PowerFLARM leeching comments

I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of the"stealth" mode.


Mike,

we all know the history we had with poor range beginning of this season.

But I do think we have that under control now. If you still find 'cheesy' installations,
feel free to invite the responsible operators to improve them in everybody's interest.

Luckily, there's a correlation between the reception characteristics of most
installations and the conflict situation with highest approach speed (head-on)---
most antennas are in the nose and radiate best in front of the glider.

For parallel course, you don't need 10NM range because the potential closing
speeds are much lower.

We recommend not activating stealth!

Best
--Gerhard

On Nov 2, 4:23*am, wrote:

We recommend not activating stealth!

Best
--Gerhard

Presuming that the systems and installations in use have been well
tested in open mode for adequate range in all directions in open mode:
why not?

I really only want one thing from flarm: anti-collision warning.
Tracking "bugs" across a small cockpit display and trying to make
tactical decisions based on same is simply not a game I am interested
in playing.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Nov 2, 1:23*am, wrote:

we all know the history we had with poor range beginning of this season.
But I do think we have that under control now.

Gerhard,

Would you please sumarise what, if any, changes have been made since
the beginning of the season that would have resulted in increased
FLARM range for the US portable and core systems.

The only change I am aware of is a recall of portables to fit a band
pass filter but that recall has not yet been made.


thanks

Andy GY