PowerFlarm v3.40

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 10:14:46 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:

Listen up, Guys: GA, military, and airlines are NOT using Flarm. Oh, and

we have at least one guy at Moriarty who has a Flarm but not a transponder.

So he and the half dozen or so Flarm equipped gliders can avoid each other

but he's cruising along blissfully unaware that ATC can't see him, nor can

the airliners or military flights that buzz in and out of ABQ daily.

Blissfully unaware? Well, since GA, military, and airliners are pretty much all using either Mode A/C, Mode S, or ADS-B, that PFlarm-only guy is probably fully aware of the location of any potentially threatening traffic in his vicinity - even that VFR doctor in the Bonanza squawking 1200 and not talking to anybody...

And he is also aware of where all his gliding buddies are - and that's a lot of fun, too! - even the clueless new guy who it trying to run into him under his nice Cu in the middle of nowhere.

So while I agree that if you routinely mix in with high-speed airline traffic (common out West, not as common in most of midwest or east) a transponder is a smart thing, I think that a PFlarm is even more of a good thing. Both is best.

Try it - you might like it. Seriously.

Cheers,

Kirk

While I agree with what you said about the fun of knowing where your buddies
are, you missed my point that it's ATC and other aircraft that can't see the
Flarm-only glider. Sure he (might be able to) see them, but they can't see
him. I also had to draw the line at mounting a device that can only either
block my panel or my outside view. Sometimes more is not necessarily better
but I know opinions vary on what to have.

Finally at the risk of starting a flame war, I would not install a device
that I consider to be still in beta test. XCSoar releases beta software but
they identify it as such and ask experienced users to "gorilla test" it and
identify problems. From the level of complaints I've read regarding Flarm
firmware updates, missed targets, suppression, antennae, displays, etc., I
believe it's still a beta product. Sure it does great things, but it would
not yet receive a TSO. Happy testing!


"kirk.stant" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, April 20, 2014 10:14:46 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:

Listen up, Guys: GA, military, and airlines are NOT using Flarm. Oh, and

we have at least one guy at Moriarty who has a Flarm but not a
transponder.

So he and the half dozen or so Flarm equipped gliders can avoid each other

but he's cruising along blissfully unaware that ATC can't see him, nor can

the airliners or military flights that buzz in and out of ABQ daily.

Blissfully unaware? Well, since GA, military, and airliners are pretty much
all using either Mode A/C, Mode S, or ADS-B, that PFlarm-only guy is
probably fully aware of the location of any potentially threatening traffic
in his vicinity - even that VFR doctor in the Bonanza squawking 1200 and not
talking to anybody...

And he is also aware of where all his gliding buddies are - and that's a lot
of fun, too! - even the clueless new guy who it trying to run into him under
his nice Cu in the middle of nowhere.

So while I agree that if you routinely mix in with high-speed airline
traffic (common out West, not as common in most of midwest or east) a
transponder is a smart thing, I think that a PFlarm is even more of a good
thing. Both is best.

Try it - you might like it. Seriously.

Cheers,

Kirk

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 8:14:46 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
it strikes me funny that nobody seems to have noticed that
it's the "same altitude" aircraft that's going to hit you.


It's not that nobody has noticed. I have posted about this issue before.

The reason FALRM implemented this change is that it is less bad than having continuous alerting to ownship transponder.

Why would you want all transponders at co-altitude to be suppressed?

Because they have not figured out how to suppress the only co-altitude transponder that needs to be suppressed - the one in the same aircraft as the Power FLARM.


Andy

Zaon figured it out years ago. My PCAS does not alert on my transponder.
In fact, with a simple button hit, it displays my squawk code to verify that
it's giving me alerts based upon my transponder altitude rather than its own
internal pressure sensor.

Why can't the PFlarm simply eliminate the most powerful transponder
received? That would have to be your own unless another aircraft is parked
with his transponder antenna closer to your PF antennae than your own
transponder antenna and that ain't bloody likely.

"Andy" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, April 20, 2014 8:14:46 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
it strikes me funny that nobody seems to have noticed that
it's the "same altitude" aircraft that's going to hit you.


It's not that nobody has noticed. I have posted about this issue before.

The reason FALRM implemented this change is that it is less bad than
having continuous alerting to ownship transponder.

Why would you want all transponders at co-altitude to be suppressed?

Because they have not figured out how to suppress the only co-altitude
transponder that needs to be suppressed - the one in the same aircraft as
the Power FLARM.


Andy