FLARM.....for good, or evil??

On Oct 29, 8:16*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 10/28/2010 10:21 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
[snip]

You are confusing ADS-B and everything else under the "Nextgen" umbrella.

No. I am pointing out lots of the complexity in ADS-B comes from its
multiple applications for multiple different users seeking multiple
different benefits. Nextgen is the raison d'être for ADS-B and Nextgen
requirements have driven development of the underlying RTCA standards
etc.

ADS-B is fundamentally a very simple concept. *You have a GPS in your
airplane, and once a second you transmit your position and velocity
vector data. *On the receive side, you listen and receive everyone
else's position. *Additional data may also be available if you are
interested (weather, Notams, etc.).

Ah now I get it I'm looking at this all wrong. I'm trying to look at
things from a practical, what works, how it works, what can be used
together viewpoint... for now and in the future. But what we should be
focusing on instead is simple concepts--even when any cogent practical
thought shows the actual use of these technologies in actual scenarios
to save actual pilots lives is not simple.

Why don't you write those simple concepts down on a sheet of paper and
tape them inside your cockpit. That will draw no power, require no
space to install, require no third party display devices, have no
false alarm issue, have no compatibility requirements with current
glider equipment and require no FAA approval. And should the small
practical things happen of you get killed in a mid-air collision we
can tape those simple concepts inside your coffin.

ADS-B is basically the same as FLARM, except that FLARM also includes
collision avoidance features that need to be implemented externally to
the ADS-B transceiver, if the user desires this...

ADS-B is basically the same as FLARM for the purposes of making silly
debating points. The focus of most of the rest of us is what can most
practically/best be done to avoid mid-air collisions.

Darryl