On Sunday, June 3, 2012 6:51:34 PM UTC-7, RAS56 wrote:
Folks,

I am glad there are those who want to slog thru the teething problems of a newly introduced electronic device...frankly, I know I'm just not one of them. Honestly with the type of glider flying I do, my risk of mid-air is exceedingly low and is much more likely due to some kind of powered traffic than another glider (a threat which a currently installed PF unit would still do me absolutely no good and which I've decided to address with the PCAS)

Its perfectly fine to prefer not to want to adopt new technology, even if I think you were inflating the concerns/issues, and of course its great to make decisions based on your own risk assessments, and you have have more experience than many pilots and therefore likely knowledgeable on doing that. But its another thing to make these decisions that may be clouded by technical confusion, and there seems some confusion here, of maybe you can clarify/explain what you meant about PCAS.

PowerFLARM does PCAS today -- so your claim that a "a threat which a currently installed PF unit would still do me absolutely no good" does not make sense--a PowerFLARM would perform the same PCAS functions as whatever PCAS only unit you have decided to install instead. And you get all the other benefits (or in an extreme case of early adopter concern you could even decide to ignore/disable Flarm now, which I'd not recommend, and just use it as PCAS (with another benefit of 1090ES data-in also working today so you get high-precision directional information about 1090ES data-out adopters like many airliners (and PowerFLARM deduplicates that so you also don't get a non-directional PCAS threat for the same target).

Darryl