Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Misc. electronic conspicuity boxes: Garrecht / Air Avionics / TRX-1500A / Air Connect / PAW / PilotAware / LXnav / PowerMouse / FlarmMouse / Flarm / Uavionix / SkyEcho

Airborne_Again wrote:

Can you comment on the differences between the ATD-80 and the LXNAV TrafficView 80?

Sorry, I have never used the LXNAV display.

United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

We made a flight test of a portable FLARM unit in my club. The conclusion was that it was worthless in a metal aircraft. Even targets 2-3 km away appeared and disappeared as you banked the aircraft. That is not to say that it wouldn’t work well in a permanent installation with external antennas.

Yes, a portable device without external antennas is pretty worthless in most aircraft. I think it’s mostly some gliders using that. I think most installations use the PowerFLARM Core with the AV-75 antennas from RAMI.

United Kingdom

mooney75 wrote:

The range is per definition the upper bound and not the average (or similar).

By which definition? There are many different definitions of range – and most of them are not exactly the upper bound but rather something like a dependable expectation.

Just think about the fuel range of your plane: Would you really use the upper bound for potential milage under the best possible condition with the higher tailwind you have ever seen to calculate the range of you plane? Not really! It is a distance that you can safely cover on average conditions.

mooney75 wrote:

Yes, it is influenced by the transmitter (installation), but the purpose is to see if your installation is ok

And here it gets even more complex:
The range of a radio receiver alone by definition is unlimited. It is a simple physical fact that a radio wave receiver to a large extend doesn’t care from how far away a transmission comes. But that is a bit too theoretical as given the wave characteristics of the used frequency band and the curved nature of the earth surface you can not get more than 300km range (at least for airplanes that are flying somehow close to the ground).
So if we are talking about a FLARM range, we are always talking primarily about transmitter range and not receiver range. The only thing the receiver adds to that is that a "messed up " installation reduces the potential transmitter range by not using signals that would approach the receiver at a high enough s/n but the signal is screwed up on its way from air to antenna to receiver.

So if you are talking about “definition” then the definition of range in this FLARM range diagrams actually is:
“The farthest distance from that a transmitter has been detected during a certain period of time”.


mooney75 wrote:

Most of the over 40,000 users of FLARM are happy with it having saved their life (at least that is what many people say).

You grossly overstate it’s prevalence within powered light GA.

It is also, of course, completely implausible that most (or even any significant proportion of) users of any EC technology have had their lives saved by it. But you know this, although you continue to make grandiose statements like that – statements that anyone with even the most basic knowledge can tell are completely untrue.


mooney75 wrote:

Most of the over 40,000 users of FLARM are happy with it having saved their life (at least that is what many people say).

Simple fact check:
“Most of 40.000” – so let’s conservatively assume it is 20.001. “Having saved their live” – means that they would have died w/o Flarm.

FLARM has been invented about 15 years ago – right? So that is 20.000 avoided deaths in 15 years or about 1.300 deaths per year.

So you are seriously telling us, that before invention of FLARM 1.300 pilots died per year in midair crashs? Please check your numbers….

And that is exactly the problem: 99,99….% of users have a wrong sense of safety, because they have s screen that shows them irrelevant dots.

In reality it is extremely hard to prove that FLARM actually had any impact on flight safety: Outside of glider competitions, there is no statistically significant reduction of midairs since 2004 when FLARM was introduced. That is obviously due to the fact that (outside of glider competitions) midairs have already been a quite rare event before 2004 plus the fact that for various reasons we also see some of them even when both planes are actually equipped with FLARM…


It is, of course, impossible to quantify how many people have been saved. I was more referring to anecdotal evidence. Like from this guy:

United Kingdom

This debate is getting a little too complex and some are missing the point.

Any conspicuity device is better than none but the drawback of all the non-certified units are low power.

FLARM is essential as gliders are the hardest things to locate visually.

The low power issue can be resolved by external antennas fitted in appropriate places on the airframe, it follows that a hand held device inside a metal or carbon airframe is going to perform far below the optimum for the unit.

Non-certified units are best for GA aircraft as these don’t filter out GA traffic with non – certified conspicuity devices…….IE most GA traffic.

As with all things you get what you pay for, sky echo is cheap but it’s FLARM data is slow as it is not taken directly from other FLARM traffic.

Probably the best Bang for the Buck if you are a private owner is to have a certified ADS-B Out transponder ( taking It’s GPS data from your GPS NAV ) and one of the Air avionics power FLARM units giving you ADS-B IN and FLARM all presented on your GPS map along with audio via one of the unswitched inputs of your audio panel. This of course requires a £1000 unit and the labour to fit but provides almost as much data as the very expensive fully certified units.

ADS-B out is going to be the only way to make a drone avoid you so if all you do is fit a very cheap device that does ADS-B out then you have achieved some protection from the current biggest emerging threat.

Last Edited by A_and_C at 17 Oct 06:53

mooney75 wrote:

I was more referring to anecdotal evidence

That is not “anecdotal evidence” but open marketing – it’s even on the FLARM site. I just quote one sentence:

“It has saved me four times”

So this guy pretends, that without FLARM he would have already have 4 midair collisions – seriously? Before FLARM was even invented, the odds that a motor pilot had one midair in his life has already been lower than 1:10.000. If he would have had for midair collisions then he either had a 1: jackpot or he is probably the worst pilot on earth – or outright lying for FLARM marketing.


This thread, as a non IT person has reinforced my preference for flying IFR.
Of course I realise that this does not help in the UK where pilots want the freedom to fly IMC in class G without talking to anyone or needing a flight plan.
@A_and _C seems to sum it up very well in his post #96 but I would like to know something
I fly with a mode S transponder as is mandatory for IFR in France. The ATS do a great job of warning me of traffic and its position in relation to me. When I am in CAS they give me information to help me avoid that traffic, and often OCAS they will also sometimes advise.
In certain areas they will warn of eg unknown traffic in your 1 O’clock. I would say that probably more than 50% of the time I would not be able to see that traffic.
So what equipment would I need to carry in order to see this traffic, without the necessity for a change of National or EASA regulations, committing everyone to spending another load of money on mandatory equipment a la 8.33 and mode S?
AIUI the FAA did exactly this with ADSB, but also AIUI not everyone was happy about it.


If you already fly with something like Skydemon,
and your interest is defined as I want to see the most stuff (displayed on your phone or a tablet) . Then I would suggest Pilot Aware.

United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top