On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:47:40 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:01:43 AM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
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.

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

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..