On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 12:12:55 AM UTC-8, krasw wrote:
On Friday, 15 January 2021 at 19:47:30 UTC+2, Darryl Ramm wrote:

PowerFLARM Fusion is a nice improvement over existing PowerFLARM units, including for use in the USA. In Europe and the rest of the world it does provide real "Fusion" between FLARM, ADS-B and different display devices but in the USA, with our overly complex ADS-B system not used anywhere else in the world the story is as usual more complicated.
Haha. European system is not complicated because it is from stone age, we have no way uploading data to aircraft. I would take US system in a heartbeat as my country supports only C-mode transponders (better than A-mode though), no-one has in heard the word ADS-B. Grass is truly greener on the other side of the fence.

I'm not sure you really have much of an idea what you are saying. Especially I doubt you appreciate the limitations of using dual-link ADS-B for traffic. What data do you want transmitted to aircraft? FIS-B data? That can be done on UAT with no dependence on UAT for traffic awareness or surveillance , as has been done already in trials in the UK. You folks outside the USA could hopefully get the FIS-B data benefits without any of the dual-link traffic disadvantages.

I'm not sure where you are but, but Mode-C is pretty dead in Europe. EUROCONTROL managed to drive broader adoption of Mode-S based surveillance (initially for IFR flights). And there is nothing "stone age" about much of the Mode-S and 1090ES capable surveillance system across Europe. That use of Mode-S in Europe, including displacing/end of life of many Mode-C transponders, helped reduce RF congestion in the busiest airspace, and to plant a foundation for 1090ES ADS-B, and was likely a better long term surveillance and traffic avoidance move than what the USA did with preserving Mode-C use and pushing to go dual-link ADS-B.

And the end result? We have an ADS-B system in the USA that is very complex, could have achieved things like traffic awareness much simpler and better on a single link layer, but it is very nice for some things, like increased surveillance coverage, (but again that could have been done on a single link layer), but it cannot deliver many of the hyped past claims, likely can't allow safe reduction in the number of approach SSR systems for example, and is so fundamentally insecure that it may represent a serious national security risk.