My TAS605 is also wired to an unswitched input on the intercom directly (of course – per STC etc) and an Aera 660 does GPWS via an AUX input on the intercom.
All good stuff 
But then you are smart and know how to do this.
A poll of what people fly with would be awfully interesting. I bet the vast majority don’t have this. Most won’t get an intercom connection past their maintenance company. For most it isn’t easy; the most obvious but fiddly route is to set up a bluetooth connection to a bluetooth headset, or some variation of that.
Advantage of a fully integrated panel like an all Garmin one: If you have your GTS linked with your GTN and G500 you get these aural warnings anyways – plus you can also install a physical “mute” button for these warnings (separately for traffic and terrain) …
But obviously all comes at a cost!
Malibuflyer wrote:
Not really – at 10km range (which would be extremely good given that all range diagrams I have seen so far show a considerably shorter reliable range – but let’s assume both planes in this example have a perfect FLARM installation – which btw many airplanes in that speed range can’t have as there is no legal way (I’m aware of) to have an outside FLARM antenna in a pressurized cabin…) 38 Seconds (the first 5% reduction of what you claim) is the theoretical first point in time where it would be physically possible that the Flarm boxes show a point. But FLARM doesn’t send continuously that is where you loose your next at least half second.Then – under ideal circumstances – you have a dot. No direction of flight and no speed yet. Therefore even theoretically no collision warning. We now needed to go very deep into the mechanics and algorithms of FLARM to figure out quite quickly: For that case of a heads on collision with 500kt difference speed it is absolutely useless!
I don’t know which rhetorical fallacy to put your argumentation under, nor does it matter. You are clearly trying to push an agenda that FLARM is only for gliders, which all powered aeroplane and helicopter pilots can testify it isn’t. Trying to show that my number was a second or two off does not prove your point, though.
FLARM does not transmit “points”, which you would know if you knew anything about FLARM and had followed the development in the last decade or so. It transmits flight vectors/curved flight paths/whatever they call it. Twice per second. So as soon as you are within range, you have the full picture.
Second, two aircraft approaching head-on with 250 kt will obviously have TCAS. That was an extreme example. More common is 100-150 kt each, so we are talking about 80 seconds.
Here is also a short math lesson for you: at 500 kt and 10 km, it is 38.9 sec with one decimal point, or 2.8% wrong, not 5%. I don’t really care, I just want to elucidate your rhetoric to other readers.
You are getting too “personal” mooney75. This is the wrong forum for that. For this tone, I suggest the other one(s).
Argue technical points only, and with supporting evidence.
https://www.bea.aero/fileadmin/uploads/tx_elydbrapports/BEA2016-0483.pdf
In this BEA report, FLARM is reported to have a range of 1-5km :
Mooney75, it would help if you could post a picture of the Flarm display you have.
Jujupilote wrote:
In this BEA report, FLARM is reported to have a range of 1-5km
Which is probably why the accident happened… 🙄 But I don’t speak French, so can’t verify. But it shows how important it is to verify your range as part of the annual maintenance.
Mooney75, it would help if you could post a picture of the Flarm display you have.
We recently upgraded to the ATD-80. You can see a picture of it here:
important it is to verify your range as part of the annual maintenance.
How?
Peter wrote:
How?
FLARM has a range analyser for this purpose:
https://flarm.com/support/tools-software/flarm-range-analyzer/
That just goes through the logs to see how far out you picked up other traffic.
mooney75 wrote:
I just want to elucidate your rhetoric to other readers.
It is not about rhetoric, it is just about facts:
- Every single FLARM range diagram for actual FLARM installations you can find on the internet (Search “FLARM range diagram” in google picture search) shows less than 10km forward range. You can find one with 8km forward range but the vast majority is more in the 3-4km ballpark
- A German pilot magazine (which is not at all known for supporting “big business”) made actual test flights some years ago and came exactly to this conclusion: In mid range motor powered planes a typical FLARM installation doesn’t help if you apply reasonable SOP on how to handle FLARM warnings (i.e. e.g. not diving hard as soon as you see a dot).
The range problem is a significant one as it can’t be fixed by optimizing you own installation – half of the problem is in the installation of the targets.
And there unfortunately is a problem with the lack of understanding of many users: They feel safe when they put a portable device on there glareshield while they are still almost completely invisible from behind and hardly visible from the front.
