![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/22/2010 10:53 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 22, 7:34 am, Mike 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 Amongst the glider pilots I fly with, glider / GA and glider / Airliner collision risks are at least as big a concern, if not bigger than glider / glider. Only 10% of US pilots fly in contests, where glider / glider collisions is obviously a very big problem. The FAA has obviously made a HUGE mess of ADS-B. However, the ground stations are rolling out. The Navworx ADS-B transceiver is shipping, and could easily be interfaced to Clear Nav, See You Mobile, etc... if we could get the soaring community to help get the parties to cooperate. Obviously the cost of the Navworx unit is higher than we would like, so the commercial viability of this unit in the glider world remains to be seen. Your dismissive attitude towards ADS-B is not helping to get vendors interested in providing solutions for the glider community. If this is your intent, then you are doing a great job. I hope you are getting a nice fat commission check from the FLARM boys. -- Mike Schumann |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Build your own PowerFLARM! | Darryl Ramm | Soaring | 51 | August 19th 10 06:39 PM |
KDR-510 question (VDL Mode 2 receiver?) | Filip Zawadiak | Owning | 0 | June 30th 04 04:16 PM |
KDR-510 question (VDL Mode 2 receiver?) | Filip Zawadiak | Piloting | 0 | June 30th 04 04:16 PM |
KDR-510 question (VDL Mode 2 receiver?) | Filip Zawadiak | Products | 0 | June 30th 04 04:16 PM |
Question on missing Mode-C | Ray Bengen | Owning | 10 | March 2nd 04 11:59 PM |