Saturday practice at Hobbs NM

[Dave Nadler]

Hi Guys - I arrived in Hobbs Friday afternoon after driving 2,222 miles.
Since I've only flown the Antares once since the Seniors in March
(564km from Sterling MA up to Belvidere VT and return) I wanted to
get in a decent flight and knock some rust off.
Perhaps you will find this entertaining...

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId=-1474873387

Launched about 12:30, using the cross runway as the crosswind
on the ramp was 20 knots. Flying with the 18m (short) tips and full
water for a wing-loading of ~11.9 lbs/ft2, which is TOO LOW a
wing-loading for this glider in these conditions. Very rough low
so I shut down a bit higher than usual at around 1300 AGL in a
decent thermal.

First thermal showed as high as 13 knots on the averager, under
building cu way, way above me. I headed north when the thermal
dropped as low as 7 knots, following the clouds into the NW part
of our task area, turning Caprock at the edge of the cus (blue
and a bit smoky to the north). Followed the cus south, turned
Abandoned, then headed into wind under a street out to Maljamar.
Tried to be disciplined and circle in only 10 knots or better, though
I did slow up from 120 knot cruise when I could climb on course
at 5 knots or better. Headed to Lovington then SE to Mabee,
where I landed a decade back after seeing a tornado. Turned back
west and ran to Eunice and Railroad, then back east to Andrews.

Clouds appeared to be based around 18000-18500, though I
stopped at 17500 as required by racing rules (this did require
dumping the flaps and jamming the stick forward when the
altimeter was winding up like a clock). Last couple climbs
were a bit weaker, seemed like the day was winding down, so
I topped out before Andrews, a final-glided around the turn
from around 16000 for a fast run back to windy Hobbs.

Results from SN10: 452.6 miles at 100.3 mph.
All turnpoints achieved per MAT task rules (cylinder).
Antares Rules !

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

PS: Sunday looks too windy to fly, and I've knocked some
rust off. First race day Tuesday (Sunday and Monday are
official practice days).

[Walt Connelly]

Hi Guys - I arrived in Hobbs Friday afternoon after driving 2,222 miles.
Since I've only flown the Antares once since the Seniors in March
(564km from Sterling MA up to Belvidere VT and return) I wanted to
get in a decent flight and knock some rust off.
Perhaps you will find this entertaining...

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId=-1474873387

Launched about 12:30, using the cross runway as the crosswind
on the ramp was 20 knots. Flying with the 18m (short) tips and full
water for a wing-loading of ~11.9 lbs/ft2, which is TOO LOW a
wing-loading for this glider in these conditions. Very rough low
so I shut down a bit higher than usual at around 1300 AGL in a
decent thermal.

First thermal showed as high as 13 knots on the averager, under
building cu way, way above me. I headed north when the thermal
dropped as low as 7 knots, following the clouds into the NW part
of our task area, turning Caprock at the edge of the cus (blue
and a bit smoky to the north). Followed the cus south, turned
Abandoned, then headed into wind under a street out to Maljamar.
Tried to be disciplined and circle in only 10 knots or better, though
I did slow up from 120 knot cruise when I could climb on course
at 5 knots or better. Headed to Lovington then SE to Mabee,
where I landed a decade back after seeing a tornado. Turned back
west and ran to Eunice and Railroad, then back east to Andrews.

Clouds appeared to be based around 18000-18500, though I
stopped at 17500 as required by racing rules (this did require
dumping the flaps and jamming the stick forward when the
altimeter was winding up like a clock). Last couple climbs
were a bit weaker, seemed like the day was winding down, so
I topped out before Andrews, a final-glided around the turn
from around 16000 for a fast run back to windy Hobbs.

Results from SN10: 452.6 miles at 100.3 mph.
All turnpoints achieved per MAT task rules (cylinder).
Antares Rules !

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

PS: Sunday looks too windy to fly, and I've knocked some
rust off. First race day Tuesday (Sunday and Monday are
official practice days).

WOW.

Walt

[Tom Claffey]

As someone who has flown in a large number of contests with and without
flarm I have a few comments.

Flarm is a fantastic tool and can avoid many problems, especially during
cruise and entering thermals. It can also be used as a guide to find lift,
sometimes it has alerted me to a glider in lift which I had not yet seen.
However it WILL NOT STOP A PILOT HITTING ANOTHER AIRCRAFT!!!!! Only
looking out and flying in a safe manner will do that! In a close gaggle,
especially thermalling it is of limited use due to low closing rates and
overload of warnings. I have been almost hit by a pilot who simply did not
see me despite any warnings, this happened twice in the same thermal -
"words" after landing!
I think anyone who doesn't use flarm in a contest is an idiot
however do not close your eyes to the world outside thinking flarm will
save you.

Tom Claffey [16 Australian Nats, 2 WGC]



At 23:41 19 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:
>
>'Chris Nicholas[_2_ Wrote: [i]
>> ;775333']At 15:34 17 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:
>> -
>> So FLARM was compulsory, I wonder why if failed to warn the pilots of
>> an
>> impending mid-air? This would be interesting and valuable
information.
>> My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.
>>
>> Walt-
>>
>>
>> It did not necessarily fail to warn them – one or both may have
ignored
>> the warnings, perhaps believing that a manoeuvre would avoid collision
>> but
>> it was misjudged.
>>
>> If the two units are not destroyed beyond recovery of stored data,
>> Flarm
>> can, I believe, read the files and replay both sets of data to show
>> what
>> warnings, if any, were given. I have a video clip from Flarm, showing
>> what 2 units would have displayed in a collision had they been
>> operating
>> (the data came from 1 second logger recordings, and Flarm units I
>> understand store the same data and time interval). In the case of that
>> collision, the units both would have given about 6 seconds warning.
>> [For
>> different reasons, one being faulty wiring by a glider manufacturer,
>> neither Flarm was actually working in that particular incident.]
>>
>> If the Flarm units themselves are not readable, but the loggers are,
>> Flarm
>> could do the same as they did for the collision I referred to. If
>> loggers
>> are recording at wider intervals, however, 4 or 11 or whatever
seconds,
>> I
>> don’t know how useful that would be.
>>
>> Let’s hope the accident investigators are able to produce something
>> which
>> might be a learning experience for the rest of us, as one outcome of
>> this
>> sad event.
>>
>> Chris N.
>
>Good point. Failure to acknowledge and heed the warnings of such a
>device is a major mistake. I would think that pilots at this level
>would be more receptive and aware of the potential for ignoring such
>information. On a percentage basis this sport is not as safe as I
>once thought it was. In my short time engaged in soaring, about a year
>and a half I have read of too many mid-airs and deaths.
>
>Walt
>
>
>
>
>--
>Walt Connelly
>

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

"On a percentage basis this sport is not as safe as I
once thought it was. In my short time engaged in soaring, about a year
and a half I have read of too many mid-airs and deaths. "

There is a world of difference among the choices of hanging around over
the airport, going out X/C, and racing in contests.

You can choose your level of safety. Paul Bikle once said that to be
successful in national contests you must realize that the glider is
expendable.



At 23:41 19 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:
>
>'Chris Nicholas[_2_ Wrote:
>> ;775333']At 15:34 17 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:
>> -
>> So FLARM was compulsory, I wonder why if failed to warn the pilots of
>> an
>> impending mid-air? This would be interesting and valuable
information.
>> My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.
>>
>> Walt-
>>
>>
>> It did not necessarily fail to warn them – one or both may have
ignored
>> the warnings, perhaps believing that a manoeuvre would avoid collision
>> but
>> it was misjudged.
>>
>> If the two units are not destroyed beyond recovery of stored data,
>> Flarm
>> can, I believe, read the files and replay both sets of data to show
>> what
>> warnings, if any, were given. I have a video clip from Flarm, showing
>> what 2 units would have displayed in a collision had they been
>> operating
>> (the data came from 1 second logger recordings, and Flarm units I
>> understand store the same data and time interval). In the case of that
>> collision, the units both would have given about 6 seconds warning.
>> [For
>> different reasons, one being faulty wiring by a glider manufacturer,
>> neither Flarm was actually working in that particular incident.]
>>
>> If the Flarm units themselves are not readable, but the loggers are,
>> Flarm
>> could do the same as they did for the collision I referred to. If
>> loggers
>> are recording at wider intervals, however, 4 or 11 or whatever
seconds,
>> I
>> don’t know how useful that would be.
>>
>> Let’s hope the accident investigators are able to produce something
>> which
>> might be a learning experience for the rest of us, as one outcome of
>> this
>> sad event.
>>
>> Chris N.
>
>Good point. Failure to acknowledge and heed the warnings of such a
>device is a major mistake. I would think that pilots at this level
>would be more receptive and aware of the potential for ignoring such
>information. On a percentage basis this sport is not as safe as I
>once thought it was. In my short time engaged in soaring, about a year
>and a half I have read of too many mid-airs and deaths.
>
>Walt
>
>
>
>
>--
>Walt Connelly
>

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Havew the pilots' names been released?

At 21:45 20 June 2011, Nyal Williams wrote:
>
>"On a percentage basis this sport is not as safe as I
>once thought it was. In my short time engaged in soaring, about a year
>and a half I have read of too many mid-airs and deaths. "
>
>There is a world of difference among the choices of hanging around over
>the airport, going out X/C, and racing in contests.
>
>You can choose your level of safety. Paul Bikle once said that to be
>successful in national contests you must realize that the glider is
>expendable.
>
>
>
>At 23:41 19 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:
>>
>>'Chris Nicholas[_2_ Wrote:
>>> ;775333']At 15:34 17 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:
>>> -
>>> So FLARM was compulsory, I wonder why if failed to warn the pilots of
>>> an
>>> impending mid-air? This would be interesting and valuable
>information.
>>> My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.
>>>
>>> Walt-
>>>
>>>
>>> It did not necessarily fail to warn them – one or both may have
>ignored
>>> the warnings, perhaps believing that a manoeuvre would avoid
collision
>>> but
>>> it was misjudged.
>>>
>>> If the two units are not destroyed beyond recovery of stored data,
>>> Flarm
>>> can, I believe, read the files and replay both sets of data to show
>>> what
>>> warnings, if any, were given. I have a video clip from Flarm,
showing
>>> what 2 units would have displayed in a collision had they been
>>> operating
>>> (the data came from 1 second logger recordings, and Flarm units I
>>> understand store the same data and time interval). In the case of
that
>>> collision, the units both would have given about 6 seconds warning.
>>> [For
>>> different reasons, one being faulty wiring by a glider manufacturer,
>>> neither Flarm was actually working in that particular incident.]
>>>
>>> If the Flarm units themselves are not readable, but the loggers are,
>>> Flarm
>>> could do the same as they did for the collision I referred to. If
>>> loggers
>>> are recording at wider intervals, however, 4 or 11 or whatever
>seconds,
>>> I
>>> don’t know how useful that would be.
>>>
>>> Let’s hope the accident investigators are able to produce something
>>> which
>>> might be a learning experience for the rest of us, as one outcome of
>>> this
>>> sad event.
>>>
>>> Chris N.
>>
>>Good point. Failure to acknowledge and heed the warnings of such a
>>device is a major mistake. I would think that pilots at this level
>>would be more receptive and aware of the potential for ignoring such
>>information. On a percentage basis this sport is not as safe as I
>>once thought it was. In my short time engaged in soaring, about a year
>>and a half I have read of too many mid-airs and deaths.
>>
>>Walt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Walt Connelly
>>
>
>

[Free Flight 107]

Last summer I was a co-pilot at a contest to find out what it was like
and how they did those fast flights.

What I found out;

Contest are DANGEROUS, we had 2 collisions, one Mid-Air and one on
ground, no injuries, ground one killed the Pride & Ego of the loser.
Mid-air made it home with broken wing (this looks like why our hull
insurance is so high).

Many pilots take big chances way too close to the ground, yes even a
half span at times!! Sure your very big L/D will get you to the
airport, but just touch a rock and it's over, history, body bags, etc.

Contests are an accident looking to happen;
Everyone gaggles up and Dashes for the start gate. Amazingly no
problems.
Everyone then tries to finish and land at the same time, some very,
very low! We had 3 gliders land on the same runway at the same time,
again, Amazingly no problems, just barely!

In my opinion, Glider racing is much more dangerous than car racing
and motorcycle racing that I have done in my youth.

What I did learn was the incredible concentration and dedication to
thermaling and finding thermals that the pilots do regularly. I love
XC so this is what I must learn to do better.
I also learned that for so large a group flying together they have
great Comaraderie and discipline

I have flown with Flarm in Europe and think it's great, but in the
contest enviroment I believe many will ignore it or not react to its
warning properly, as in Hope the other pilot avoids you instead of you
avoiding him.

Just my 2c worth,

Jay

[Mike Schumann]

On 6/21/2011 2:00 PM, Free Flight 107 wrote:
> Last summer I was a co-pilot at a contest to find out what it was like
> and how they did those fast flights.
>
> What I found out;
>
> Contest are DANGEROUS, we had 2 collisions, one Mid-Air and one on
> ground, no injuries, ground one killed the Pride& Ego of the loser.
> Mid-air made it home with broken wing (this looks like why our hull
> insurance is so high).
>
> Many pilots take big chances way too close to the ground, yes even a
> half span at times!! Sure your very big L/D will get you to the
> airport, but just touch a rock and it's over, history, body bags, etc.
>
> Contests are an accident looking to happen;
> Everyone gaggles up and Dashes for the start gate. Amazingly no
> problems.
> Everyone then tries to finish and land at the same time, some very,
> very low! We had 3 gliders land on the same runway at the same time,
> again, Amazingly no problems, just barely!
>
> In my opinion, Glider racing is much more dangerous than car racing
> and motorcycle racing that I have done in my youth.
>
> What I did learn was the incredible concentration and dedication to
> thermaling and finding thermals that the pilots do regularly. I love
> XC so this is what I must learn to do better.
> I also learned that for so large a group flying together they have
> great Comaraderie and discipline
>
> I have flown with Flarm in Europe and think it's great, but in the
> contest enviroment I believe many will ignore it or not react to its
> warning properly, as in Hope the other pilot avoids you instead of you
> avoiding him.
>
> Just my 2c worth,
>
> Jay

The reality is that FLARM, ADS-B, or any other GPS based technology is
useless in collision avoidance at close quarters. At the very best, the
position accuracy is only 50 ft and is only updated once a second.
Flying at 50 knots, you are traveling ~70 ft / second, so a lot can
happen between updates.

These systems are great in warning you about aircraft in your area that
you might otherwise not be aware of, and to give you an overview of how
many aircraft are in a particular gaggle and their relative altitudes,
but you absolutely can't rely on them for collision avoidance in a thermal.

Makes you wonder how many of these accidents are a result of
overconfidence instilled in pilots who don't understand the limits of
the technology?

--
Mike Schumann

[[email protected]]

On Jun 21, 3:00*pm, Free Flight 107 > wrote:
> Last summer I was a co-pilot at a contest to find out what it was like
> and how they did those fast flights.
>
> What I found out;
>
> Contest are DANGEROUS, we had 2 collisions, one Mid-Air and one on
> ground, no injuries, ground one killed the Pride & Ego of the loser.
> Mid-air made it home with broken wing (this looks like why our hull
> insurance is so high).
>
> Many pilots take big chances way too close to the ground, yes even a
> half span at times!! Sure your very big L/D will get you to the
> airport, but just touch a rock and it's over, history, body bags, etc.
>
> Contests are an accident looking to happen;
> Everyone gaggles up and Dashes for the start gate. Amazingly no
> problems.
> Everyone then tries to finish and land at the same time, some very,
> very low! We had 3 gliders land on the same runway at the same time,
> again, Amazingly no problems, just barely!
>
> In my opinion, Glider racing is much more dangerous than car racing
> and motorcycle racing that I have done in my youth.
>
> What I did learn was the incredible concentration and dedication to
> thermaling and finding thermals that the pilots do regularly. I love
> XC so this is what I must learn to do better.
> I also learned that for so large a group flying together they have
> great Comaraderie and discipline
>
> I have flown with Flarm in Europe and think it's great, but in the
> contest enviroment I believe many will ignore it or not react to its
> warning properly, as in Hope the other pilot avoids you instead of you
> avoiding him.
>
> Just my 2c worth,
>
> Jay

Whatever attitudes you perceived in the flying you did certainly do
not agree with my experience in 35 years of competition.
I see almost uniformly good attitudes toward safety although we have
some that push too far and pay the price with damaged gliders.
I don't believe pilots will ignore Flarm warnings and hope for the
best.
Some of the changes made in the US have been aimed at reducing the
reward for risk taking such as low energy final glides and start
processes that tend to disperse the start gaggle.
It would be interesting to know where you observed the behavior you
describe.
UH

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/21/2011 1:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:

>
> The reality is that FLARM, ADS-B, or any other GPS based technology is
> useless in collision avoidance at close quarters. At the very best, the
> position accuracy is only 50 ft and is only updated once a second.
> Flying at 50 knots, you are traveling ~70 ft / second, so a lot can
> happen between updates.
>
> These systems are great in warning you about aircraft in your area that
> you might otherwise not be aware of, and to give you an overview of how
> many aircraft are in a particular gaggle and their relative altitudes,
> but you absolutely can't rely on them for collision avoidance in a thermal.

Is this conclusion based, at least in part, on your personal use of
FLARM in several contests?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

I cannot agree that “FLARM, ADS-B, or any other GPS based technology
is useless in collision avoidance at close quarters”. It/they are not
panaceas that will always avert collisions, but it/they are much
better than not having them.

I nearly had a head-on collision that I believe Flarm helped avert.
Two closer gliders at say 1 and 2 o’clock momentarily distracted me
from a third, just behind, in my 12 o’clock. His and my Flarms went
off, and he was already turning to avoid me by the time I picked him
up.

If somebody approaches you from behind, you CANNOT see them. If Flarm
alerts, you as well as the other now have the chance to do something
about it – e.g. dive to accelerate away when you get say 6 seconds
warning of a probably collision from behind. If the pilot behind was
misjudging the proximity, or has his head down, that becomes your only
chance. The pilot in front of the two, in a collision I referenced
above, certainly wished that both their Flarms had been working. The
Flarm company analysis of their logger traces showed exactly how much
notice they would have had.

Chris N.

[Mike Schumann]

On 6/21/2011 7:15 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 6/21/2011 1:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>>
>> The reality is that FLARM, ADS-B, or any other GPS based technology is
>> useless in collision avoidance at close quarters. At the very best, the
>> position accuracy is only 50 ft and is only updated once a second.
>> Flying at 50 knots, you are traveling ~70 ft / second, so a lot can
>> happen between updates.
>>
>> These systems are great in warning you about aircraft in your area that
>> you might otherwise not be aware of, and to give you an overview of how
>> many aircraft are in a particular gaggle and their relative altitudes,
>> but you absolutely can't rely on them for collision avoidance in a
>> thermal.
>
> Is this conclusion based, at least in part, on your personal use of
> FLARM in several contests?
>

I have not flown with FLARM, nor do I fly in contests. I did not mean
to imply that FLARM is not helpful in alerting you to targets that you
might not have otherwise seen. My point is that you can not rely on
FLARM at close quarters in lieu of keeping a good lookout and making
sure that you always keep in visual contact with any other gliders that
are close to you.

--
Mike Schumann

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/21/2011 8:20 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On 6/21/2011 7:15 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> On 6/21/2011 1:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The reality is that FLARM, ADS-B, or any other GPS based technology is
>>> useless in collision avoidance at close quarters. At the very best, the
>>> position accuracy is only 50 ft and is only updated once a second.
>>> Flying at 50 knots, you are traveling ~70 ft / second, so a lot can
>>> happen between updates.
>>>
>>> These systems are great in warning you about aircraft in your area that
>>> you might otherwise not be aware of, and to give you an overview of how
>>> many aircraft are in a particular gaggle and their relative altitudes,
>>> but you absolutely can't rely on them for collision avoidance in a
>>> thermal.
>>
>> Is this conclusion based, at least in part, on your personal use of
>> FLARM in several contests?
>>
>
> I have not flown with FLARM, nor do I fly in contests. I did not mean to
> imply that FLARM is not helpful in alerting you to targets that you
> might not have otherwise seen. My point is that you can not rely on
> FLARM at close quarters in lieu of keeping a good lookout and making
> sure that you always keep in visual contact with any other gliders that
> are close to you.

I don't recall anyone suggesting you use only FLARM in that situation.
You said originally that it was useless in that situation, which seems
like too strong a statement if you don't have experience with FLARM. So,
have you modified your assertion, or am I missing some nuance?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Mike Schumann]

On 6/21/2011 11:49 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 6/21/2011 8:20 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>> On 6/21/2011 7:15 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2011 1:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reality is that FLARM, ADS-B, or any other GPS based technology is
>>>> useless in collision avoidance at close quarters. At the very best, the
>>>> position accuracy is only 50 ft and is only updated once a second.
>>>> Flying at 50 knots, you are traveling ~70 ft / second, so a lot can
>>>> happen between updates.
>>>>
>>>> These systems are great in warning you about aircraft in your area that
>>>> you might otherwise not be aware of, and to give you an overview of how
>>>> many aircraft are in a particular gaggle and their relative altitudes,
>>>> but you absolutely can't rely on them for collision avoidance in a
>>>> thermal.
>>>
>>> Is this conclusion based, at least in part, on your personal use of
>>> FLARM in several contests?
>>>
>>
>> I have not flown with FLARM, nor do I fly in contests. I did not mean to
>> imply that FLARM is not helpful in alerting you to targets that you
>> might not have otherwise seen. My point is that you can not rely on
>> FLARM at close quarters in lieu of keeping a good lookout and making
>> sure that you always keep in visual contact with any other gliders that
>> are close to you.
>
> I don't recall anyone suggesting you use only FLARM in that situation.
> You said originally that it was useless in that situation, which seems
> like too strong a statement if you don't have experience with FLARM. So,
> have you modified your assertion, or am I missing some nuance?
>

Useless was probably not the right word. This technology is obviously
very useful for identifying and warning a pilot about all equipped
aircraft that are potentially a threat. However, this technology does
not have the accuracy or update frequency to function as a reliable
collision avoidance system for aircraft that are operating at close
quarters.

--
Mike Schumann

[jimboffin]

I have flown with Flarm but do not yet have it fitted to my own glider
which I use in Nationals competition.

When flying XC in a Duo last year I nearly had a head on despite both
gliders being equipped with Flarm. I did not see the threat until too
late and I do not believe the other piot saw me as he took no avoiding
action. How can this be?

We were both flying at cruising speeds (closing at over 160kts) and
intercepted a short energy line from an angle of about 30 degrees. I
turned left onto the energy, he also turned left onto it but from the
other end. As I turned left the Flarm indicated a threat just left of
centre and below. Naturally I looked in that direction. This was my
mistake. The Flarm did not warn again and when I did see the threat it
was coming from my right. We had been flying towards each other with a
little lateral seperation and about 100ft vertically. He had now
turned right back onto track. My guess is that he was originally
warned that I was on his left as well and that was the way he was
looking. If this was the case he may have assumed that turning right
was OK.

This may be an isolated case but it says to me "If you fit Flarm keep
looking out and don't only look where it tells you to!".

I haven't flown in competition with Flarm but my experience includes
sharing thermals with up to 30 other gliders at a time - sometimes in
multiple cores with different bank angles and circle diameters. The
only way to avoid a collision is to look out all the time and fly
defensively. Flarm would only be a distraction in these circumstances.

I am afraid I am far from convinced of Flarms usefulness in either of
these cases.

Finally, in the UK Flarm is not compulsory in competition. Indeed our
rules expressly forbid exchange of data so Flarm has to be switched to
competition mode if used (and you know how to do it). I think this is
a mistake. If pilots were able to use the plane spotting features of
Flarm in competition it would be a definite advantage to fit it, and
all ambitious competition pilots would - including me despite my
reservations.

Jim

[johngalloway[_2_]]

The diagram on page 12 of this Powerpoint presentation on the Flarm
website shows very clearly the situations in which Flarm is most or
least useful:

http://www.flarm.com/files/basic_presentation_en.ppt

In busy contest thermal gaggles with lots of Flarmed gliders there are
so many alarms that you often can't tell or see which other glider is
Flarming you and have to regard it as a serious ongoing prompt to
vigorous Seeing and Avoiding - in the knowledge that the other pilot/
will also be getting an alarm and will hopefully be doing the same.
That is very useful in its own way but it is a very different type of
situational awareness from the use of Flarm in the cruise or
approaching a thermal gaggle.

I think that even if a magical Flarm were able to produce positional
and conflict information with zero error it would be impossible to do
much better for the case of busy similarly centered gaggles because
the gliders are continually making unpredictable centering and
avoidance corrections.

John Galloway

[Peter Scholz[_3_]]

Am 22.06.2011 20:44, johngalloway wrote:
> The diagram on page 12 of this Powerpoint presentation on the Flarm
> website shows very clearly the situations in which Flarm is most or
> least useful:
>
> http://www.flarm.com/files/basic_presentation_en.ppt
>
> In busy contest thermal gaggles with lots of Flarmed gliders there are
> so many alarms that you often can't tell or see which other glider is
> Flarming you and have to regard it as a serious ongoing prompt to
> vigorous Seeing and Avoiding - in the knowledge that the other pilot/
> will also be getting an alarm and will hopefully be doing the same.
> That is very useful in its own way but it is a very different type of
> situational awareness from the use of Flarm in the cruise or
> approaching a thermal gaggle.
>
> I think that even if a magical Flarm were able to produce positional
> and conflict information with zero error it would be impossible to do
> much better for the case of busy similarly centered gaggles because
> the gliders are continually making unpredictable centering and
> avoidance corrections.
>
> John Galloway

I had the pleasure of flying in a contest recently where all planes
were equipped with FLARM. Having several years of experience with flying
FLARM equipped gliders both in X/C and contest gaggle situations, I have
the impression that especially in gaggle situations the FLARM algorithm
has improved a lot with the current software version 5.xx. I had almost
no false alarms, and a few positive alarms in situations where an alarm
was appropriate.

I encountered one situation where I had no alarm, although the situation
might have developed into a close approach. This was a situation where I
was flying vertically underneath of another glider, with the vertical
distance becoming smaller. This is one of the "weak spots" because of
the usual position of the FLARM aerial the view below the aircraft is
obstructed. As the other glider was clearly visible, there was no real
danger though.

In the course of that contest, I had one situation en route where FLARM
provided important additional information. I already had spotted one
glider that was approching me on the same height in my 12 o'clock
position, and made a slight movement to the right. At that moment, the
FLARM was going off, showing me that there actually were two targets
approaching me. Scanning the horizon again I spotted the second plane,
and we all were able to pass each other in safe distances with very
little corrections of our course.

FLARM has its limitations, but it certainly can help to avoid dangerous
situations by giving the pilot additional informations on top of the
close lookout.
--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Does anyone know the name of the Ventus pilot?

At 16:32 23 June 2011, Peter Scholz wrote:
>Am 22.06.2011 20:44, johngalloway wrote:
>> The diagram on page 12 of this Powerpoint presentation on the Flarm
>> website shows very clearly the situations in which Flarm is most or
>> least useful:
>>
>> http://www.flarm.com/files/basic_presentation_en.ppt
>>
>> In busy contest thermal gaggles with lots of Flarmed gliders there are
>> so many alarms that you often can't tell or see which other glider is
>> Flarming you and have to regard it as a serious ongoing prompt to
>> vigorous Seeing and Avoiding - in the knowledge that the other pilot/
>> will also be getting an alarm and will hopefully be doing the same.
>> That is very useful in its own way but it is a very different type of
>> situational awareness from the use of Flarm in the cruise or
>> approaching a thermal gaggle.
>>
>> I think that even if a magical Flarm were able to produce positional
>> and conflict information with zero error it would be impossible to do
>> much better for the case of busy similarly centered gaggles because
>> the gliders are continually making unpredictable centering and
>> avoidance corrections.
>>
>> John Galloway
>
> I had the pleasure of flying in a contest recently where all planes
>were equipped with FLARM. Having several years of experience with flying

>FLARM equipped gliders both in X/C and contest gaggle situations, I have

>the impression that especially in gaggle situations the FLARM algorithm
>has improved a lot with the current software version 5.xx. I had almost
>no false alarms, and a few positive alarms in situations where an alarm
>was appropriate.
>
>I encountered one situation where I had no alarm, although the situation

>might have developed into a close approach. This was a situation where I

>was flying vertically underneath of another glider, with the vertical
>distance becoming smaller. This is one of the "weak spots" because of
>the usual position of the FLARM aerial the view below the aircraft is
>obstructed. As the other glider was clearly visible, there was no real
>danger though.
>
>In the course of that contest, I had one situation en route where FLARM
>provided important additional information. I already had spotted one
>glider that was approching me on the same height in my 12 o'clock
>position, and made a slight movement to the right. At that moment, the
>FLARM was going off, showing me that there actually were two targets
>approaching me. Scanning the horizon again I spotted the second plane,
>and we all were able to pass each other in safe distances with very
>little corrections of our course.
>
>FLARM has its limitations, but it certainly can help to avoid dangerous
>situations by giving the pilot additional informations on top of the
>close lookout.
>--
>Peter Scholz
>ASW24 JE
>
>
>

[Peter Scholz[_3_]]

Am 24.06.2011 22:37, Nyal Williams wrote:
> Does anyone know the name of the Ventus pilot?
>

cited from previous entry:

Jock Proudfoot;775316 Wrote:
> > 12-JUN-2011 15:58 LT
> > Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2a
> > Registration: OH-920
> > Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 1
> > Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair)
> > Location: Renkajärvi, Hattula - Finland
> > Phase: En route
> > The second glider involved in the midair collision during the Finnish
> > National gliding competition in 15 meters class. The pilot was found
> > dead
> > after a long search.
> > The pilot of the other glider (ASG 29E) was able to escape with the
> > parachute. Both gliders crashed to the ground and were destroyed.
> > A collision-warning system (FLARM) was compulsory during the
> > competition.
> >
> > Aalto Matti Ventus 2a
> > Teronen Olli ASG-29e

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Thanks, I missed this.

I had feared that it might have been a friend I haven't heard from in
quite a while. Not so; sad news nontheless.

At 06:01 25 June 2011, Peter Scholz wrote:
>Am 24.06.2011 22:37, Nyal Williams wrote:
>> Does anyone know the name of the Ventus pilot?
>>
>
>cited from previous entry:
>
>Jock Proudfoot;775316 Wrote:
> > > 12-JUN-2011 15:58 LT
> > > Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2a
> > > Registration: OH-920
> > > Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 1
> > > Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair)
> > > Location: Renkajärvi, Hattula - Finland
> > > Phase: En route
> > > The second glider involved in the midair collision during the
Finnish
> > > National gliding competition in 15 meters class. The pilot was
found
> > > dead
> > > after a long search.
> > > The pilot of the other glider (ASG 29E) was able to escape with the
> > > parachute. Both gliders crashed to the ground and were destroyed.
> > > A collision-warning system (FLARM) was compulsory during the
> > > competition.
> > >
> > > Aalto Matti Ventus 2a
> > > Teronen Olli ASG-29e
>
>--
>Peter Scholz
>ASW24 JE
>

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

What we know:

Two gliders taking part in a competition collided
It was mandatory for all gliders flying in the competition to have FLARM
fitted.
One pilot survived and sadly, one died.

What we do not know:
What the flight profile was at the time of the accident, thermalling,
straight glide or final glide. (There has been much discussion of the
abilities of FLARM in a thermal but no evidence that the aircraft that
collided were thermalling)
The status of the FLARM devices, were they fully operational or in
Competition or Stealth mode or indeed working at all.
We do not know what warnings may or may not have been given to the pilots
and suggestions that competition pilots may ignore warnings in a
generalisation that I would find insulting if I were a competition pilot.
I am a competition director and I can say that most of the competition
pilots I have met are responsible and safety concious. Many things can
spoil your competition chances, having a mid air certainly will, so to
suggest that a pilot may ignore warnings is illogical.
What I would be interested to know is whether or not the status of the
FLARM units had any significance in this accident. I have expressed grave
doubts about degrading the performance of FLARM, even by a very small
amount, and the consequences of such action. I suspect that it may be some
time before the information is available.
A final thought, gliding is not dangerous in the same way that driving is
not dangerous per se. What a minority of pilots do can be dangerous and it
is up to all of us to ensure that if a pilot is dangerous he/she does not
get the opportunity to continue to be a danger to thers.