On 8/10/2010 4:19 PM, noel.wade wrote:
So if I'm reading Darryl and Mike correctly: The bottom-line is that
the different ADS-B options and reliance on ground-based coverage mean
that FLARM-to-FLARM communications are really the only solid solution
for collision-avoidance when close to terrain or out of ground-based-
coverage areas.

(Mike - before you reply and push the Navworx box yet again, please
prepare an explanation of how the Navworx unit gets around the very
same UAT versus 1090ES issue that you described moments ago. If UAT
and 1090ES don't talk to each other from aircraft-to-aircraft, then it
doesn't matter whether you run a powerFLARM or Navworx box - you're
going to miss out on some of the ADS-B traffic either way.)

--Noel


The UAT vs 1090ES situation is a huge mess that the FAA has created.
Adding FLARM into the mix doesn't make it any easier (we now have 3
different systems that can't see each other).

It's frustrating that the FLARM guys can't just adapt their box to be
ADS-B UAT compliant (both in Frequency and Protocol) when deployed in
the US. That would eliminate 1/2 (or 1/3rd) of the problem and give
them a blockbuster product they could sell to the entire GA community,
not just the glider market.

Ultimately, the only likely solution to the low level collision
avoidance problem is that all ADS-B transceivers are going to have to
receive both UAT and 1090ES, or UAT is going to have to disappear from
the equation.

--
Mike Schumann