The average Annual
The average WHAT ??? 
As for the arrogance: you may well be right, but I didn’t even need that to keep a low profile. Flying with no transponder at all presently, when the new panel is there it will have its place for the KT78.
As for the risks in bed: as our recently deceased former prime minister JLdH used to say: “no comments”.
3x GTX330 (~8k)
I’d like to know where you can get 3x GTX330 installed for 8k.
Buying a plane at the limit of your means is a big mistake. The average Annual on a low end certified aircraft is 1x to 2x more than the installation of a Mode S transponder,
In the UK it was originally proposed that everything from hang gliders on up, including in class G airspace, was to carry a Mode S transponder. I own an old and pretty nice Ka-8 glider, a Mode S transponder for that would cost the same as the actual hull value of my glider and provide no benefit – indeed, lots of negatives, such as the much larger battery that would have to be carried. (It could be argued that Mode S would make my Ka-8 actually less safe due to having a heavier battery that could could tear loose in an out landing)
Being forced to spend 2K extra (actually, we’re being forced to spend a lot more than that due to the 8.33kHz issue that could have been resolved by instead of forcing all aircraft owners to use 8.33 radios, to harmonising frequency allocation) for no tangible benefit rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. With the Mode S and 8.33 issue we have to throw out two perfectly good working pieces of kit – now worthless as I’m sure the US market will be flooded with ex-European Mode C and 720 channel radios. Fortunately the CAA backed down on forcing everyone everywhere going Mode S so we’ll actually get our money’s worth from our Mode C transponder. (And our com radio is Narco so I’m not entirely upset about the prospect of replacing it :-))
I would have no problem replacing the Mode C transponder I have for a Mode S transponder if the CAA had instead said as a quid pro quo that all Class A airspace below FL100 would be replaced with Class D and a reasonable expectation of getting VFR crossing clearances thanks to the better known traffic environment, but it was instead we all get to pay but not reap any of the benefits.
If you want to live a safe life, don’t get out of bed in the morning. This doesn’t lead anywhere, really. I want to fly small aircraft (bad enough to make my living from it) yet meet my grandchildren one day.
Yes, but that doesn’t really change the very fact hat a small aircraft is something completely different from an airliner. An airliner is an industrial piece of machinery in an airline industry that is designed around one single purpose: to earn a profit by bringing passengers (as many as possible) from A to B in one piece. A small aircraft has other aspects like self realization, fun, impress the neighbor, adventure, freedom and so on. These are individual factors, because small aircraft are individual things.
If a small aircraft would have the same safety statistics as airliners, it would cost 10-20 times as much, it would fly IFR exclusively on prescribed routes and none of us would be considered fit to fly them 
I guess pilot-less fully automatic vessels would be more preferable.
FLARM is a good thing. We had it in the Pawnee, but have yet not installed it in the WT9. Glider pilots have a tendency to flock together and they want to be towed to the other gliders and release there. I really miss the FLARM when flying over/under 4-5 gliders, especially when knowing they don’t see me either on their FLARM. I would consider a FLARM much more valuable and practical safety measure for GA than a transponder which makes little sense except in the circuit of a controlled airfield. With a FLARM you get an immediate situational awareness of other aircraft which is all you need.
FLARM is a good thing.
No it isn’t. (apologies if this should perhaps be in a dedicated thread)
FLARM is not formally defined, not recognised by any authority*, not verified in any annual or such.
It relies on flimsy automotive technology – the same transmitters as in your car key.
It is the typical example of looking good without offering any guarantee of being comprehensive.
False feelings of safety – or, if one wishes, feelings of false safety – are the only thing FLARM can offer.
The idea behind it is very much ok, and I trust its conceivers are aware of its limitations – but apparently not all of its users are, some putting a blind faith in it that the system can never satisfy.
I am very much concerned there may be a good deal of pilots flying around with a mindset like “I have FLARM, so I am absolutely safe”. This brings more danger than safety.
*I must admit there are some rumours from Switzerland, or perhaps Austria, but I have no indication of formal validation procedures or criteria. The worst of all would be a formal acceptance of a technology without proper validation.
No it isn’t.
Well, I find it very useful. I don’t put blind faith in it tough, but it enables me to look in the right direction to spot gliders and to know when I have passed them.
FLARM is not formally defined
You have a point here.
It relies on flimsy automotive technology – the same transmitters as in your car key.
Do you have any grounds for a claim like this? (I’m not writing that two letter acronym again )
For example, industrial electronics is required to work from -40°C to 85°C. Car electronics likely even at higher temperatures. Yet avionics is usually only required to work from -15°C to 55°C (DO-160 category A1; short time -40°C..70°C).
Disassemble a King device. You’ll usually find 10 wires glued to the PCB to fix some issues. No manufacturer of commercial or industrial products where millions are produced can afford to deliver that kind of quality, he’d go bust very quickly on the warranty returns alone.
I personally trust car or commercial electronics far more than avionics.
And I don’t seem to be alone, everyone seems to be relying on commercial tablets or mobile phones during flight one way or another.
I recently purchased a Power Flarm (which combines the original FLARM with ADS-B and Mode C signal detection) and have not regretted this one minute. It shows a lot of traffic which I would probably have detected a lot later if at all.
I agree, FLARM alone does not make much sense, combined units do. They are relatively inexpensive so most people can afford one.
In recent times, FLARM have cooperated with authorities in several SAR cases as it was found that they can detect pretty accurately from where the last received signals came. Another reason to look at one.
As for the article: typical anti GA rant. They might as well count road victims and tell everyone to stay home.
FLARM alone does not make much sense, combined units do.
Without having researched the subject to the bottom, I feel much the same. Transmit ADS-B, receive and display anything you possibly could (ADS-B at the very least, FLARM very worthwhile, everything else another step forward), and you’ll be as holy as the holiest. Yet, “je persiste et signe”: no such system will ever offer 100% complete and reliable information, and my main concern is that certain pilots will tend to take it for that – flying blindly into a mid-air that adequate look-around should be able to avoid.
And again: who guarantees that any investment on this front will be valid over the next 5 or 10 or 20 years?
They might as well count road victims and tell everyone to stay home.
Precisely.
It relies on flimsy automotive technology – the same transmitters as in your car key.
Do you have any grounds for a claim like this? (I’m not writing that two letter acronym again )
Thomas,
I do seem to remember FLARM uses 433/866 MHz frequencies, but must admit I’d have to look up even that. And sure enough, there are a handful of FLARM hardware builders by now so there may well be some gear around with an acceptable degree of reliability. One can get better 433/866 gear than used in car keys, indeed.
And, thanks for the smiley and what went before…
