It sounds as if some of our leaders may have already come to some significant conclusions about PowerFlarm data and a new rule effort.

My experience is that PowerFlarm is not NEARLY reliable enough at range outside of 1 mile to leech effectively. The data is simply not reliable vs using your eyes. Perhaps we should consider banning eyes with vision better than say, 20/40 or new glasses before wasting time on this. :-) Occasionally I get a hit on a glider at longer range, which is nice. But leeching off the climb rate data at a significant distance. Not a chance.

PowerFlarm is a fantastic close proximity AUDIBLE collision alert system for me when flying in an environment full of other gliders. It has effectively alerted me to MANY gliders which I was not aware of and were in close proximity. That said, I rarely ever look at the actual screen unless it beeps a loud audible warning. I have have far better things to look at. If necessary to "leech", I can see and follow the heard visually with far better acuity and effectiveness.

Is there anything better to do in regards to rules than discussion on banning PowerFlarm and potentially hindering badly needed (my opinion of course) adoption? PowerFlarm is basically useless until A) everyone has one and B) everyone has one installed properly. I believe placing hurdles in between us and that goal is unnecessary. We desperately want to save the next pilot from a horrible, unnecessary collision. We need greater adoption to ensure that accident does not happen.

Perhaps someone should study and proves (at least confirms its possible) that PowerFlarm and the full data stream is consistently reliable enough to leech more effectively than without before considering bans? How about some testing of that "hypothesis" before prescribing the costly fix and sending the soaring suppliers scrambling? Ill admit I have not tried leeching with my PowerFlarm but from what I have seen with reliable range, I just cant believe it is being seriously discussed. Or perhaps this has already been proven? Has it?

I believe the tracking features PowerFlarm has marketed are basically fantasy outside of 1 (maybe 2 at times) miles. I just don't see FLARM targets outside of that range in my glider. My PowerFlarm antenna is in the perfect location and installed well. ADSB on the other hand I see easily at 20 miles +. But is the PowerFlarm range far enough out to "leech" other sailplanes from several miles out....I do not think so.

Are we defending against reality or the PowerFlarm/LX/"whatever" marketing hype?

Best,

Sean
F2

On Monday, October 22, 2012 1:04:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Perhaps this is a good summary of the various opinions skeptical of stealth mode:



Collision avoidance is enhanced by situational awareness, of gliders that you are not actually on a collision path towards. This is especially true of "carbon gliders with spotty contact." If you know there are 5 gliders in the gaggle, and where the ones you can't see are, you're less likely to miss one, or no know what to do when an alert goes off, than if they are all blanked from the screen. This does seem like a "real world" difficulty of stealth mode.



(And Dave, sorry for "gratuitous obnoxious comments." You are doing heroic work with Flarm, and hearing only the complaints when things aren't already perfect.)



John Cochrane