...
There are ca 9 000 FLARM units in use in Europe, and all who use them
seems to be in favour of it. There seems to be no FLARMs in the US, but a
lot of people who is against it.

When I bought my ASW 28-18E last winter it was already equipped with a
FLARM. I used to be against FLARM for all the reasons listed in this
thread, now that I have flown with it I am in favour of it.

Robert Danewid
ASW 28-18E RD




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com