On Oct 22, 7:34*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 10/22/2010 10:30 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:





On Oct 22, 6:55 am, Mike
wrote:
On 10/21/2010 1:36 PM, kirk.stant wrote:

PowerFLARM is supposed to have the capability to detect and display
Mode S 1090ES position data on its display. *How many aircraft
(Airliners, bizjets?) currently send out 1090ES data?

This is for the US, of course.

Kirk
66

If PowerFLARM was a full blown ADS-B IN/OUT system, you would be able to
see all transponder equipped aircraft using the TIS-B data transmitted
from your local ADS-B ground station. *But......

--
Mike Schumann

The question was about airliners and you will not need ADS-B data out
to see the 1090ES data out from airliners or many of the other
aircraft who (fly above FL180 and so) are all required to equip with
1090ES by 2020. PowerFLARM will do that just fine out of the box.

For one I am glad that Flarm and Butterfly are not stupid enough to go
down that rathole. If you want 1090ES data-out you add a Mode S
transponder. There are many reasons to separate the functions in two
boxes, starting with there is a large market worldwide already for
stand alone Mode S transponders and by decoupling the highly regulated
data-out functions from the data-in functions allows innovative
companies to develop innovative products--just like PowerFLARM. And in
most countries you do not need ADS-B data out to see other ADS-B data
out equipped aircraft - only in the USA. Vendors are going to optimize
products for a worldwide market? I seems Mike Schumann thinks the
answer to everything is more complexity... and this is yet another
awful suggestion. And if PowerFLARM had 1090ES data-out it would cost
thousands of dollars more plus likely require a certified GPS (the FAA
may have closed off any chance of not requiring this by forcing STC
approval-experimental gliders might still get away eith this?) that
currently costs thousands plus for the forseablefuture require an STC
approval for each glider type it is installed in

I think the answer to everything is more complexity????? *Adding a 3rd
collision avoidance technology is more complexity. *If I was running the
the FAA, we'd have a single ADS-B technology period. *That's simplicity..

It seems that Darryl has consumed so much Koolaid that he's starting to
hallucinate.

--
Mike Schumann

Mike I focus here on trying to point out what technologies will do and
what they won't and trying to help pilots navigate the reality of a
complex mess of technology. You seem to spend a lot of time dreaming
about what might be if only... Regardless of how impractical or
unlikely for practical market reasons they might be.

The collision concern for most glider pilots is I believe glider-
glider risk. The clear, well proven and logical choice for helping
reduce that risk is for pilots to deploy FLARM asap and stop dreaming
about ADS-B UAT vaporware for glider-glider collision avoidance. I
think folks here can look at the mess around ADS-B right now and
realize that the minimal complexity path to solve that problem is
PowerFLARM (which also provides PCAS and a future path to ADS-B). If
airliners are a concern then add a transponder (right now-it also is
simple, straightforward and just works).

Darryl