[Maxthelion]

...Unless Uavionix do what PAW do tap into the OGN, which presumably would cost them nothing in terms of licenses.

[TexasUK]

Flarm (probably) just has a predictive equation based on the trend of signals it recieves. I expect it will combine the 'If you are within the bubble and the looking like you will eventually collide if your course maintains it's current track' it just raises an appropriate level of alert. Might not even be that clever.
All it needs is for someone to do the same with ADS-B data (presuming you get the same info in the data as Flarm puts out) and you won't need Flarm anymore, or at least you have a good arguement for just having ADS-B, which will given you the added advantage of using the standard for all other forms of air transport.

All depends on how strongly Flarm fight it, and how much desire there is for someone to develop the functionality that Flarm has with a proprietary system into an ADS-B device.
Be nice if SkyDemon developed the same functionality as gliding specific software currently provides.

Chances of all that happening? I reckon slim to none.
Probable outcome? For gliders we continue to have a seperate Flarm system and eventually have to also carry ADS-B out at a minimum, as power eventually stops using Flarm.

edit - I've bought a SkyEcho fyi.

[Straight Level]

How much do you think it should be? (per year, receive only)

I would suggest a figure that doesn't give me the feeling I've been reamed by Flarm.
Gaz moans about the £12+vat Paw licence, so needs to be less than that

[stevelup]

Well if you fly 20 hours per year, £12 per hour is about right!

[gaznav]

LOL - I’ve obviously made a big impression with my ADS-B In/Out ramblings and my resistance to licences.

Anyway, if anyone is THAT interested, then I see this type of subscription to be wholly different to others. This is because the licence on another device is needed to enable the FULL functionality of the device - whereas, whether you buy the FLARM functionality via a licence or not, the main ADS-B In/Out function will still perform as advertised without that licence on a SkyEcho. The other type of device becomes an expensive brick without the subscription as I understand it? I hope that explains my difference?

How much would I like to pay for a FLARM receive only function? Nothing, is obviously best, but it sounds like that is not possible.

How much would I be prepared to pay? Maybe up to £30/yr or so, but there is a x-over point between renting a capability and buying one outright. A FLARMbridge and a FLARM may be a better long term buy if it is more expensive than that.

But this depends on whether the x-country gliding community takes up portable ADS-B In/Out. If that happens, then reception of glider FLARM is not really needed in my humble opinion. If everyone did ADS-B via a variety of means then we wouldn’t need to bother with anything else.

I’m still really happy with the SkyEcho products I have used. They work really well for me and the aircraft I fly. What works for you is also important. However, I am still a massive proponent of ADS-B In/Out - either low-power portable or via a transponder and a suitable receiver. That is why I am a fan of uAvionix as I believe they are going down the right path - if only others would do the same...

[cockney steve]

AIUI, universal adoption of ADSB, is the perfect way to ensure the whole ATC system collapses through overload. Didn't the Dutch burn their fingers badly with this ideology?.......
As I said before.....the low-level pleasure-flyer is a different animal to the Airways and controlled flyer....they have their own airspace and controllers and pay for the service....then there's the gliders, a special case, because not only do they joust around in close-proximity to each other, they go way up into the "big boys' "territory, and way down into the bimbler/hang-glider/powered parachute territory.

Flarm fulfils their need, I don't see any rival . It's a niche product and it fills that role admirably. The high-flyers, mixing it with CAT , I'd guess to be a very small proportion of GA, If they can afford that sort of performance, the cost of ADSB wouldn't be too onerous and the control-system on the ground would probably cope with the small increase in. workload (Bristol apart, maybe, )

That leaves the low-level puddle -jumpers. The U-Avionics SE2 package crams a lot into a little space-even the powered -parachutist could carry it, BUT it doesn't do everything that PAW does for half the cost. (Albeit a slightly more cumbersome package)

And, there's the incompatibility of Flarm, users with wider GA...again, Gliders are hit for extra costs....Do they go ADSB with the cost/weight/power-supply implications, or just add PAW? ......Many detractors keep saying it's an amateur kludge......many users say IT'S CHEAP AND IT WORKS - Whilst the OGN business isn't ideal, It's a very effective workround past Flarm's protectionism, that isn't going to change soon, unless legislated for.

The Authorities keep banging on about ADSB for all air traffic,- the Dutch proved it's the road to chaos.

[Dave Phillips]

AIUI, universal adoption of ADSB, is the perfect way to ensure the whole ATC system collapses through overload. Didn't the Dutch burn their fingers badly with this ideology?.......

The Authorities keep banging on about ADSB for all air traffic,- the Dutch proved it's the road to chaos.

Wrong.

[gaznav]

As I understand it the often quoted “Dutch Mode S Problem” around Schipol was actually due to a few reasons:

1. It was only around Schipol as the RADAR screens could not deselect or reduce the size of the labels so that they could see the traffic. That was a software glitch that got sorted.

2. The aircraft flying below the Schipol TMA started causing nuisance TCAS alerts. Again, I believe this was resolved with later TCAS software drops.

3. The low power Mode S that was expected for Europe never materialised and so some significant FRUIT occured (which is basically due to lots of high power transponders interfering with each others’ signals).

All of the issues that Holland experienced have been overcome and everyone had their transponders on from around 2010 under TMA1 which was the one that caused the problem.

I can see no reason why this applies to ADS-B these days as the lessons have been learned.

[TexasUK]

You put it way more succinctly than I did, I wish I had read through the thread a little more closely before posting.
I'm glad they bought Flarm out, but I think they should be more altruistic with the licensing, that safety should take precedent over profit.

Why can’t all devices “squit” ADS-B out then (for example) FLARM could do it’s clever (and probably proprietary) stuff that it does for loads of gliders using the same thermal and other devices could do stuff for their own populations, but in essence everyone would be able to see everyone else. Given that we now have (if I read it correctly) a drone that “squits” and can receive them, there’s an even bigger incentive to use ADS-B.

The manner in which Flarm works relies on the transmitted information containing three dimensional velocity vectors, as well as height and position.

ADSB-Out protocol (AFAIK) just has altitude and position, so you cant just get Flarm devices to use ADSB information, you would need a whole different (more powerful) receiving device and set of algorithms. Given the large Flarm installed base in Europe there is no likelihood they will abandon their existing protocols and user base. The big advantage of Flarm is backward compatibility, so a Flarm device installed 10 years ago still interacts with the latest kit.

A better solution would be for either an upgraded Flarm device that does ADSB-In/Out alongside Flarm, or better an ADSB/In-out device that will support the back-end protocol used between Flam and Traffic displays.

I do agree that ultimately, while Flarm will remain, the existing Flarm users will & should use ADSB as well. However unless ADSB is mandated then you're looking at several years before this is the case. It's take more than 10 years for the Flarm user base to reach it's current levels.

[riverrock]

ADSB-Out protocol (AFAIK) just has altitude and position, so you cant just get Flarm devices to use ADSB information, you would need a whole different (more powerful) receiving device and set of algorithms.

ADS-B also outputs velocity, heading, vertical speed. See https://mode-s.org/decode/adsb/airborne-velocity.html

[ls8pilot]

ADSB-Out protocol (AFAIK) just has altitude and position, so you cant just get Flarm devices to use ADSB information, you would need a whole different (more powerful) receiving device and set of algorithms.

ADS-B also outputs velocity, heading, vertical speed. See https://mode-s.org/decode/adsb/airborne-velocity.html

Good information thanks, I wonder if someone will come up with Flarm type traffic detection using this, certainly it is feasible based on the protocol.

[TexasUK]

I take it back! I was right.. yay!

[Tim Dawson]

There’s nothing Flarm does that couldn’t be done with the data broadcast over adsb.

[PaulB]

There’s nothing Flarm does that couldn’t be done with the data broadcast over adsb.

So FLARM could “squit” its data that everyone could receive as well as doing its own anti collision stuff?