mooney75 wrote:
PAW not, but I don’t know anybody that uses that.
The opposite true for me – I don’t know anyone who uses FLARM and quite a few people who uses PAW.
Is there any wonder potential purchasers get very confused?
mooney75 wrote:
Yes, PowerFLARM Core shows Mode-C and Mode-S.
Completely misleading.
From the FLARM website (my bold):
PowerFLARM Core also has an SSR (transponder) and ADS-B receiver for 1090ES. In addition to FLARM equipped aircraft, you will also be able to see transponder and ADS-B Out-equipped aircraft. Aircraft without 1090ES ADS-B Out capability will be shown with approximate range and altitude difference. Aircraft with ADS-B Out will be shown similar to FLARM aircraft.
So it shows ordinary Mode C and Mode S (i.e. without -ES / ADS-B) as bearingless targets, just like PAW.
Fenland_Flyer wrote:
Is there any wonder potential purchasers get very confused?
The problem is that there’s a bunch of us trying to figure it all out, and the discussion gets hijacked by a variety of vested interests pushing a particular product. Some are open about this, some not so. Some are subtle, some not so!
From my approach, I see it as quite straight forward really.
If you fly in the wilderness on good VFR days and can reasonably expect a lack of other aircraft. Keep looking out. Keep a good scan and be alert.
If you fly near airspace (which causes increased traffic density) or popular busy airfields (which can cause a honeypot of types and pilot skill)
Get TAS.
If you can’t get TAS. (Aircraft restrictions/money etc) Get something cheaper.
Flarm is not cheap but cheaper than TAS. It’sexpensivr enough for me ti have ignored it in the past.
PAW and Skyecho are about the cheapest so there’s your decision tree.
As I understand it, everyone is all fired up due to the recent CAA initiative and getting excited about PAW and Skyecho so the guys at Flarm are getting upset and trying to get into the action with clandestine pitches from unheard of forum users.
I don’t have an issue with Flarm but resent the approach.
If Flarm was/is that good, then their marketing has failed.
I resent being told (outside of the gliding community) that everone has Flarm because I have been owning and flying for a long time and never seen one.
It is very true that PAW in it’s current form is slightly enhanced by
A. The amount of users increasing.
B. The continued growth of ground stations.
But as long as everyone does something we’re all better/safer for it.
As we have 6 or 7 PAW at our field we have the increased lilelyhood of seeing each other a) because we have some kit
b) because PAW to PAW is mistly going to be very reliable.
c) more of the aircraft are now going to get it so we’re going to install a ground station.
Even if someone has Skyecho, we’ll see them as it emits ADSB.
As I said earlier the most robust
approach is to ensure that you can be ‘seen’ as well as you can ‘see’
To give me that I’ve gone Transponder ADSB-out.
If someone has Skyecho they will be ADSB-out but I don’t know how effective it is from a portable battery powered box.
So if I can be seen….. Mode C Mode S ADSB-out
There’s a chance that the other guy will avoid me even if I don’t see them.
Obviously no guarantees, so I try to keep a good look out too.
For anyone who is sceptical, I can only say you may be fortunate enough to not commonly fly…..
North of Southend.
West of biggin Hill
Anywhere near Tunbridge wells
East to west or west to east north of London-city airport/Heathrow
Past Mayfield VOR.
Let me chuck another spanner into this…
Flying around with a TAS605 active TAS/TCAS1, some planes show up at the max 15nm (a software limit; they raise it for several more AMUs 
) and particularly bizjets and airliners do so. Piston GA… much less, and some show up at 1-2nm and only intermittently.
Clearly there are loads of really crappy transponder installations. That’s of course no surprise to anybody who has hung around this scene for more than 5 mins.
But all these have “proper” external antennae.
Now, what do ya think is gonna happen with the radiated power of a “portable” device?
If “you” think that by buying something which can receive X you will see all traffic radiating X, at a few nm at least, you are kidding yourself. I reckon a lot of stuff will have an effective range of a few hundred m and that’s it. And I don’t mean Flarm which has inherently only a very short range – for its principal intended application.
But… what you don’t know, you don’t know that you don’t know (that guy was really great) So nobody worries about it.
So if you want to be visible, get a Mode S TXP with ADS-B OUT through that.
Yes, it costs more money. And I know more than most why people don’t want to have a transponder running in the UK. But as we see here and in the corresponding debates on UK social media (where some posters are being quite sickeningly disingenuous) not everything has a cheap solution.
Absolutely.
I think my ES ADSB upgrade came to about 2k all-in which I wasn’t happy about but was the most robust thing I could do.
Peter wrote:
Now, what do ya think is gonna happen with the radiated power of a “portable” device?
We don’t know until we try it out!
That’s not really possible, because what you don’t see you don’t know about – given that nearly all targets are never acquired visually.
It is only over some time and a lot of flying, and seeing the small % of other planes which do show up both on the box and visually, that you gradually suss out the sort of % you can and cannot see. This is where I get my “most non txp GA in the UK flies below 1500ft” assertion.
But there is a big problem. Whereas every plane I see on the TAS605 must have a transponder installed, if you fly with say Skyecho2, and some planes you see visually and some you don’t, you will never find out what emitting device they were carrying. So if “Brand X” was visible while Brand Y wasn’t / wasn’t until you get much closer, you will never realise that Y is crap (or the typical installation of Y is crap). This is of course great for the vendors of both X and especially Y because they can post all over social media with no possible comeback 
That’s a useful disclosure of interest Mooney75 – you work[ed] for Flarm. Most people here and elsewhere thought as much.
No, wrong, I also do not sell FLARM (or anything related). I have just been using FLARM for years and I’m very familiar with both FLARM other more or less primitive copies, including the technical requirements for ADS-B. I am also flabbergasted by all the ignorant comments regarding collision avoidance.
It does not, usefully. See above. This trick is being posted all over the place, and most people buy into it.
Yes, it does. I use it all the time.
Can you share the IGC file of a FLARM installation where the forward facing good data range is actually between 10 and 15 km? Looking at publicly available IGC files, you could be quite happy if the forward facing actual FLARM range is more than 4km.
I will, obviously, not post any private IGC files, nor would that imply anything. If your range is below at least 5-10 km, there is probably something wrong with your installation.
So in this 20s you need to a) realize there is other traffic b) realize that this other traffic is actually getting close to you (one of the problem of these boxes is that 99% of the traffic they show is completely irrelevant as they would not hit you anyways) c) look out of the window to identify the traffic visually d) plan evasive action e) do it.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand collision-avoidance systems, including FLARM. It’s the last resort. You are not supposed to start looking for traffic when you get the collision warning. With TCAS you pull/push and with FLARM you normally turn. Immediately. Look for traffic you do long before that (FLARM also tells you when somebody comes within range, usually minutes prior).
Your comments simply indicate that you have no clue. Thousands of powered aeroplanes and helicopters are using FLARM, including some jet trainers.
