Is FLARM helpful?

I find it interesting that the FAA has selected 15 nautical miles as the appropriate range for TIS-B aircraft target situational awareness yet on this forum, there are folks who want to argue that 2 km is all that is needed. Providing that 15 NM range comes at a square law cost in terms of data signaling requirements; that number would not have been the choice if it were not deemed to be needed and useful.

As has been pointed out, the fact that a glider pilot perceived some sort of competition related anti-leeching benefit from intentionally reducing their detection range would be one hell of a tough sell in a US court if the worst were to happen. And then there's the question of what might be the insurance response be in that situation? It seems to me that even if you happen to believe the leeching nonsense, you should not want to have anyone in the organization setting themselves up for increased liability. Seems like race organizers are rationally compelled to specifically disallow stealth so that nobody is permitted to use it for perceived advantage.

We, as an organization have set a 500' margin to airspace above and 30 minute margin to official sunset time -- conservative safety standards for sure.. It is incongruous that we might condone intentionally dialing back PowerFlarm to 2km range and obscuring Aircraft identification information when the instrument is capable of better.

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:02:23 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
I find it interesting that the FAA has selected 15 nautical miles as the appropriate range for TIS-B aircraft target situational awareness yet on this forum, there are folks who want to argue that 2 km is all that is needed.. Providing that 15 NM range comes at a square law cost in terms of data signaling requirements; that number would not have been the choice if it were not deemed to be needed and useful.

As has been pointed out, the fact that a glider pilot perceived some sort of competition related anti-leeching benefit from intentionally reducing their detection range would be one hell of a tough sell in a US court if the worst were to happen. And then there's the question of what might be the insurance response be in that situation? It seems to me that even if you happen to believe the leeching nonsense, you should not want to have anyone in the organization setting themselves up for increased liability. Seems like race organizers are rationally compelled to specifically disallow stealth so that nobody is permitted to use it for perceived advantage.

We, as an organization have set a 500' margin to airspace above and 30 minute margin to official sunset time -- conservative safety standards for sure. It is incongruous that we might condone intentionally dialing back PowerFlarm to 2km range and obscuring Aircraft identification information when the instrument is capable of better.

This is a great point Steve.

The reason I installed ADS-B out/in is because I want to be around for my family. I like flying in contests but if it means degrading my safety I will rather go for a soaring vacation instead.