At 06:54 10 March 2006, Pb wrote:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepits...mg/Flarm_Subsi
dy_NSWGA.doc

If interested reed the last page titled Why Flarm

Yes I have. The letter claims a 70% reduction in collisions.
Can you tell me where I can see the data that supports
this claim please, if it is true it would negate many
of my arguments.

also

http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html

From the above document: Note: This system requires
other gliders to be fitted with a unit for it to work,
we do not sense transponder equipped traffic. We accept
no responsibility for its operation, this system will
never replace primary SEE and AVOID techniques. OzFLARM
is an aid for traffic awareness as well as providing
other handy features such as back up logger for comps
etc. The USER of OZFLARM accepts full responsibility
for good airmanship and acknowledges that OzFLARM is
not intended to replace lookout!

That is what is called a get out clause. Will pilots
look at it in the same way though?

cheers

paul


Eric Greenwell wrote:
PB wrote:

The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European
version) will
be able to receive communication from transponders
and thus give
information on the power aircraft.


Can you point to a website that discusses this? If
it's true, it's very
interesting, because the transponder detectors available
aren't much
cheaper than FLARM, and can't supply a GPS signal
to navigation
computers, or make a flight log. It would make FLARM
a good value even
if no other glider had one.