I was joking...sheesh

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:27:26 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:31:44 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 1:10:30 PM UTC-8, smfidler wrote:
OK I'll stop it here. ;-)

Oh thank goodness, finally. So just to recap... we all decided to forgo this silliness of a nonexistent "stealth mode, the RC is going to mandate Flarm for all contests and we can polish up the tech vs No tech debate, next time something fun and useful comes along.

Jonathan, was this really necessary?

At minimum, I think we got some good test cases to work with and some scenarios to consider. I hope this dialog continuous into the future and whatever comes out of it can be acceptable to us all.

Complexity of this topic is high and different players (e.g. IGC, UK guys, and us) might have different requirements. It would be interesting to hear what folks at Flarm, who created the algorithms, wrote and tested the code, are comfortable implementing considering it is their product.

One thing is certain, we all want PowerFlarm to succeed as anti-collision avoidance system.

I have to admit, despite the fact that I was fairly critical of Flarm while we were going through PF growing pains in USA I would not imagine flying without it.

We have snow on the ground in NH. I miss the collision alerts

Andrzej