A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Confessions of a Flarm Follower



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 3rd 16, 04:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,124
Default Confessions of a Flarm Follower

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:19:46 AM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
Hank, you'll never get away with that! Not only is your post a reprised rebuttal in itself making your comment that no one need reply sorta funny, but your contention that reducing FLARM range is not anti safety is pretty dubious! That's exactly why this is being so hotly debated.


Sorry Andrew, I guess my writing was not clear enough. I was simply stating that I do not see an anti Flarm positions being brought forth. I do see some that want limitations to tactical Flarm radar.
I described my personal ideal view, but did not make and case for how it could or would be done. This is a complex issue that is far from black and white.
Cheers
UH

  #2  
Old January 3rd 16, 04:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andrzej Kobus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 585
Default Confessions of a Flarm Follower

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:31:09 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:19:46 AM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
Hank, you'll never get away with that! Not only is your post a reprised rebuttal in itself making your comment that no one need reply sorta funny, but your contention that reducing FLARM range is not anti safety is pretty dubious! That's exactly why this is being so hotly debated.


Sorry Andrew, I guess my writing was not clear enough. I was simply stating that I do not see an anti Flarm positions being brought forth. I do see some that want limitations to tactical Flarm radar.
I described my personal ideal view, but did not make and case for how it could or would be done. This is a complex issue that is far from black and white.
Cheers
UH


Yes, this is a complex issue that requires time.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What Flarm really needs... [email protected] Soaring 25 June 20th 15 08:34 PM
Flarm IGC files on non-IGC certified Flarm? Movses Soaring 21 March 16th 15 09:59 PM
Car Flarm [email protected] Soaring 18 February 8th 14 02:31 AM
IGC FLARM DLL [email protected] Soaring 1 March 25th 08 11:27 AM
Confessions of a Dumb Guy Veeduber Home Built 15 September 15th 03 06:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.