bumper wrote:
I'd sure like to see the personal attacks and innuendo left out of this
discussion.

FLARM, TPAS, ADS-B, etc, etc, . . . none of it is bad. All of it is pointing
towards some admittedly imperfect solutions to a very real problem.

What bothers me is that the technology is out there to all but solve the
threat of mid-air collisions. Not just between gliders in those "FLARM"
areas where glider density makes other gliders the primary threat, but also
in other areas where power planes pose an equal or greater risk. In fact,
one system could do-it-all.

Its a nice thought, but one-size-fits-all would most likely attract all
the glider pilot bitching about power consumption, size and price that's
currently directed at transponders and ADS-B.

There's one simple reason for this: a universal solution would also need
to be applicable to faster aircraft and would have to radiate
proportionately more power. A system that would give the same avoidance
time against a 250 kt airliner as for a 100 kt glider would need 2.5
times the range and hence must radiate 6.25 times as much power.
Suddenly your 100 mA FALARM equivalent is eating 625 mA.

In practice a universal device would burn a LOT more power than I just
calculated because:
- the worst case warning range for two 250 kt aircraft is 42% more than
I calculated above, so the transmission power is doubled.
- airlines would want a longer avoidance period than we need.
- the range requirement at least doubles again (and transmission power
quadruples) when you consider jet transports at full cruising speed
above 10,000 ft or fast jets at any altitude?

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |