On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:22:30 PM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:56:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Your statement "Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover" is a pretty bad accusation directed towards people who brought Flarm to the USA.

Another of your comment "Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm"

Your above comment is simply ridiculous and offending to many people. You might consider rethinking before you post next time.

Sorry if I offended you Andrzej, I apologize for not making it clear that I was not referring to the developers or the vendors of Flarm. My post was directed only towards those pilots who have vigorously pushed Flarm under the somewhat transparent guise of "safety" when what they really care about is tactical advantage. Those who protest vehemently against stealth mode on the basis of reduced safety, give away their true agenda when they refuse to at least acknowledge that tactical use of Flarm raises the potential for degradation of safety. Do we know that the current stealth mode, or a future "competition" mode will reduce safety more than increased head-down time or intentional suppression of antennas, or..?

I am not against Flarm. I have flown with Flarm in contests for it's stated purpose as a collision avoidance tool and found it useful.