CAA and its apologists (here and elsewhere) just won't listen to reason and only use facts which support their argument. Just some points:
"[FLARM] uses its own standards, so instead of having interoperability, everyone has to carry a FLARM device regardless of their other equipment. It doesn't interact with TCAS."
Yes. Mode S uses ICAO standards and has no interoperability with anything a glider, hang-glider, microlite, parascender or many small GA types can carry at present, so is useless to glider/glider or glider/most-GA or most-GA/most-GA collision risks. The ICAO standard was drawn up without heed to practicalities of implementation in many types type of glider, hang-glider, microlite, parascender.
"[Flarm] is very low power, and therefore has a range of 2-3 km. That may be enough for glider-on-glider collision avoidance, but it's not nearly enough to be effective for larger aircraft."
(a) I would rather know about the rare airliner in class G if it gets within 2-3 km of me than not know, and I would certainly rather know about other gliders and the rest of GA with whom there is a much greater prevalence at the heights and in the places I fly, and with whom there is a much greater collision risk. Unfortunately, CAA and their apologists just don't care about that.
(b) If as much effort were put into R&D for Flarm reception by airliners etc. as is being funded for UAV's, Mode S, and other safety or airspace-capacity issues, no doubt Flarm detection range could be improved. There are none so deaf to the possibilities as those who don't want anything but their preconceived (and ill-conceived) part-solution.
CAA's proposals for a slightly more practical LAST/LPST have not been adopted by ICAO or anybody else. While it is still in negotiation, why not add Flarm to the possibilities?
Certainly Flarm won't register on TCAS - but TCAS-equipped airliners etc. could more easily fit a Flarm too than I can fit a LAST with power enough for a 12 hour flight, let alone hanggliders etc..- and I can't fit a TCAS at all, neither can most (
AFAIK) of the rest of GA.
I have no more wish to be in a collision than anybody else. My greatest risk is from other gliders etc.. The right technology could be so much better than the eyeball. Repeated statements of legal and moral obligation to look out effectively will not improve our biology or mental processing power. Most collisions involving gliders, and I suspect power too, involve impact from the rearmost 180 degrees where the eye does not work. Even in the front 180 degree sector, the absence of relative movement other than bloom is the worst possible kind of thing to try to see. We KNOW we miss most of the possible targets. Why can't we try to do something that would actually benefit most air users?
I am not trying to flame bw or anybody else, by the way (except CAA, who deserve it) - that post was just symptomatic of many from the Mode S/TCAS lobby. If I die, like the glider pilot who got hit from behind by a Rockwell Commander, I won't be able to say God bless TCAS. I'd rather not die, and be able to say thank goodness somebody finally got some sense and let us all have an effective aid to collision avoidance.
Chris N.