Sigh... (USA)

[BobW]

Not a good past 2 weeks per FAA prelims...midair (no reported injuries, thank
heaven!) apparently yesterday, & a takeoff groundloop a week ago Monday.

Three "substantially damaged" gliders.

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 101LV Make/Model: CEN Description: CENTRAIR 101
Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing:
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US

DESCRIPTION
N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

- - - - - -
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 943SB Make/Model: DISC Description: DISCUS BT/BM
Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US

DESCRIPTION
N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
- - - - - -
- - - - - -

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 817V Make/Model: EXP Description: SZD-55-1 GLIDER
Date: 05/28/2012 Time: 1800

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: FARMINGTON State: NC Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT ON DEPARTURE GROUND LOOPED, FARMINGTON, NC

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
- - - - - -

[Ramy]

On Friday, June 8, 2012 9:56:30 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> Not a good past 2 weeks per FAA prelims...midair (no reported injuries, thank
> heaven!) apparently yesterday, & a takeoff groundloop a week ago Monday.
>
> Three "substantially damaged" gliders.
>
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 101LV Make/Model: CEN Description: CENTRAIR 101
> Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing:
> Damage: Substantial
>
> LOCATION
> City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV
>
> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
> # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
>
> - - - - - -
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 943SB Make/Model: DISC Description: DISCUS BT/BM
> Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing: N
> Damage: Substantial
>
> LOCATION
> City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV
>
> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
> # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> - - - - - -
> - - - - - -
>
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 817V Make/Model: EXP Description: SZD-55-1 GLIDER
> Date: 05/28/2012 Time: 1800
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
> Damage: Substantial
>
> LOCATION
> City: FARMINGTON State: NC Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> AIRCRAFT ON DEPARTURE GROUND LOOPED, FARMINGTON, NC
>
> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
> # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> - - - - - -

Both pilots landed safely back at Airsailing after loosing a section of their wing and most of the aileron, according to preliminary reports and photos I've seen. Incredible luck. This was not a contest, just a small gathering. Apparently it did not happen in a gaggle or while thermaling and they never saw each other. So much for those who claim that powerflarms are only needed in contests...

Ramy

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, June 8, 2012 1:47:31 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> So much for those who claim that powerflarms are only needed in contests....
>
> Ramy

To paraphrase Douglas Adams (author of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"):

"I find that any technology invented before I turned 25 to be absolutely indispensable. I will grudgingly make use of any proven-to-be-useful technology that is invented before I turn 50. As for any technology invented after I turned 50, I'm pretty sure that it comes straight from the devil... and he can keep it."

As an over-50 former tech geek, Adam's observation seems spot on to me. My university hooked me on email in 1983. My cellphone came along later in life... so I mostly keep it turned off. Facebook and Twitter are plainly demented and evil.

Adam's adage breaks down for me for anything soaring related. I'm a newbie and I have a "beginner's mind". I'm naive, relatively inexperienced in soaring, and totally open to good ideas. I can only scratch my head... why would the soaring community not want to install a device that substantially reduced the chances of mid-airs? A $2000 add-on to a $50,000 glider??? (An S-mode transponder seems like a good idea as well. I mean... TCAS.)

Back to Adams. Once you turn a certain age, there's a tendency to see new technologies in a negative light. How much does that reluctance to take up new game changing technologies invented after a certain point in life affect the wider deployment of Powerflarm? I'd like to think, that once Power Flarm is out of "Beta Test", that it will catch on quickly. That five mile ridge that I fly gets awfully crowded on Sunday afternoon.

I'm very grateful to the racing community for proving the value of PowerFlarm (and ferreting out the glitches). Flarm would never happen in the USA without these pilots. Thank you.

[[email protected]]

After a midair (two-seater with towplane) killed three experienced pilots a month ago, the French soaring federation has decided to make Flarm mandatory on every glider and towplane used by clubs and private owners, if they are flying under the federal insurance system (this means: almost every sailplane used in French clubs).

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

At 13:53 09 June 2012, wrote:
>After a midair (two-seater with towplane) killed three
experienced pilots
>a=
> month ago, the French soaring federation has decided to
make Flarm
>mandato=
>ry on every glider and towplane used by clubs and private
owners, if they
>a=
>re flying under the federal insurance system (this means:
almost every
>sail=
>plane used in French clubs).
>

FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.


http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

SUMMARY
COLLISION BETWEEN TWO SAILPLANES IN HATTULA ON 12
JUNE 2011
An aircraft accident occurred near lake Renkajärvi in Hattula,
southern Finland, on Sunday 12
June 2011 at 15:57 Finnish local time, when two single-seat
sailplanes collided in the air. The
pilot of the other plane rescued himself with a parachute, and
the other pilot was killed. Both sailplanes were destroyed.
The sailplanes involved were participating in Finnish Gliding
Championships. The collision occurred in gliding flight in good
weather conditions between the turnpoints of Forssa and
Syrjäntaka, at a height of approximately 1400 m inside Pirkkala
Military Control Area (Airspace class D)
of which southern part was reserved for the competition. Both
pilots were experienced sailplane
pilots and competitors.
Before the collision, the planes were flying almost the same
route and occasionally very close to
each other. The collision happened when the lower flying plane
increased altitude and reduced
speed, finally hitting the bottom of the higher flying plane.
From the force of the impact, the rear fuselage and right wing of
the lower plane broke off and the
canopy was shattered. The plane went into a steep dive, and
also the left wing broke off. The
fuselage crashed into the ground at high speed. The pilot was
found outside the wreckage. He
had unfastened the seat belt but not launched the parachute.
The bottom of the higher plane was
cracked, its steering system was damaged and the canopy was
broken. The pilot rescued himself
with a parachute.
Both planes had two GPS devices, and their recordings were
used in the accident investigation.
The planes were also equipped with a FLARM system for collision
avoidance. According to the
rescued pilot, the FLARM did not alert before the collision, which
may have been due to the limited capabilities of the system as
described in its instructions manual.
The accident was caused by pilots’ insufficient situational
awareness leading to the situation,
where the planes got above each other and their flight paths
intersected in the vertical direction.
At the same time the pilots could not see each other.
Contributing factor was the fact that the
collision warning system did not alert.
The accident was caused as the planes got above each other in
a position where the pilots could
not see each other, and their flight paths intersected in the
vertical direction. Contributing factors
included the pilots’ insufficient situational awareness and the fact
that the collision warning system did not alert.
Safety Investigation Authority, Finland issued a safety
recommendation to the Finnish Aeronautical Association, urging
them to hold a safety information session before every gliding
contest. In
addition, it was proposed that safety issues be addressed in the
briefing session for each day of
competition.

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

At 13:53 09 June 2012, wrote:
>After a midair (two-seater with towplane) killed three
experienced pilots
>a=
> month ago, the French soaring federation has decided to
make Flarm
>mandato=
>ry on every glider and towplane used by clubs and private
owners, if they
>a=
>re flying under the federal insurance system (this means:
almost every
>sail=
>plane used in French clubs).
>

FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.


http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

SUMMARY
COLLISION BETWEEN TWO SAILPLANES IN HATTULA ON 12
JUNE 2011
An aircraft accident occurred near lake Renkajärvi in Hattula,
southern Finland, on Sunday 12
June 2011 at 15:57 Finnish local time, when two single-seat
sailplanes collided in the air. The
pilot of the other plane rescued himself with a parachute, and
the other pilot was killed. Both sailplanes were destroyed.
The sailplanes involved were participating in Finnish Gliding
Championships. The collision occurred in gliding flight in good
weather conditions between the turnpoints of Forssa and
Syrjäntaka, at a height of approximately 1400 m inside Pirkkala
Military Control Area (Airspace class D)
of which southern part was reserved for the competition. Both
pilots were experienced sailplane
pilots and competitors.
Before the collision, the planes were flying almost the same
route and occasionally very close to
each other. The collision happened when the lower flying plane
increased altitude and reduced
speed, finally hitting the bottom of the higher flying plane.
From the force of the impact, the rear fuselage and right wing of
the lower plane broke off and the
canopy was shattered. The plane went into a steep dive, and
also the left wing broke off. The
fuselage crashed into the ground at high speed. The pilot was
found outside the wreckage. He
had unfastened the seat belt but not launched the parachute.
The bottom of the higher plane was
cracked, its steering system was damaged and the canopy was
broken. The pilot rescued himself
with a parachute.
Both planes had two GPS devices, and their recordings were
used in the accident investigation.
The planes were also equipped with a FLARM system for collision
avoidance. According to the
rescued pilot, the FLARM did not alert before the collision, which
may have been due to the limited capabilities of the system as
described in its instructions manual.
The accident was caused by pilots’ insufficient situational
awareness leading to the situation,
where the planes got above each other and their flight paths
intersected in the vertical direction.
At the same time the pilots could not see each other.
Contributing factor was the fact that the
collision warning system did not alert.
The accident was caused as the planes got above each other in
a position where the pilots could
not see each other, and their flight paths intersected in the
vertical direction. Contributing factors
included the pilots’ insufficient situational awareness and the fact
that the collision warning system did not alert.
Safety Investigation Authority, Finland issued a safety
recommendation to the Finnish Aeronautical Association, urging
them to hold a safety information session before every gliding
contest. In
addition, it was proposed that safety issues be addressed in the
briefing session for each day of
competition.

[Vaughn]

On 6/9/2012 1:52 PM, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:

>
> FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
> issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
> seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
> advantages over European version.
>
> This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
> been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.
>
>
> http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

FLARM is an imperfect warning system just as parachutes are an imperfect
rescue system. Clearly (and tragically) FLARM failed to prevent the
above referenced accident. But also notice that one pilot was saved by
his parachute, while the other unfortunately wasn't.

Does the above accident imply that parachutes are a bad investment?
Obviously the answer is no. Parachutes clearly save lives, even though
they are imperfect.

Does the above accident imply that FLARM is a bad investment?
Same answer as above, same reasoning.

Vaughn

[db_sonic[_2_]]

On Jun 9, 11:17*am, Vaughn > wrote:
> On 6/9/2012 1:52 PM, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:
>
>
>
> > FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
> > issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
> > seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
> > advantages over European version.
>
> > This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
> > been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.
>
> >http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222
>
> FLARM is an imperfect warning system just as parachutes are an imperfect
> rescue system. *Clearly (and tragically) FLARM failed to prevent the
> above referenced accident. *But also notice that one pilot was saved by
> his parachute, while the other unfortunately wasn't.
>
> Does the above accident imply that parachutes are a bad investment?
> Obviously the answer is no. *Parachutes clearly save lives, even though
> they are imperfect.
>
> Does the above accident imply that FLARM is a bad investment?
> Same answer as above, same reasoning.
>
> Vaughn

Could good "old" PCAS help in this situation assuming both gliders
have transponders and are being interrogated.
And for that matter the one at AirSailing (hopefully we will find out
if they had this equipment). It too is far from perfect but the alert
it gives never fails to get my attention and elevates scan to the top
priority of my pilot load(or equal with flying the plane).

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

At 18:17 09 June 2012, Vaughn wrote:
>On 6/9/2012 1:52 PM, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:
>
>>
>> FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are
some
>> issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
>> seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
>> advantages over European version.
>>
>> This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should
have
>> been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.
>>
>>
>> http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222
>
>FLARM is an imperfect warning system just as parachutes are
an imperfect
>rescue system. Clearly (and tragically) FLARM failed to
prevent the
>above referenced accident. But also notice that one pilot was
saved by
>his parachute, while the other unfortunately wasn't.
>
>Does the above accident imply that parachutes are a bad
investment?
>Obviously the answer is no. Parachutes clearly save lives,
even though
>they are imperfect.
>
>Does the above accident imply that FLARM is a bad
investment?
>Same answer as above, same reasoning.
>
>Vaughn
>

Very good point. What will chute manufacturer do if a chute fails
to open?

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/9/2012 11:50 AM, db_sonic wrote:

>>
>> Vaughn
>
> Could good "old" PCAS help in this situation assuming both gliders
> have transponders and are being interrogated.
> And for that matter the one at AirSailing (hopefully we will find out
> if they had this equipment). It too is far from perfect but the alert
> it gives never fails to get my attention and elevates scan to the top
> priority of my pilot load(or equal with flying the plane).

This situation may be the worst possible: the high glider is behind the
low glider, and neither can see the other. Possibly, the upper glider's
fuselage blocks the Flarm signals in both directions. PCAS might provide
a notification that the other glider was present (if at least one glider
had a transponder and the other the PCAS), as the glider positioning
would not interfere with transponder signals.

Still, a PCAS system would not warn you that a collision was imminent,
as it can not detect what appeared to happen: a quick pull up, perhaps
triggered by hitting some lift. How often do we do that, without
checking behind and above first? I do it a lot as I travel along under a
cloud street, and I know others also do it.

Maybe we need a mirror positioned to easily see that blind spot.

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

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one high in the
cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below, there would be
no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as possible. We
don’t do that because it is too much trouble and/or too expensive. It
is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm even in its most
basic available form.

Similarly, if we all had blind spot mirrors, the chance of seeing a
potential collision as the Finland one would be improved – but not
perfect still, as the human eye and attention is not capable of
perfection. Downward and rearward facing CCTV would be a further
enhancement of visual collision avoidance. (The latter is coming in on
road vehicles, so not technically impossible, just expensive to
develop and install.) Have we done it? No – “it isn’t worth it”.

As for PCAS – I have one of those too. I have only an aerial on top of
the glare shield. AIUI, transponders in gliders with only one antenna,
usually underneath, will have weak or non-existent signals upwards,
and my PCAS will only see at very shallow angles down, so would not
help in the Finland type accident if the lower glider had only a
transponder and only the upper one a PCAS.

As I have said before, the best is the enemy of the good. If everyone
waits for the best/perfection, we will have too many fatalities that
meanwhile the good – Flarm + PCAS – can help avoid some, or most,
times.

Chris N.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/9/2012 4:16 PM, Chris Nicholas wrote:

> As for PCAS – I have one of those too. I have only an aerial on top of
> the glare shield. AIUI, transponders in gliders with only one antenna,
> usually underneath, will have weak or non-existent signals upwards,
> and my PCAS will only see at very shallow angles down, so would not
> help in the Finland type accident if the lower glider had only a
> transponder and only the upper one a PCAS.
>
> As I have said before, the best is the enemy of the good. If everyone
> waits for the best/perfection, we will have too many fatalities that
> meanwhile the good – Flarm + PCAS – can help avoid some, or most,
> times.

The transponder signal is so powerful (150+ watts) compared to a Flarm
signal (0.02 watts), a PCAS unit would be able to "see" a transponder
equipped glider, even in the situation in Finland. Also, the glider
above would almost certainly have it's transponder antenna on the
bottom, while the glider below would have it's PCAS antenna "on top"
(glare shield mounted) and have no trouble receiving it.

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

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

PCAS is useless for gliders flying intentionally in proximity, e.g. in
thermals. Range is based on signal strength, altitude is based on
pressure altitude encoder and there's no directionality. Best that
PCAS would tell you is that there are "n" gliders close to you. It
certainly can't give collision warning.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Also, the glider
> above would almost certainly have it's transponder antenna on the
> bottom, while the glider below would have it's PCAS antenna "on top"
> (glare shield mounted) and have no trouble receiving it.

Eric, only if they both have both transponder and PCAS. Re the
stronger signal, you may well be right – I don’t know.

But PCAS of course does not distinguish between proximity but going to
miss, and proximity and going to hit. My unit also only knows in
1/10ths of a mile the approximate distance. Still, better than
nothing, of course.

Chris N

[Bruno[_2_]]

On Jun 9, 8:23*pm, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> PCAS is useless for gliders flying intentionally in proximity, e.g. in
> thermals. *Range is based on signal strength, altitude is based on
> pressure altitude encoder and there's no directionality. *Best that
> PCAS would tell you is that there are "n" gliders close to you. *It
> certainly can't give collision warning.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Sorry Evan but that is not completely correct. While I agree that
PCAS can only offer very limited collision avoidance it certainly does
help. Speak of the devil I have video to prove it! ;) Check out the
following which is just one of many videos showing close sailplane
formation and PCAS proximity warnings. Note my PCAS warns me that I
am drifting too close to the other transponder equip ship. I am all
for Power Flarm and have one on order but please note that the PCAS
does offer at least a little bit of help. Better than nothing...that
is when it works. My Zaon PCAS has stopped working 3 times with no
warning other than it didn't alert me to a close aircraft giving me a
hint that it stopped working again. Grrrr! :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H4SQpjRxc

The PCAS warnings come at :18, :27 (note how the sailplane is drifting
towards me), :46, 1:14 and on and on throughout the video. Again,
I'll take Flarm any day of the week but I guess they have to start
shipping our brick units first. Another Grrr. :(

Take care,
Bruno - B4

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/9/2012 7:33 PM, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> Eric, only if they both have both transponder and PCAS. Re the
> stronger signal, you may well be right – I don’t know.

One could have the PCAS, the other could have the transponder, and the
PCAS glider would be alerted to the other glider. Better, of course, if
they both had PCAS and transponder.

Transponders do have very powerful transmitters, and it is one reason
they cost as much as they do. Look at the specifications at any website
selling them - the power ranges from about 130 to 250 watts (our
communication radios are typically 5 to 7 watts). That power is needed
to reach the ground radars that might be 30 to 150 miles away.

Flarm, including PowerFlarm, is designed for air to air ranges of a few
miles, and doesn't need very much power to do so.

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

[Ramy]

This unfortunate accident in Finland brings up 2 issues:
1- sharing the details of such accident is very important. This should be an example why a lower antenna should be strongly recommended.
2- we should never fly directly above or below another aircraft as we have huge blind spots at these directions.

Ramy

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Jun 9, 11:09*pm, Bruno > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 8:23*pm, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
>
> > PCAS is useless for gliders flying intentionally in proximity, e.g. in
> > thermals. *Range is based on signal strength, altitude is based on
> > pressure altitude encoder and there's no directionality. *Best that
> > PCAS would tell you is that there are "n" gliders close to you. *It
> > certainly can't give collision warning.
>
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Sorry Evan but that is not completely correct. *While I agree that
> PCAS can only offer very limited collision avoidance it certainly does
> help.

Don't be at all sorry if it works for you!

Different environments.

In dense gaggles in crappy wx at 15s we got *frequent* flarm alerts...
because the flying was just that close. Was it annoying? Not
exactly. All the alerts were meaningful. Think of having a back
seater with omnidirectional vision calling out traffic (4 oclock
high.... 3 oclock level, etc), stuff you needed to know about, mostly
already knew about. Did it prevent a collision? We can't know.
Flarm tells you early enough that the corrections needed are small and
the conflicts never develop into scary situations. The most
interesting alert was when Flarm called out three targets at once, oy.

If we'd all been on TXPs and PCAS, a) half the time we'd have had no
coverage because were below the radar, b) other times we'd have had 30
contacts inside a half mile and 400 vertical feet. I don't see how
PCAS could have provided meaningful information in that environment
and that's the environment I was thinking of. Your mileage, and
collision avoidance requirements may vary!

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Bert TW]

On Jun 10, 1:16*am, Chris Nicholas > wrote:
> I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one high in the
> cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below, there would be
> no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as possible. We
> don’t do that because it is too much trouble and/or too expensive. It
> is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm even in its most
> basic available form.

> Chris N.

That's what I decided on last winter., because the Flarm range
analysis on my carbon fuselage Flarm installation (Ventius cM) showed
that there were some blind spot (ranges < 2km). I installed an antenna
splitter, the original Flarm antenna outside the fuselage near the
gear doors, and a stripe antenna behind my head inside the canopy.
"Blind spot" now means a range of 4 km ( a bit more than 2 nautical
miles for the colonials).
Investment was $200. My ass is worth more than that.

[Ramy]

On Friday, June 8, 2012 10:47:31 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> On Friday, June 8, 2012 9:56:30 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> > Not a good past 2 weeks per FAA prelims...midair (no reported injuries, thank
> > heaven!) apparently yesterday, & a takeoff groundloop a week ago Monday..
> >
> > Three "substantially damaged" gliders.
> >
> > IDENTIFICATION
> > Regis#: 101LV Make/Model: CEN Description: CENTRAIR 101
> > Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145
> >
> > Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing:
> > Damage: Substantial
> >
> > LOCATION
> > City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US
> >
> > DESCRIPTION
> > N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV
> >
> > INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
> > # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> > # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> > # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> >
> > - - - - - -
> > IDENTIFICATION
> > Regis#: 943SB Make/Model: DISC Description: DISCUS BT/BM
> > Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145
> >
> > Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing: N
> > Damage: Substantial
> >
> > LOCATION
> > City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US
> >
> > DESCRIPTION
> > N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV
> >
> > INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
> > # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> > # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> > # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> > - - - - - -
> > - - - - - -
> >
> > IDENTIFICATION
> > Regis#: 817V Make/Model: EXP Description: SZD-55-1 GLIDER
> > Date: 05/28/2012 Time: 1800
> >
> > Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
> > Damage: Substantial
> >
> > LOCATION
> > City: FARMINGTON State: NC Country: US
> >
> > DESCRIPTION
> > AIRCRAFT ON DEPARTURE GROUND LOOPED, FARMINGTON, NC
> >
> > INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
> > # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> > # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> > # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
> > - - - - - -
>
> Both pilots landed safely back at Airsailing after loosing a section of their wing and most of the aileron, according to preliminary reports and photos I've seen. Incredible luck. This was not a contest, just a small gathering. Apparently it did not happen in a gaggle or while thermaling and they never saw each other. So much for those who claim that powerflarms are only needed in contests...
>
> Ramy

Below are the pilot reports with their permission:

From Walter:

"<snip> After reaching 10,700 feet over Tuly Peak I headed upwind to work the Dog Skins ridge, I was loosing some altitude and went back to the Red Rocks
where several other gliders were also searching for lift. There was
some turbulence but no good thermals to circle which caused most
gliders to manouver around in search of lift. I was keeping track of
the gliders in the area but suddenly at about 6,800 feet I felt a jolt
and a loud noise as another glider I hadn't seen colided with me. The
Cirrus immediately turned the nose down and at first it seemed I had
lost control of the glider. During impact I hit and slighly cut my
left leg against the instrument panel and my Oudie went flying. I
could see a damage on the left wing but being around 2,000 feet over
the ground and heading down with what seemed limited control I didn't
think there was much time to try seeing if I could regain control. I
decided to bail and was surprised I couldn't get the canopy to open
(may have turned out to be my saving grace). I then focused on
controlling the glider the best I could and head to a landing area.
After getting the glider to level flight, I headed back towards the
airport for a straight in landing on runway 21R since the main runway
had a glider getting ready to take off. I made a call on the radio
that I had an emergency and lowered and locked the landing gear. The
landing was normal without incidents but there wasn't much height
left. I had to wait for someone to come help me since I couldn't open
the canopy from the inside as the back hinge had released but not the
front part and it was stuck.

After talking to the other pilot Bill Johns (who used to be a fighter
pilot) from BASA flying a Pegasus and hearing his account of the
event, we hit pretty much head on, with him flying right over my
canopy and his right wing hitting my left wing (I was in a gentle
right bank and he was either flying straight or on a gentle right
bank). He saw me about 1 second before impact and thought he was going
to take my tail off, but fortunately he missed that. My wing was
somewhat damaged but other than loosing 80% of my left aileron and
having parts of the fiber glass torn (see first 2 pictures), it was
still flyable. After landing we noticed that the root of the Cirrus
wing had signs of stress and damage as well. The Pegaus lost about 3-4
feet of his right wing tip and half of his right aileron (see 3rd
picture). He didn't loose control of his glider and headed back to the
airport, landing after me on the dirt next to runway 21L.

If we had been flying thermals in a gaggle or if we were all flying
ridge it would have been simpler since we would be following a
protocol. The instructor Mark said the thing he might have done
differently was to leave the area since there were too many gliders
flying in different patterns (some trying to find thermals, and some
trying to fly the ridge). I understand that trying to see each other
would have required a careful and lucky scanning of the horizon, but
even so, I am not sure how easily we would have been able to see each
other. A FLARM device sounds really good to me right now, as any
indication of a likely collision, even if 3 or so seconds before
impact would have prevented the accident."

From Bill:

"<snip> All ASI gliders were to be on 122.9, ASI frequency, so there was a lot of chatter to do with airfield activities as well as airborne gliders. I made an initial call that I was climbing over the Red Rocks, then monitored and did not hear reports by other gliders in my area. As it turned out, I wish I had been more proactive in providing and asking for other position reports.

At 2:46PM, as I headed westerly, wings level, at about 7000', another glider suddenly appeared from under my nose on the right side, very close aboard, and complete opposite direction, too close for me to react prior to impact. The impact was charactarized by a loud "bang" and perception of parts flying in my right peripheral vision. The Pegasus was unphased by this, though she lost about 2 feet of right wingtip and the outboard half of the aileron. I experienced no loss of control, and made a shallow turn to the right to look back for the other glider. Ailerons and parts were fluttering in the distance and the Cirrus was well below, but continuing in stable flight to the east. I made a call to Air Sailing informing them of the mid air, that both gliders appeared to be OK and we would be returning for emergency landing. I continued at altitude, following the Cirrus as he made a low, wide circling turn and lined up for 21R. Once he was down, I proceeded over the field at 6500', lowered the gear, checked spoilers and verified again that I had good control at pattern airspeed. I landed 21L uneventfully.

I think short of something like FLARM, the only thing which could have prevented this would have been better situational awareness of which other giders were working in the same area. The conditions unknowingly put us each at the same altitude searching for lift, and nothing is harder to see than another glider head on. The other pilot reported he never saw me before, during or after the incident. Also, I learned after landing that he had lost control and attempted a bailout, had trouble opening his canopy release, so went to plan B and was able to recover the aircraft. We were no more than 1500' above the steep terrain at impact.

Both of us flew the next day and I had my best flight of the camp in the ASK-21 that Friday with Rob Stone. His comment...Bill's head was moving all the time...he sure was looking around!"


My conclusions after reviewing Walter's igc trace:

1 - Although the mid air happened at 2500 feet above the airport, they were only slightly more that 1000 feet above the hills below, probably too low to bailout successfully. the failure of the canopy release may have been indeed his saving grace.
2 - After the impact he dropped quickly and lost 2000 feet in one minute. Luckily the ground was dropping at the direction he was flying! He was only around 500 feet AGL after the first minute.
3 - The dive did not really slowed down much until the landing flare.
4 - The turn and the dive took him straight to the runway. He did not have time or altitude to land anywhere else. He was on the ground 2 min after impact.

None of them had flarm or pcas. Other then the obvious conclusion that flarm could have saved the day, another lesson is to check your canopy emergency release mechanism to make sure it works. Better scanning would have helped only if they knew exactly where to look at the right moment. Better radio communication as we often do in some places may have also helped preventing this accident.

I consider the results a miracle.

Ramy

[BobW]

On 6/10/2012 12:47 PM, Ramy wrote:
> On Friday, June 8, 2012 10:47:31 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>> On Friday, June 8, 2012 9:56:30 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
>>> Not a good past 2 weeks per FAA prelims...midair (no reported injuries,
>>> thank heaven!) apparently yesterday,& a takeoff groundloop a week ago
>>> Monday.
>>>
>>> Three "substantially damaged" gliders.
>>>
>>> IDENTIFICATION Regis#: 101LV Make/Model: CEN Description:
>>> CENTRAIR 101 Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145
>>>
>>> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing:
>>> Damage: Substantial
>>>
>>> LOCATION City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US
>>>
>>> DESCRIPTION N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN
>>> CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV
>>>
>>> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0 # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0
>>> Min: 0 Unk: # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
>>> Unk: # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
>>>
>>> - - - - - - IDENTIFICATION Regis#: 943SB Make/Model: DISC
>>> Description: DISCUS BT/BM Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145
>>>
>>> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing:
>>> N Damage: Substantial
>>>
>>> LOCATION City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US
>>>
>>> DESCRIPTION N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN
>>> CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV
>>>
>>> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0 # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0
>>> Min: 0 Unk: # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
>>> Unk: # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: - - -
>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>>
>>> IDENTIFICATION Regis#: 817V Make/Model: EXP Description:
>>> SZD-55-1 GLIDER Date: 05/28/2012 Time: 1800
>>>
>>> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing:
>>> N Damage: Substantial
>>>
>>> LOCATION City: FARMINGTON State: NC Country: US
>>>
>>> DESCRIPTION AIRCRAFT ON DEPARTURE GROUND LOOPED, FARMINGTON, NC
>>>
>>> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0 # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0
>>> Min: 0 Unk: # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
>>> Unk: # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: - - -
>>> - - -
>>
>> Both pilots landed safely back at Airsailing after loosing a section of
>> their wing and most of the aileron, according to preliminary reports and
>> photos I've seen. Incredible luck. This was not a contest, just a small
>> gathering. Apparently it did not happen in a gaggle or while thermaling
>> and they never saw each other. So much for those who claim that
>> powerflarms are only needed in contests...
>>
>> Ramy
>
> Below are the pilot reports with their permission:
>
> From Walter:
>
> "<snip> After reaching 10,700 feet over Tuly Peak I headed upwind to work
> the Dog Skins ridge, I was loosing some altitude and went back to the Red
> Rocks where several other gliders were also searching for lift. There was
> some turbulence but no good thermals to circle which caused most gliders to
> manouver around in search of lift. I was keeping track of the gliders in
> the area but suddenly at about 6,800 feet I felt a jolt and a loud noise as
> another glider I hadn't seen colided with me. The Cirrus immediately turned
> the nose down and at first it seemed I had lost control of the glider.
> During impact I hit and slighly cut my left leg against the instrument
> panel and my Oudie went flying. I could see a damage on the left wing but
> being around 2,000 feet over the ground and heading down with what seemed
> limited control I didn't think there was much time to try seeing if I could
> regain control. I decided to bail and was surprised I couldn't get the
> canopy to open (may have turned out to be my saving grace). I then focused
> on controlling the glider the best I could and head to a landing area.
> After getting the glider to level flight, I headed back towards the airport
> for a straight in landing on runway 21R since the main runway had a glider
> getting ready to take off. I made a call on the radio that I had an
> emergency and lowered and locked the landing gear. The landing was normal
> without incidents but there wasn't much height left. I had to wait for
> someone to come help me since I couldn't open the canopy from the inside as
> the back hinge had released but not the front part and it was stuck.
>
> After talking to the other pilot Bill Johns (who used to be a fighter
> pilot) from BASA flying a Pegasus and hearing his account of the event, we
> hit pretty much head on, with him flying right over my canopy and his right
> wing hitting my left wing (I was in a gentle right bank and he was either
> flying straight or on a gentle right bank). He saw me about 1 second before
> impact and thought he was going to take my tail off, but fortunately he
> missed that. My wing was somewhat damaged but other than loosing 80% of my
> left aileron and having parts of the fiber glass torn (see first 2
> pictures), it was still flyable. After landing we noticed that the root of
> the Cirrus wing had signs of stress and damage as well. The Pegaus lost
> about 3-4 feet of his right wing tip and half of his right aileron (see
> 3rd picture). He didn't loose control of his glider and headed back to the
> airport, landing after me on the dirt next to runway 21L.
>
> If we had been flying thermals in a gaggle or if we were all flying ridge
> it would have been simpler since we would be following a protocol. The
> instructor Mark said the thing he might have done differently was to leave
> the area since there were too many gliders flying in different patterns
> (some trying to find thermals, and some trying to fly the ridge). I
> understand that trying to see each other would have required a careful and
> lucky scanning of the horizon, but even so, I am not sure how easily we
> would have been able to see each other. A FLARM device sounds really good
> to me right now, as any indication of a likely collision, even if 3 or so
> seconds before impact would have prevented the accident."
>
> From Bill:
>
> "<snip> All ASI gliders were to be on 122.9, ASI frequency, so there was a
> lot of chatter to do with airfield activities as well as airborne gliders.
> I made an initial call that I was climbing over the Red Rocks, then
> monitored and did not hear reports by other gliders in my area. As it
> turned out, I wish I had been more proactive in providing and asking for
> other position reports.
>
> At 2:46PM, as I headed westerly, wings level, at about 7000', another
> glider suddenly appeared from under my nose on the right side, very close
> aboard, and complete opposite direction, too close for me to react prior to
> impact. The impact was charactarized by a loud "bang" and perception of
> parts flying in my right peripheral vision. The Pegasus was unphased by
> this, though she lost about 2 feet of right wingtip and the outboard half
> of the aileron. I experienced no loss of control, and made a shallow turn
> to the right to look back for the other glider. Ailerons and parts were
> fluttering in the distance and the Cirrus was well below, but continuing in
> stable flight to the east. I made a call to Air Sailing informing them of
> the mid air, that both gliders appeared to be OK and we would be returning
> for emergency landing. I continued at altitude, following the Cirrus as
> he made a low, wide circling turn and lined up for 21R. Once he was down,
> I proceeded over the field at 6500', lowered the gear, checked spoilers and
> verified again that I had good control at pattern airspeed. I landed 21L
> uneventfully.
>
> I think short of something like FLARM, the only thing which could have
> prevented this would have been better situational awareness of which other
> giders were working in the same area. The conditions unknowingly put us
> each at the same altitude searching for lift, and nothing is harder to see
> than another glider head on. The other pilot reported he never saw me
> before, during or after the incident. Also, I learned after landing that
> he had lost control and attempted a bailout, had trouble opening his canopy
> release, so went to plan B and was able to recover the aircraft. We were
> no more than 1500' above the steep terrain at impact.
>
> Both of us flew the next day and I had my best flight of the camp in the
> ASK-21 that Friday with Rob Stone. His comment...Bill's head was moving
> all the time...he sure was looking around!"
>
>
> My conclusions after reviewing Walter's igc trace:
>
> 1 - Although the mid air happened at 2500 feet above the airport, they were
> only slightly more that 1000 feet above the hills below, probably too low
> to bailout successfully. the failure of the canopy release may have been
> indeed his saving grace. 2 - After the impact he dropped quickly and lost
> 2000 feet in one minute. Luckily the ground was dropping at the direction
> he was flying! He was only around 500 feet AGL after the first minute. 3 -
> The dive did not really slowed down much until the landing flare. 4 - The
> turn and the dive took him straight to the runway. He did not have time or
> altitude to land anywhere else. He was on the ground 2 min after impact.
>
> None of them had flarm or pcas. Other then the obvious conclusion that
> flarm could have saved the day, another lesson is to check your canopy
> emergency release mechanism to make sure it works. Better scanning would
> have helped only if they knew exactly where to look at the right moment.
> Better radio communication as we often do in some places may have also
> helped preventing this accident.
>
> I consider the results a miracle.
>
> Ramy
>
>

Walter, Bill, Ramy:

Thank you!!! Information is good. Timely is even better.
- - - - - -

Bill, Walter:

Wow... (and thank heaven you're both still with us!).
- - - - - -

Ramy:

Well before reading your commentary below Bill's & Walter's writeups, I'd come
to the exact same conclusion. This could easily have involved one or two
fatalities.
- - - - - -

Bob W.

[Chris]

Ramy wrote:

> I think short of something like FLARM, the only thing which could have
> prevented this would have been better situational awareness of which other
> giders were working in the same area.

I can only support this. Looking out is the first thing to do. But FLARM
really can help to save your day (maybe your life). I had a near miss
yesterday. FLARM did indicate traffic right of my course. Still not seeing
the other glider, I did a left turn. In the same moment the other glider
passed me in a distance of maybe two wingspans.

These little boxes really work. Everyone who can afford a glider of some
1000 $ or ? can also afford another some 100.
Chris

[Ramy]

On Sunday, June 10, 2012 1:43:00 PM UTC-7, Chris wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
>
> > I think short of something like FLARM, the only thing which could have
> > prevented this would have been better situational awareness of which other
> > giders were working in the same area.
>
> I can only support this. Looking out is the first thing to do. But FLARM
> really can help to save your day (maybe your life). I had a near miss
> yesterday. FLARM did indicate traffic right of my course. Still not seeing
> the other glider, I did a left turn. In the same moment the other glider
> passed me in a distance of maybe two wingspans.
>
> These little boxes really work. Everyone who can afford a glider of some
> 1000 $ or ? can also afford another some 100.
> Chris

Few weeks ago I had the opportunity to see how head on target looks like. I could see the other glider couple of miles away since he was banking, but once he leveled off and headed directly towards me, the wings completely disappeared and all I could see was a little dot for his cockpit. The dot was not moving and only slowly growing (at the beginning). There was no way I would have noticed this dot while scanning if he did not bank before. I did not remove my focus from the dot so not to loose sight, and asked him on the radio if he sees me at 12 o'clock. He didn't until I banked away 10-15 sec before we crossed each other. If I didnt see him we would have cleared each other by few feet since he was slightly lower. This convinced me how difficult it is to see another aircraft, especially white slick glider, which is in collision course. Sure we always easily see other aircrafts, but they are not in collision course and as such are moving targets which our eye can detect much easier, or they are banking which makes it easier to see.

I have now personally known or met 5 pilots who were involved in mid airs in the last 3 years or so. So much for the claim that it is a rare event. We are all attracted to the same small energy lines and as such the sky is not as big for us as it is for other aircrafts. This mid air happened in a small gathering with less than 6 gliders in the air, not a big contest.

Ramy

Ramy

[Dan[_4_]]

"...my Oudie went flying"

Thankfully, both pilots were unhurt. The one thing not mentioned so
far - the attachment of miscellaneous electronic equipment might also
be a lesson learned. Is it possible to post what mount solution was
being used (velco, suction, hard-point) so we can re-assess what we
are using with ours?

Thanks for the prompt and frank first-hand narratives - evidence of a
good safety culture!

Dan

[Fox Two[_2_]]

I had a nasty land-out in 2007 on the Caprock west of Hobbs; I was very lucky not to have been hurt (other than my ego, of course), but my iPAQ went flying during the violent roll-out! The iPAQ wasn't 'locked' to its cradle in any way; now everything in my cockpit is 'locked-down!'

Foxtrot2



On Monday, June 11, 2012 12:53:09 PM UTC+2, Dan wrote:
> Is it possible to post what mount solution was
> being used (velco, suction, hard-point) so we can re-assess what we
> are using with ours?
>
> Dan

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

At 13:44 10 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:
>On Jun 10, 1:16=A0am, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>> I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one high
in the
>> cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below, there
would be
>> no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as
possible. We
>> don=92t do that because it is too much trouble and/or too
expensive. It
>> is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm even
in its most
>> basic available form.
>
>> Chris N.
>
>That's what I decided on last winter., because the Flarm range
>analysis on my carbon fuselage Flarm installation (Ventius cM)
showed
>that there were some blind spot (ranges < 2km). I installed an
antenna
>splitter, the original Flarm antenna outside the fuselage near
the
>gear doors, and a stripe antenna behind my head inside the
canopy.
>"Blind spot" now means a range of 4 km ( a bit more than 2
nautical
>miles for the colonials).
>Investment was $200. My ass is worth more than that.
>

Bert,

This kind of information is exactly what I would like to hear.
FLARM is an excellent idea, and I hope everyone installs one in
their ship. Also I hope that everyone make sure that his/her
FLARM system operates well. My problem is, that I have no idea
how to improve FLARM operation. I have changed the position of
antennas, and got mixed results, according to the range
analysis.

I believe that system of two antennas would be good. Can you
Bert please share with us your knowledge of antenna splitters
and antennas used, so that we can make similar installations.
Possibly we could add necessary components into
www.soartronic.com as DIY kits, so that everyone can have one
on minimum cost.

[Bert TW]

On Jun 11, 9:13*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
> At 13:44 10 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 10, 1:16=A0am, Chris Nicholas *wrote:
> >> I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one high
> in the
> >> cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below, there
> would be
> >> no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as
> possible. We
> >> don=92t do that because it is too much trouble and/or too
> expensive. It
> >> is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm even
> in its most
> >> basic available form.
>
> >> Chris N.
>
> >That's what I decided on last winter., because the Flarm range
> >analysis on my carbon fuselage Flarm installation (Ventius cM)
> showed
> >that there were some blind spot (ranges < 2km). I installed an
> antenna
> >splitter, the original Flarm antenna outside the fuselage near
> the
> >gear doors, and a stripe antenna behind my head inside the
> canopy.
> >"Blind spot" now means a range of 4 km ( a bit more than 2
> nautical
> >miles for the colonials).
> >Investment was $200. My ass is worth more than that.
>
> Bert,
>
> This kind of information is exactly what I would like to hear.
> FLARM is an excellent idea, and I hope everyone installs one in
> their ship. Also I hope that everyone make sure that his/her
> FLARM system operates well. My problem is, that I have no idea
> how to improve FLARM operation. I have changed the position of
> antennas, and got mixed results, according to the range
> analysis.
>
> I believe that system of two antennas would be good. Can you
> Bert please share with us your knowledge of antenna splitters
> and antennas used, so that we can make similar installations.
> Possibly we could add necessary components intowww.soartronic.comas DIY kits, so that everyone can have one
> on minimum cost.

Kimmo,

I am not a specialist at all. By chance I discovered www.dolba.de
where you can see the antenna mounted as strips into the canopy. I
talked to the guy (Bernd Dolba, I'm pretty sure that he speaks English
as well), and he talked me into installing two antennas. He obviously
sold be the stuff he makes for that :-) but I'm happy with it. The
splitter is a small passive box which receives the input of the two
antenna, and feeds them into the antenna input of the Flarm. I did
measure the required cable lengths first, and he send me the antenna,
the splitter and the three cables (the lower antenna outside the
fuselage is the original Flarm antenna, he just provided me the
socket).
Improvement was great - I had tried various positions/antennas in the
previous year, but the combination of a carbon fuselage, a relatively
solid instrument panel (it's GRP, but behind its crammed with metal
boxes...) and my requirement that I don't want any antenna blocking
any of my view is more or less hopeless for not having blind spots.
With the present configuration, I cover the whole space around me.

[Dan[_4_]]

On Jun 12, 3:55*am, Bert TW > wrote:
> On Jun 11, 9:13*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > At 13:44 10 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:
>
> > >On Jun 10, 1:16=A0am, Chris Nicholas *wrote:
> > >> I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one high
> > in the
> > >> cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below, there
> > would be
> > >> no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as
> > possible. We
> > >> don=92t do that because it is too much trouble and/or too
> > expensive. It
> > >> is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm even
> > in its most
> > >> basic available form.
>
> > >> Chris N.
>
> > >That's what I decided on last winter., because the Flarm range
> > >analysis on my carbon fuselage Flarm installation (Ventius cM)
> > showed
> > >that there were some blind spot (ranges < 2km). I installed an
> > antenna
> > >splitter, the original Flarm antenna outside the fuselage near
> > the
> > >gear doors, and a stripe antenna behind my head inside the
> > canopy.
> > >"Blind spot" now means a range of 4 km ( a bit more than 2
> > nautical
> > >miles for the colonials).
> > >Investment was $200. My ass is worth more than that.
>
> > Bert,
>
> > This kind of information is exactly what I would like to hear.
> > FLARM is an excellent idea, and I hope everyone installs one in
> > their ship. Also I hope that everyone make sure that his/her
> > FLARM system operates well. My problem is, that I have no idea
> > how to improve FLARM operation. I have changed the position of
> > antennas, and got mixed results, according to the range
> > analysis.
>
> > I believe that system of two antennas would be good. Can you
> > Bert please share with us your knowledge of antenna splitters
> > and antennas used, so that we can make similar installations.
> > Possibly we could add necessary components intowww.soartronic.comasDIY kits, so that everyone can have one
> > on minimum cost.
>
> Kimmo,
>
> I am not a specialist at all. By chance I discoveredwww.dolba.de
> where you can see the antenna mounted as strips into the canopy. I
> talked to the guy (Bernd Dolba, I'm pretty sure that he speaks English
> as well), and he talked me into installing two antennas. He obviously
> sold be the stuff he makes for that :-) but I'm happy with it. The
> splitter is a small passive box which receives the input of the two
> antenna, and feeds them into the antenna input of the Flarm. I did
> measure the required cable lengths first, and he send me the antenna,
> the splitter and the three cables (the lower antenna outside the
> fuselage is the original Flarm antenna, he just provided me the
> socket).
> Improvement was great - I had tried various positions/antennas in the
> previous year, but the combination of a carbon fuselage, a relatively
> solid instrument panel (it's GRP, but behind its crammed with metal
> boxes...) and my requirement that I don't want any antenna blocking
> any of my view is more or less hopeless for not having blind spots.
> With the present configuration, I cover the whole space around me.

I see those antennae are optimized for 868 Mhz, not 915 for north
america; there will be some loss as a result. Nice to see the market
come up with solutions like this, though.

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

At 07:55 12 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:
>On Jun 11, 9:13=A0pm, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:
>> At 13:44 10 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 10, 1:16=3DA0am, Chris Nicholas =A0wrote:
>> >> I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one
high
>> in the
>> >> cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below,
there
>> would be
>> >> no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as
>> possible. We
>> >> don=3D92t do that because it is too much trouble and/or
too
>> expensive. It
>> >> is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm
even
>> in its most
>> >> basic available form.
>>
>> >> Chris N.
>>
>> >That's what I decided on last winter., because the Flarm
range
>> >analysis on my carbon fuselage Flarm installation (Ventius
cM)
>> showed
>> >that there were some blind spot (ranges antenna
>> >splitter, the original Flarm antenna outside the fuselage
near
>> the
>> >gear doors, and a stripe antenna behind my head inside
the
>> canopy.
>> >"Blind spot" now means a range of 4 km ( a bit more than
2
>> nautical
>> >miles for the colonials).
>> >Investment was $200. My ass is worth more than that.
>>
>> Bert,
>>
>> This kind of information is exactly what I would like to hear.
>> FLARM is an excellent idea, and I hope everyone installs one
in
>> their ship. Also I hope that everyone make sure that his/her
>> FLARM system operates well. My problem is, that I have no
idea
>> how to improve FLARM operation. I have changed the
position of
>> antennas, and got mixed results, according to the range
>> analysis.
>>
>> I believe that system of two antennas would be good. Can
you
>> Bert please share with us your knowledge of antenna
splitters
>> and antennas used, so that we can make similar
installations.
>> Possibly we could add necessary components
intowww.soartronic.comas DIY
>k=
>its, so that everyone can have one
>> on minimum cost.
>
>Kimmo,
>
>I am not a specialist at all. By chance I discovered
www.dolba.de
>where you can see the antenna mounted as strips into the
canopy. I
>talked to the guy (Bernd Dolba, I'm pretty sure that he speaks
English
>as well), and he talked me into installing two antennas. He
obviously
>sold be the stuff he makes for that :-) but I'm happy with it.
The
>splitter is a small passive box which receives the input of the
two
>antenna, and feeds them into the antenna input of the Flarm. I
did
>measure the required cable lengths first, and he send me the
antenna,
>the splitter and the three cables (the lower antenna outside the
>fuselage is the original Flarm antenna, he just provided me the
>socket).
>Improvement was great - I had tried various
positions/antennas in the
>previous year, but the combination of a carbon fuselage, a
relatively
>solid instrument panel (it's GRP, but behind its crammed with
metal
>boxes...) and my requirement that I don't want any antenna
blocking
>any of my view is more or less hopeless for not having blind
spots.
>With the present configuration, I cover the whole space around
me.
>

I got reply from a specialist today. Unfortunately he explained in
detail how a system of two antennas cause loss of the signal where the
waves block each others (interference). The
PowerFLARM solution with two receivers seems to be the only
working solution for two (or more) antennas.

[Bill D]

On Jun 12, 5:14*am, Dan > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:55*am, Bert TW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 9:13*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen > wrote:
>
> > > At 13:44 10 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:
>
> > > >On Jun 10, 1:16=A0am, Chris Nicholas *wrote:
> > > >> I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one high
> > > in the
> > > >> cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below, there
> > > would be
> > > >> no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as
> > > possible. We
> > > >> don=92t do that because it is too much trouble and/or too
> > > expensive. It
> > > >> is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm even
> > > in its most
> > > >> basic available form.
>
> > > >> Chris N.
>
> > > >That's what I decided on last winter., because the Flarm range
> > > >analysis on my carbon fuselage Flarm installation (Ventius cM)
> > > showed
> > > >that there were some blind spot (ranges < 2km). I installed an
> > > antenna
> > > >splitter, the original Flarm antenna outside the fuselage near
> > > the
> > > >gear doors, and a stripe antenna behind my head inside the
> > > canopy.
> > > >"Blind spot" now means a range of 4 km ( a bit more than 2
> > > nautical
> > > >miles for the colonials).
> > > >Investment was $200. My ass is worth more than that.
>
> > > Bert,
>
> > > This kind of information is exactly what I would like to hear.
> > > FLARM is an excellent idea, and I hope everyone installs one in
> > > their ship. Also I hope that everyone make sure that his/her
> > > FLARM system operates well. My problem is, that I have no idea
> > > how to improve FLARM operation. I have changed the position of
> > > antennas, and got mixed results, according to the range
> > > analysis.
>
> > > I believe that system of two antennas would be good. Can you
> > > Bert please share with us your knowledge of antenna splitters
> > > and antennas used, so that we can make similar installations.
> > > Possibly we could add necessary components intowww.soartronic.comasDIYkits, so that everyone can have one
> > > on minimum cost.
>
> > Kimmo,
>
> > I am not a specialist at all. By chance I discoveredwww.dolba.de
> > where you can see the antenna mounted as strips into the canopy. I
> > talked to the guy (Bernd Dolba, I'm pretty sure that he speaks English
> > as well), and he talked me into installing two antennas. He obviously
> > sold be the stuff he makes for that :-) but I'm happy with it. The
> > splitter is a small passive box which receives the input of the two
> > antenna, and feeds them into the antenna input of the Flarm. I did
> > measure the required cable lengths first, and he send me the antenna,
> > the splitter and the three cables (the lower antenna outside the
> > fuselage is the original Flarm antenna, he just provided me the
> > socket).
> > Improvement was great - I had tried various positions/antennas in the
> > previous year, but the combination of a carbon fuselage, a relatively
> > solid instrument panel (it's GRP, but behind its crammed with metal
> > boxes...) and my requirement that I don't want any antenna blocking
> > any of my view is more or less hopeless for not having blind spots.
> > With the present configuration, I cover the whole space around me.
>
> I see those antennae are optimized for 868 Mhz, not 915 for north
> america; there will be some loss as a result. Nice to see the market
> come up with solutions like this, though.

FWIW, there are a lot of aftermarket antennas available for 915 MHz.
Google "915MHz antenna". EDN has some interesting PCB antenna designs
which could be modified for thin-film stick-on antennas.

[Dan[_4_]]

Thanks, Bill - lots of choice!

Dan


>
> > I see those antennae are optimized for 868 Mhz, not 915 for north
> > america; there will be some loss as a result. Nice to see the market
> > come up with solutions like this, though.
>
> FWIW, there are a lot of aftermarket antennas available for 915 MHz.
> Google "915MHz antenna". *EDN has some interesting PCB antenna designs
> which could be modified for thin-film stick-on antennas.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Jun 10, 1:43*pm, Chris > wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> > I think short of something like FLARM, the only thing which could have
> > prevented this would have been better situational awareness of which other
> > giders were working in the same area.
>
> I can only support this. Looking out is the first thing to do. But FLARM
> really can help to save your day (maybe your life). I had a near miss
> yesterday. FLARM did indicate traffic right of my course. Still not seeing
> the other glider, I did a left turn. In the same moment the other glider
> passed me in a distance of maybe two wingspans.
>
> These little boxes really work. Everyone who can afford a glider of some
> 1000 $ or ? can also afford another some 100.
> Chris

I flew my first contest last week; R8 Sports Class. Several pilots
were using the rental Flarm units and Richard at Craggy had a stand-
alone unit he brought along and I bought it. I wasn't really thinking
of installing it until after a few days of flying with the guys using
PF and hearing all the great things they were saying about it. I did
install it, it was an easy install and it looks great on the hood of
my Tetra-15. I am really happy with it, it works and I had a handful
of alerts from other sailplanes as well as from a Cessna 210 that
climbed right over the top of me by 150'; I saw him about the same
time the Flarm sounded, I'm sure he never even saw me, I've flown
Cessna's and know the over-the-nose view while climbing is nil.

I'm probably going to sound like a reformed smoker now, but I am going
to really promote the PF to all my soaring
buddies.................this thing works!

As been said before: "don't let the quest for perfection be the enemy
of the good!"

Brad
GK

[Craig Funston[_2_]]

Ditto.