FLARM and ADS-B???
Thread Starter
FLARM and ADS-B???
I note the existence of a whole suite of European FLARM anti collision solutions, in particular some that contain an ADS-B in receiver and of course a GPS. They are advertised as providing a complete solution, when combined with an ES transponder, to European Union transponder/ATSB in and out requirements from ultralight to GA aircraft operating VFR.
This of course is at a fraction of the cost of a certified GPS.
Which begs the question, why ferchrissake does CASA mandate a certified GPS source for anyone, including VFR, who wants to fit ADS-B out???
We seem to have:
(A) ignored European solutions by reinventing the wheel yet again and falling between the Two stools of European and FAA solutions.
(B) embraced the worst possible combination of cost and benefit from the point of view of GA VFR by demanding absolute precision in the provision of information that is totally irrelevant to the safety of the travelling public and in any case ASA is totally uninterested in separating VFR traffic anyway, so why should they care about the precision of what our ES transponders are spewing?
To put that another way, if the applicable message bits are set to reflect a non certified GPS source, isn't that better than no GPS position source at all?
These systems are available NOW at a fraction of the cost of what CASA seems to want to mandate!
What am I missing or are we simply subsidising someone's PhD thesis about ADS-B?
This of course is at a fraction of the cost of a certified GPS.
Which begs the question, why ferchrissake does CASA mandate a certified GPS source for anyone, including VFR, who wants to fit ADS-B out???
We seem to have:
(A) ignored European solutions by reinventing the wheel yet again and falling between the Two stools of European and FAA solutions.
(B) embraced the worst possible combination of cost and benefit from the point of view of GA VFR by demanding absolute precision in the provision of information that is totally irrelevant to the safety of the travelling public and in any case ASA is totally uninterested in separating VFR traffic anyway, so why should they care about the precision of what our ES transponders are spewing?
To put that another way, if the applicable message bits are set to reflect a non certified GPS source, isn't that better than no GPS position source at all?
These systems are available NOW at a fraction of the cost of what CASA seems to want to mandate!
What am I missing or are we simply subsidising someone's PhD thesis about ADS-B?
Flarm is a good thing.
Already a large percentage of gliders and tow planes have Flarm installed.
It is mandatory to have operating Flarm during gliding competitions.
Newer "powerflarm" also sees transponders and is ADSB compatible.
They are cheap, it would be great if GA would standardise on the Flarm already installed in hundreds of gliders in Australia.
Already a large percentage of gliders and tow planes have Flarm installed.
It is mandatory to have operating Flarm during gliding competitions.
Newer "powerflarm" also sees transponders and is ADSB compatible.
They are cheap, it would be great if GA would standardise on the Flarm already installed in hundreds of gliders in Australia.
They are cheap, it would be great if GA would standardise on the Flarm already installed in hundreds of gliders in Australia.
