No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Flarm...

    ...needs it's own thread I think. This is existing, certified technology.
    The newer FLARM devices which are based on the improved PowerFLARM technology also incorporate a very accurate ADS-B and transponder (SSR) Mode-C/S receiver. This enables all transponder equipped aircraft to be included in the collision prediction algorithm and is especially valuable when flying in controlled airspace.

    For light aircraft, installing traditional TCAS is not an option for several reasons:
    1. It’s way too expensive
    2. It’s too heavy
    3. It requires too much power (for a glider)
    4. It’s based on very old technology with a very rough analog estimate of intruder position. It’s adequate if you fly with 450 kt and 1000 ft separation, but for small aircraft and especially gliders circling close to each other, it simply doesn’t work.

    Now I'm betting that #1 and #2 and due to #4. This is what I was getting at on the Saberliner near-miss thread. Newer technologies are making much shorter implementation cycles possible. EASA has already certified it...
    FLARM is approved by EASA for fixed installation in certified aircraft. EASA supports FLARM as it significantly decreases the risk of a mid-air collision between participating aircraft. FLARM has also been referenced in several EASA publications, including being approved as a Standard Change.
    Part of what makes the new tech both light and affordable is the system-on-chip architecture:
    All FLARM devices are based on leading-edge technology developed by FLARM Technology in Switzerland. For positioning, the latest GPS/GNSS chips from the leading company u-blox are used. State of the art radio chips handle radio communication between FLARM devices. The frequency used is in the license-free SRD and ISM bands. The exchange of position and flight path data is encrypted, ensuring the safety and integrity of the system.
    So why can't the FAA get on the ball and require this for all GA aircraft within 18 months?

  • #2
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.


    • #3


      • #4
        Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
        Current procedures and computer automation and oversight are inadequate.

        We need more.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.


        • #5
          Whatever happened to...
          Originally posted by 3WE
          Snip 3: Evan is not necessarily wrong in "demanding" (see footnote) a sped-up time table. Sadly these mid-airs will continue to happen occasionally until the system is online. (and maybe even a few after it's online.) Conversely, I would not argue Gabriel's point as our government rarely meets timelines or budgets. It is, nevertheless sad that we'll be having mid airs in the meantime, so sooner would be better.
          What's the hold-up? That's all I want to know.