Originally Posted by
ATC Watcher
That wwas true on the very first versions with the leds, basically it told you there is somebody conflicting out there , look ouside and change course, and in case multipme targets, it also only warned you of the closest one . .The new Power Flarm dispays like the one which I added now, is discriminatoty , you can choose a typical TCAS-like display, and the alert mode ( white baground with red area to avoid ) . see here :
https://www.lxnavigation.com/gliding...raffic-square/
Yep, the original versions were pretty lame though things improved.
Originally Posted by
ATC Watcher
I have no idea, just using it and , again, it works quite well. One major fact not to forget though , it only works if the other target is also FLARM equipped, or in case of Power Flarm , has a Mode S transponder and puts it on..Mandatory I know, but we all know it not always the case in practice.. ULs are a big issue in that respect.
While your description is interesting, it doesn't give an answer to the core question: Will the FLARM be able to cope with a non-standard situation like an air display ?
The false-alarm avoidance algorithms will likely be based on "normal" flying behavior, IE, a predictable flying behavior of all detected airplanes as well a "normal" behavior of "myself". Deviate from that and the algorithms go haywire and false-alarms do become the norm.
Add to that, that, as I wrote before, my estimate is, the P-63 pilot was probably behind the aircraft, with the consequences that alarms (from whatever source, including the airboss) will likely be ignored as being mentally "irrelevant". An aspect that repeatedly shows up in discussions about "behind the aircraft" circumstances.
Not to say, following your link, I do have my doubts, whether a display like the one in your link, will provide sufficient dynamic 4D insight (at a glance) into a developing situation like the one for the P-63, from the top of the climb towards the accident location. If the P-63 pilot would be given a warning, I do expect it to be discarded as a false alarm, since it would be the intention of the approach figure to get close to the B-21, and it can be expected in some moments of time, there will be conflicts detected.
Not to say, we should realize, the factual collision was programmed only shortly before the accident, when the P-63 started a heavily banked turn. Or so to say, without this banked turn of the P-63, there would not have been a collision between the P-63 and B-21, effectively reducing the time between establishing the collision course (with a potential FLARM alarm) and the collision to be only a few seconds.
(Without the banking/turn, there would have been a severe overshoot of the display line, towards the public, though).
Not to say, there would have been already several nuisance alarms, while the P-63 was climbing to the top of the approach figure, due to its prox with the P-51.