Another mid-air (UK)

[[email protected]]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713010/The-amazing-moment-glider-pilot-bail-aircraft-parachute-safety-wing-fell-dramatic-mid-air-collision.html#ixzz39BhomNQI

7U

[Neil Goudie[_2_]]

Don't fall into the trap that on-line newspapers date stamp stories with
today's date. This article relates to an event on Saturday 26 August
2014.

For the record there have been 4 notifiable Midairs in the last 2 years in
the UK.

All have had successful outcomes (in terms of casualties) and all with 1
pilot bailing out and the other pilot(s) landing.

A success story in terms of pilot training for the positive outcome but
more of an issue in terms of why they are occuring in the first place.

I won't speculate as the last 3 have occurred in the last 3 months and I
haven't read the formal reports.

Neil


At 11:33 04 August 2014, wrote:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713010/The-amazing-moment-glider-pilot-bail-aircraft-parachute-safety-wing-fell-dramatic-mid-air-collision.html#ixzz39BhomNQI
>
>7U
>

[Neil Goudie[_2_]]

Don't fall into the trap that on-line newspapers date stamp stories with
today's date. This article relates to an event on Saturday 26 August
2014.

For the record there have been 4 notifiable Midairs in the last 2 years in
the UK.

All have had successful outcomes (in terms of casualties) and all with 1
pilot bailing out and the other pilot(s) landing.

A success story in terms of pilot training for the positive outcome but
more of an issue in terms of why they are occuring in the first place.

I won't speculate as the last 3 have occurred in the last 3 months and I
haven't read the formal reports.

Neil


At 11:33 04 August 2014, wrote:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713010/The-amazing-moment-glider-pilot-bail-aircraft-parachute-safety-wing-fell-dramatic-mid-air-collision.html#ixzz39BhomNQI
>
>7U
>

[Neil Goudie[_2_]]

Don't fall into the trap that on-line newspapers date stamp stories with
today's date. This article relates to an event on Saturday 26 August
2014.

For the record there have been 4 notifiable Midairs in the last 2 years in
the UK.

All have had successful outcomes (in terms of casualties) and all with 1
pilot bailing out and the other pilot(s) landing.

A success story in terms of pilot training for the positive outcome but
more of an issue in terms of why they are occuring in the first place.

I won't speculate as the last 3 have occurred in the last 3 months and I
haven't read the formal reports.

Neil


At 11:33 04 August 2014, wrote:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713010/The-amazing-moment-glider-pilot-bail-aircraft-parachute-safety-wing-fell-dramatic-mid-air-collision.html#ixzz39BhomNQI
>
>7U
>

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, August 4, 2014 8:13:54 AM UTC-4, Neil Goudie wrote:
> This article relates to an event on Saturday 26 August 2014.

July?

[Neil Goudie[_2_]]

At 13:21 04 August 2014, son_of_flubber wrote:
>On Monday, August 4, 2014 8:13:54 AM UTC-4, Neil Goudie wrote:
>> This article relates to an event on Saturday 26 August 2014.
>
>July?
>

Yes July. I flipped by calendar this morning at work.

[Ramy[_2_]]

Still hoping to hear about Flarm status in all the midairs mentioned and if they all happened in crowded gaggles. Understandably Flarm effectiveness diminishes in crowded thermals.

Ramy

[Stats Watcher]

At 16:11 04 August 2014, Ramy wrote:
>Still hoping to hear about Flarm status in all the midairs
mentioned and if
>they all happened in crowded gaggles. Understandably Flarm
effectiveness
>diminishes in crowded thermals.
>
>Ramy
>

Of the 3 incidents, 3 of the 6 gliders are confirmed as carrying
FLARM, the status of the other 3 is still not confirmed, so they too
could have been.

In 1 incident 2 FLARM carrying gliders flew alone in a thermal for 13
turns before hitting each other.

Overall given the number/rate of Flarm carrying gliders in the UK
they are significantly over represented in these recent stats. The
conclusion maybe that for some reason carrying FLARM increases
the risk of collision compared to not carrying it! ... discuss...

[jfitch]

On Monday, August 4, 2014 10:55:55 AM UTC-7, Stats Watcher wrote:
> At 16:11 04 August 2014, Ramy wrote:
>
> >Still hoping to hear about Flarm status in all the midairs
>
> mentioned and if
>
> >they all happened in crowded gaggles. Understandably Flarm
>
> effectiveness
>
> >diminishes in crowded thermals.
>
> >
>
> >Ramy
>
> >
>
>
>
> Of the 3 incidents, 3 of the 6 gliders are confirmed as carrying
>
> FLARM, the status of the other 3 is still not confirmed, so they too
>
> could have been.
>
>
>
> In 1 incident 2 FLARM carrying gliders flew alone in a thermal for 13
>
> turns before hitting each other.
>
>
>
> Overall given the number/rate of Flarm carrying gliders in the UK
>
> they are significantly over represented in these recent stats. The
>
> conclusion maybe that for some reason carrying FLARM increases
>
> the risk of collision compared to not carrying it! ... discuss...

Complacency?

I continue to refer to my Flarm brick as an in-flight entertainment system, not a collision detection system. It contributes to situational awareness, but only the pilot can prevent collision.

Statistically speaking, one could propose a number of reasons why gliders with Flarm are more likely to be flying in gaggles and therefore more at risk of collision (more active pilots with newer equipment, more likely to be flying in contests, etc.).

[[email protected][_1_]]

A working hypothesis is that FLARM lulls pilots into a sense of false security and psychologically offloads the responsibility of traffic separation onto a "black box". Probably especially true with younger pilots who rely on electronic devices to do tasks for them on a daily basis.

Similar behavior occurs when pilots take the output of their NAV systems as fact. Some really smart, highly experienced pilots have landed in some really poor spots because the Black Box said they could get home, notwithstanding there was clearly a mountain range in the way and the required glide angle was uphill. They believed in the Black Box output more than on their own eyes.

This also occurs on the White- Inyo Mt Range in CA, USA. A procedure was initiated 15-20 years ago to reduce midair potential using a standardized position reporting scheme. Pilots became complacent by assuming they knew where all gliders were located due to radio reports. Such folks can easily be identified by how upset they sound when a NORDO glider suddenly appeared in their environment.


This behavior is also seen in people who own cars. They no longer "preflight" the oil, tires or other systems because a system will (allegedly) do it for them.

A CFI friend has a large sign in his flight kit that says "COMPLACENCY KILLS".

Spot On!

I also believe that anything (NAV displays, FLARM, visual "Thermal Maximizers") that causes you to focus significant amounts of time inside the cockpit, are a serious detriment to safety and probably X-C performance. Somebody famous once said "90% of what you need to know is outside the cockpit" That is still true, in my opinion.

[Ramy[_2_]]

Before we can try to draw any conclusion we need more data of course. It shouldn't be too dificult to confirm if the other gliders had flarm. If only one glider has flarm it is as good as no flarm. The pilot in the pics mentioned that the other glider came out of nowhere. This should not happen with working flarms.
BTW I believe PowerFlarm has big advantage over the classic flarm who only gives you few seconds of collision alert while PowerFlarm gives you a better display providing situational awareness so you have plenty of warning that someone is nearby and how many gliders are nearby in the gaggle.

Ramy

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, August 4, 2014 2:21:37 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> Before we can try to draw any conclusion we need more data of course.

Um, alternate approach. Let's not get "more data" because "more data" means more inflight crunching of gliders with the associated risk to the pilots.

:-)

Now, to get back to work installing power cords in all my gliders to be able to use my PF Portable in all of them...

Steve

[John Galloway[_1_]]

It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause
complacency but no study has found evidence of that. I would
be interested to hear from pilots who who have found that FLARM
use has made them complacent about look out.

John Galloway

[jfitch]

On Monday, August 4, 2014 12:08:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:

>
> I also believe that anything (NAV displays, FLARM, visual "Thermal Maximizers") that causes you to focus significant amounts of time inside the cockpit, are a serious detriment to safety and probably X-C performance. Somebody famous once said "90% of what you need to know is outside the cockpit" That is still true, in my opinion.

Since in-cockpit electronic displays are here to stay, this puts a premium on the user interface for those systems so as to make them less distracting to use. Sadly, many of them are a disaster of man-machine interface, rooted in 20th century teletype technology. Surely the vendors of this stuff can do better (and some do).

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, August 4, 2014 4:35:58 PM UTC-4, John Galloway wrote:
> It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause
> complacency but no study has found evidence of that.

There's evidence that the introduction of bicycle helmets has not reduce injuries. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1013.html This is probably because helmets have changed behavior. Human nature is common to cycling and soaring.

That said, two careful pilots with Powerflarm are safer than the same two pilots without Powerflarm.

[Ramy[_2_]]

On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:35:58 PM UTC-7, John Galloway wrote:
> It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause
>
> complacency but no study has found evidence of that. I would
>
> be interested to hear from pilots who who have found that FLARM
>
> use has made them complacent about look out.
>
>
>
> John Galloway

Since I started flying with powerflarm I find myself searching for every traffic that it displays, which results in more searching and scanning than before. The problem with scanning for traffic is not that we dont scan because our head is in the cockpit, but it is because we forget to scan and we tend to fixate at the horizon, or above the horizon usually at the clouds ahead. Powerflarm reminds me to keep looking for traffic.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 1:32:47 AM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Monday, August 4, 2014 4:35:58 PM UTC-4, John Galloway wrote:
>
> > It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause
>
> > complacency but no study has found evidence of that.
>
>
>
> There's evidence that the introduction of bicycle helmets has not reduce injuries. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1013.html This is probably because helmets have changed behavior. Human nature is common to cycling and soaring..
>
>
>
> That said, two careful pilots with Powerflarm are safer than the same two pilots without Powerflarm.



The cycling helmets (or car seatbelts/airbags) and human nature experiences are often raised in discussions about the supposed risk of complacency gliding with FLARM. There are two ways in which these are invalid comparisons:

The first difference is that on the roads it is very unlikely that "near miss" accidents will previously have gone unnoticed before the introduction of the safety gear whereas when gliding with FLARM most comment that they are amazed at the number of near misses that they have been alerted to that they must have been missing pre-FLARM. Similar to what Ramy is reporting, the aspect of human nature that seems to kick in with most glider pilots using FLARM is the bit that says "This is a lot more risky than I had realised - I had better improve my look-out"

There also is another huge conceptual difference - unlike passive safety measures on the road, FLARM is an active communication system. It pretty soon dawns on pilots that FLARM use results not only in alarms one receives but also alarms one gives to others. If I am getting a lot of alerts it means that I am giving alerts to a lot of others. Any pilot with half a brain then starts to think "not only should I look out better, I should also change how I fly with respect to avoiding giving FLARM alerts to other pilots" i.e. FLARM etiquette. (This is is often reinforced by WTF! radio calls).


John Galloway

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:37:55 AM UTC-4, wrote:

> The cycling helmets (or car seatbelts/airbags) and human nature experiences are often raised in discussions about the supposed risk of complacency gliding with FLARM. There are two ways in which these are invalid comparisons:
>
> The first difference is that on the roads it is very unlikely that "near miss" accidents will previously have gone unnoticed before the introduction of the safety gear whereas when gliding with FLARM most comment that they are amazed at the number of near misses that they have been alerted to that they must have been missing pre-FLARM. Similar to what Ramy is reporting, the aspect of human nature that seems to kick in with most glider pilots using FLARM is the bit that says "This is a lot more risky than I had realised - I had better improve my look-out"
>
> There also is another huge conceptual difference - unlike passive safety measures on the road, FLARM is an active communication system. It pretty soon dawns on pilots that FLARM use results not only in alarms one receives but also alarms one gives to others. If I am getting a lot of alerts it means that I am giving alerts to a lot of others. Any pilot with half a brain then starts to think "not only should I look out better, I should also change how I fly with respect to avoiding giving FLARM alerts to other pilots" i.e. FLARM etiquette. (This is is often reinforced by WTF! radio calls).
>

Adding to your list of why PFLARM and Helmets are different:
Helmets are intended to mitigate the effect of spills and collisions, whereas PFLARM is intended to prevent mid-airs. There are many accident profiles where the helmet does not do enough to mitigate injury, but a mid-air averted is a mid-air averted.

Just as motorists are more careful around cyclists that are not wearing helmets (and less careful near those wearing helmets), the question is whether the change in pilot behavior with PFLARM is, looking at the whole picture, more or less safe. The answer to that is going to be clearer in situations where all pilots have PFLARM, and less clear where only some pilots have PFLARM.

In the context where only some pilots have PFLARM, I'd fly as if no pilots had PFLARM.

In a galaxy far far away where all pilots have PFLARM, pilots are going to be less vigilant when they expect that they are far far away from other gliders (same as PFLARMless pilots are sometime less vigilant here on Earth). In that case, having PFLARM is not going to make pilots even less vigilant, but it will reduce the risk of a midair where and when one is least expected.

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:26:11 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

> Just as motorists are more careful around cyclists that are not wearing helmets (and less careful near those wearing helmets), the question is whether the change in pilot behavior with PFLARM is, looking at the whole picture, more or less safe. The answer to that is going to be clearer in situations where all pilots have PFLARM, and less clear where only some pilots have PFLARM.

Do you have a cite for your statement that motorists are more careful around cyclist that are not wearing helmets and less near those without? That sounds like an urban myth/total BS to me! Most motorist HATE cyclist and by the time they can even see whether there is a helmet or not it's too late.

> In the context where only some pilots have PFLARM, I'd fly as if no pilots had PFLARM.

So how do you fly now? Do YOU have FLARM?

> In a galaxy far far away where all pilots have PFLARM, pilots are going to be less vigilant when they expect that they are far far away from other gliders (same as PFLARMless pilots are sometime less vigilant here on Earth).. In that case, having PFLARM is not going to make pilots even less vigilant, but it will reduce the risk of a midair where and when one is least expected.

Well, in that galaxy, they speak French.

Anyone who thinks See and Avoid (unaided by technology) works is a fool. The Big Sky Theory works better. Most of the time. I personally don't like those odds.

Technology (PFlarm, transponders, ADS-B, PCAS, TCAS, etc) is a necessary evil.

Kirk
66

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

I can't imagine anyone is going to admit to that or even realise it applies
to them, at least until they have a mid-air or a very near miss.

At 20:35 04 August 2014, John Galloway wrote:
>It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause
>complacency but no study has found evidence of that. I would
>be interested to hear from pilots who who have found that FLARM
>use has made them complacent about look out.
>
>John Galloway
>
>

[Neil Goudie[_2_]]

Chris,

I agree. This becomes a very subjective debate however I have
heard testimonial evidence that people don't fly their aircraft when their
FLARM is U/S.

Does this suggest that they consider that they have become complacent in
look-out following habitual use? or that they consider the risk of mid-air
is significantly higher without an early alert system or perhaps they don't
want to experience any more 'WTF was that' moments in their enjoyment of
the sport.

I still standby my comments, until I am provided with evidence, that the
risk of mid-air is not significantly reduced with FLARM introduction but it
does reduce the number of 'WTF was that' moments.

So I accept that as an aid it may make the flight more enjoyable but in
this thread I won't comment on the additional threats that alert systems
might be adding to comprimising flight safety by incorrect use and
distraction.

Neil


At 13:01 05 August 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:
>I can't imagine anyone is going to admit to that or even realise it
applie
>to them, at least until they have a mid-air or a very near miss.
>
>At 20:35 04 August 2014, John Galloway wrote:
>>It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause
>>complacency but no study has found evidence of that. I would
>>be interested to hear from pilots who who have found that FLARM
>>use has made them complacent about look out.
>>
>>John Galloway
>>
>>
>
>

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:40:05 AM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:

> Do you have a cite for your statement that motorists are more careful around cyclist that are not wearing helmets and less near those without?

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking110906.html

Even if you don't share this belief, the analogous question is still relevant:

>the question is whether the change in pilot behavior with PFLARM is, looking at the whole picture, more or less safe.

> > In the context where only some pilots have PFLARM, I'd fly as if no pilots had PFLARM.
>
> So how do you fly now? Do YOU have FLARM?

I'll leave that unanswered because whether I have FLARM or not does not make my question any less valid. I will admit that I'm very glad to fly with a Trig Mode-S transponder.

At 20:35 04 August 2014, John Galloway wrote:
>It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause
>complacency but no study has found evidence of that. I would
>be interested to hear from pilots who who have found that FLARM
>use has made them complacent about look out.

Everybody agrees that 'complacent' is bad. The word complacent does not capture the gradations of vigilance. I'll admit that I'm somewhat less vigilant about traffic when I'm more than 5 miles from the airport and somewhat more vigilant when I'm within 5 miles of the airport.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 16:13:43 UTC+1, Neil Goudie wrote:
> Chris,
>
>
>
> I agree. This becomes a very subjective debate however I have
>
> heard testimonial evidence that people don't fly their aircraft when their
>
> FLARM is U/S.
>
>
>
> Does this suggest that they consider that they have become complacent in
>
> look-out following habitual use? or that they consider the risk of mid-air
>
> is significantly higher without an early alert system or perhaps they don't
>
> want to experience any more 'WTF was that' moments in their enjoyment of
>
> the sport.
>
>
>
> I still standby my comments, until I am provided with evidence, that the
>
> risk of mid-air is not significantly reduced with FLARM introduction but it
>
> does reduce the number of 'WTF was that' moments.
>
>
>
> So I accept that as an aid it may make the flight more enjoyable but in
>
> this thread I won't comment on the additional threats that alert systems
>
> might be adding to comprimising flight safety by incorrect use and
>
> distraction.
>
>
>
> Neil
>
>
Neil, I agree that we don't yet know for sure the extent to which FLARM has affected mid-air collision statistics. What we can say for sure IMHO, and with the greatest respect what I think is missing from you comments, is that FLARM has the potential to have significant benefit if its use and limitations are taught and understood properly and, especially, if pilots learn from their experiences of the additional situational awareness information to improve their flying (so as to avoid getting into high risk situations) and also to improve their look out and see and avoid behaviour.

It also has the potential to be pretty pointless if pilots just stick it in their glider and expect it to "work" without them having thought through how to interact with it or to learn from it.

So - what has resulted so far from FLARM use is much less important than what we could make happen with it in the future.

Regrettably structured instruction on FLARM use has not found its way into ab initio training in the UK.

John Galloway

[waremark]

I believe the most recent UK mid-air, the one of which we have been seeing the dramatic photos of the wing parting, happened in a competition thermal gaggle. I find Flarm of little relevance in that situation.

Who would care to suggest a training syllabus for Flarm?

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:22:02 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

> http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking110906.html

Interesting, but not sure if it's a valid test or if it even applies to US drivers!

> Even if you don't share this belief, the analogous question is still relevant:

Disagree.

> >the question is whether the change in pilot behavior with PFLARM is, looking at the whole picture, more or less safe.

Perhaps a better analogy is seat belts/airbags. Some drivers may drive more dangerously, but overall the injury rate goes down (someone else mentioned this earlier, I believe).


> > > In the context where only some pilots have PFLARM, I'd fly as if no pilots had PFLARM.

Ahh, but PFLARM (unlike regular Euro FLARM) also detects Mode A/C/S and ADS-b. Which is MOST of the power traffic out there, and some of the gliders.


> I'll leave that unanswered because whether I have FLARM or not does not make my question any less valid. I will admit that I'm very glad to fly with a Trig Mode-S transponder.

Why? FLARM is by it's nature cooperative. Having it and not saying you do makes no sense. So I assume you don't. But you have a Mode S transponder - so your technological assist to avoiding a mid-air is to make the other pilot responsible - assuming he has TCAS or is talking to center and getting traffic advisories. Good luck with that when some VFR bozo squawking 1200 and not talking to anybody runs you over from behind!

But hey, it's fun to watch airliners do the chicken when they pick up your transponder...

Kirk
66

[Stats Watcher]

At 16:17 05 August 2014, waremark wrote:
>I believe the most recent UK mid-air, the one of which we have
been seeing
>the dramatic photos of the wing parting, happened in a
competition thermal
>gaggle. I find Flarm of little relevance in that situation.
>

..and another happened in a thermal with two gliders alone.

So we conclude FLARM isn't any use in a gaggle, and isn't any use
not in a gaggle.
So in the context that most mid-airs happen in thermals, when is it
useful? Or is it the Emperor's New Clothes?

[Craig Funston]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 9:55:00 AM UTC-7, Stats Watcher wrote:
> At 16:17 05 August 2014, waremark wrote:
>
> >I believe the most recent UK mid-air, the one of which we have
>
> been seeing
>
> >the dramatic photos of the wing parting, happened in a
>
> competition thermal
>
> >gaggle. I find Flarm of little relevance in that situation.
>
> >
>
>
>
> .and another happened in a thermal with two gliders alone.
>
>
>
> So we conclude FLARM isn't any use in a gaggle, and isn't any use
>
> not in a gaggle.
>
> So in the context that most mid-airs happen in thermals, when is it
>
> useful? Or is it the Emperor's New Clothes?

I've flown with PowerFLARM for the last 3 seasons and regularly fly in close gaggles. I find it invaluable both in gaggle and cruise situations and wouldn't want to go back to the old ways. Frankly I'm mystified by the resistance to this.

Cheers,
Craig

[[email protected]]

Craig; I think I understand Flarm denial syndrome. When a glider pilot says " it's not the money its the principal of the thing, then you can be pretty sure it is the money.
I now have both a Flarm and Mode S transponder. I look outside much more now than before than I did before.

Dale Bush

[Stats Watcher]

At 18:42 05 August 2014, Craig Funston wrote:
>I've flown with PowerFLARM for the last 3 seasons and
regularly fly in
>close gaggles. I find it invaluable both in gaggle and cruise
situations
>and wouldn't want to go back to the old ways. Frankly I'm
mystified by the
>resistance to this.
>
>Cheers,
>Craig
>


A strange reply, you appear to prove the point... Firstly, by
flying in 'close gaggles' you are choosing to raise your personal
risk of collision. (As an aside, I don't understand why as the
gaggle always moves slower than you can achieve by doing
your own thing so why increase your risk for no gain?).
However you must feel you are then lowering this risk by
carrying FLARM, classic piece of risk compensation! which we
hinted at earlier... Unless carrying FLARM can reduced you risk
back to the original level, even by carrying FLARM you are
actually flying a higher risk approach. However.... even the
manufacturer says FLARM is not a close quarters collision
avoidance system, simply a mid range situational awareness
tool, so your risk mitigation strategy appears to be fallacy.

So you prove the point. You are flying a high risk approach,
which your erroneously believe is mitigated. However it is not,
so overall your personal risk, by carrying FLARM, is higher that a
pilot who does not....

[[email protected]]

Craig: I think I know the cause of "Flarm resistance syndrome". When a glider pilot says "It's not the money it's the principal of the thing" then you can be pretty sure that it's the money.
I now fly with both Flarm and Mode S. I look outside for traffic lots more than I did before. Of course that's just me.

Dale Bush

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:16:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Craig: I think I know the cause of "Flarm resistance syndrome". When a glider pilot says "It's not the money it's the principal of the thing" then you can be pretty sure that it's the money.
>
> I now fly with both Flarm and Mode S. I look outside for traffic lots more than I did before. Of course that's just me.
>
>
>
> Dale Bush

I think there is a natural resistance on the part of many folks to things they think are being over sold. The drift of this thread is an example. Every mid air is an excuse to bang the drum again.
Flarm was over sold and under delivered and many have not forgotten that.
As delivered, it had a useless unreadable display and a beep that told you to look inside at a hard to read display just when you needed to be looking outside.
For me it became a useful device when ClearNav introduced a simple display integrated with an audible message such as "traffic twelve o'clock high".
There is a perceptible trend on the part of some pilots to depend on this device and I think that is a hazard.
It also is heavily flawed in application because, except in a very few rare cases, installations don't have the second antenna needed to provide the coverage where it is really needed which is below and behind where we can't see.
So I think it is not just about the money.
UH

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 9:55:00 AM UTC-7, Stats Watcher wrote:
> At 16:17 05 August 2014, waremark wrote:
>
> >I believe the most recent UK mid-air, the one of which we have
>
> been seeing
>
> >the dramatic photos of the wing parting, happened in a
>
> competition thermal
>
> >gaggle. I find Flarm of little relevance in that situation.
>
> >
>
>
>
> .and another happened in a thermal with two gliders alone.
>
>
>
> So we conclude FLARM isn't any use in a gaggle, and isn't any use
>
> not in a gaggle.
>
> So in the context that most mid-airs happen in thermals, when is it
>
> useful? Or is it the Emperor's New Clothes?

Like all flight instruments, it adds data to your decision making. And like all flight instruments, to the extent you believe in it, it reduces the burden of keeping watch on that function. The only reason you have any instrument at all is to add data, or to present already available data in a way requiring less thought (pilot workload). So Flarm, like any instrument, tempts one to pay less attention to watch keeping (and more to something else) to the extent that you allow. At the same time, it adds a great deal of situational awareness, i.e., what to watch for. I think most pilots flying with it begin to depend on it in this way, consciously or not. If the implementation allows voice warnings (such as the Butterfly Vario) then there is no additional attention *required* at all.

I disagree that it is not useful in tight gaggles. With a good presentation (the best is probably on the old Winpilot software) your situational awareness is greatly improved, and the voice warnings I get from the Vario are almost always relevant. I can't imagine anyone closing their eyes in a gaggle and waiting for Flarm to tell them what to do. But when flying in the clear there is a temptation to pay less attention to empty space until a target is picked up by Flarm, then pay a lot more attention to trying to get eyes on them. Whether that is a net plus I don't know.

However, Flarm is worth the cost for its entertainment value alone.

[Dan Marotta]

I agree with the oversold and under performed part.

Earlier someone said, "Any pilot with half a brain will have Flarm".
Well, I have a whole brain and my analysis says, "Not yet".

Dan Marotta

On 8/5/2014 2:09 PM, wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:16:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>> Craig: I think I know the cause of "Flarm resistance syndrome". When a glider pilot says "It's not the money it's the principal of the thing" then you can be pretty sure that it's the money.
>>
>> I now fly with both Flarm and Mode S. I look outside for traffic lots more than I did before. Of course that's just me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dale Bush
> I think there is a natural resistance on the part of many folks to things they think are being over sold. The drift of this thread is an example. Every mid air is an excuse to bang the drum again.
> Flarm was over sold and under delivered and many have not forgotten that.
> As delivered, it had a useless unreadable display and a beep that told you to look inside at a hard to read display just when you needed to be looking outside.
> For me it became a useful device when ClearNav introduced a simple display integrated with an audible message such as "traffic twelve o'clock high".
> There is a perceptible trend on the part of some pilots to depend on this device and I think that is a hazard.
> It also is heavily flawed in application because, except in a very few rare cases, installations don't have the second antenna needed to provide the coverage where it is really needed which is below and behind where we can't see.
> So I think it is not just about the money.
> UH

[JS]

Ah, there are plenty of unfinished products in soaring. Many have bought new gliders that were not up to the performance of the one they just sold for significantly less.
UH and others do well finishing up gliders that left the factory allegedly performing like the advertised polar.
How about this series of photos? Amazing what a telephoto lens will do.
http://www.mkweb.co.uk/News/GALLERY-Milton-Keynes-glider-pilot-Andrew-Preston-jumps-for-his-life-after-mid-air-crash-20140805200000.htm
Jim

[Mark628CA]

I fly with Dan Marotta on a regular basis from Moriarty. He constantly denigrates Power Flarm to any and all, and refuses to consider it as anything but something to bitch about.

Many of us at Moriarty use Power Flarm and find it to be a welcome addition to the cockpit environment. I see an indication of possible PF traffic and immediately try to get a visual contact. I see a Transponder ring and altitude and immediately try to scan to find the object.

My eyes are out of the cockpit much more than previously, when I thought I was all by my lonesome in the Big Blue Sky. I am informed of relative traffic on many occasions when I would have been blissfully unaware of their presence.

Dan is entitled to his opinion, but he should be aware that he is in the minority, and his insistence on only a transponder makes US aware of HIM, but he is not taking advantage of a valuable tool that might make his flying safer for HIM (and US!)

And his assertion that he has "a whole brain" is a subject of regular debate amongst other Moriarty pilots. You might want to get a second opinion, Dan.

[Ramy[_2_]]

I find it amusing (and pitty) that most of the negative comments come from those who don't know what they are talking about since they never fly with powerflarm.
As for statistics, I believe there is enough statistics that showing that the number of mid airs were reduced drastically since Flarm was introduced. The Flarm folks have the statistics and keep track of midairs. Wish they would chime in.

Ramy

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

Op woensdag 6 augustus 2014 06:03:21 UTC+2 schreef Ramy:
>As for statistics, I believe there is enough statistics that showing that the number of mid airs were reduced drastically since Flarm was introduced. The Flarm folks have the statistics and keep track of midairs. Wish they would chime in.


Last time I checked the numbers for the busy Alps it came to about a factor of 8 less deaths due to mid-airs and flight into wires.

8 TIMES, not percent. That's dozens of lives over the last decade...

Until you fly with (Power)flarm you're simply not aware how much traffic you do not see.

IMHO, those arguing against FLARM suffer from the same cognitive dissonance we see in people arguing against seat belts or medicines that can save lives...

[Neil Goudie[_2_]]

A right of reply is called for here now you have offended my intelligence.

We are agreed on a few points here.

1. Alert systems are a good thing if used correctly.

2. The effectiveness of alert systems needs a longer timeframe to make a
statistical inference.

3. Poor habitual response to alerts may be leading to reduced flight
safety.

4. Training and monitoring of use of alert system is key to ensuring they
are
adding to flight safety nor comprising it


Neil


04:46 06 August 2014, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
>Op woensdag 6 augustus 2014 06:03:21 UTC+2 schreef Ramy:
>>As for statistics, I believe there is enough statistics that showing
that
>the number of mid airs were reduced drastically since Flarm was
introduced.
>The Flarm folks have the statistics and keep track of midairs. Wish they
>would chime in.
>
>
>Last time I checked the numbers for the busy Alps it came to about a
factor
>of 8 less deaths due to mid-airs and flight into wires.
>
>8 TIMES, not percent. That's dozens of lives over the last decade...
>
>Until you fly with (Power)flarm you're simply not aware how much traffic
>you do not see.
>
>IMHO, those arguing against FLARM suffer from the same cognitive
dissonance
>we see in people arguing against seat belts or medicines that can save
>lives...
>

[son_of_flubber]

At this point I'd say 'let it go'.

A neighbor of mine did some research about how hard it is to change a person's beliefs with rational discussion and evidence.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/vaccine-denial-psychology-backfire-effect

[Dan Marotta]

So, Mark, are you trying to say that the last time you almost ran over
me you would have seen me had I had a PF installed? Why didn't your PF
provide you with an alert on my Mode S transponder? Oh, yeah, that
inconvenient co-altitude thing.

After some 30+ years as a systems engineer, I know how to develop
requirements for systems way more complex than PF and I also know how to
choose existing systems which deliver what they claim. Reading all of
the PF comments on here by the believers still leads me to different
conclusions. Please note also that I only state negative opinions when
someone makes a ridiculous statement first.

Should you want to discuss this further, I'll be towing today and
tomorrow. Drop by.

Dan Marotta

On 8/5/2014 8:45 PM, Mark628CA wrote:
> I fly with Dan Marotta on a regular basis from Moriarty. He constantly denigrates Power Flarm to any and all, and refuses to consider it as anything but something to bitch about.
>
> Many of us at Moriarty use Power Flarm and find it to be a welcome addition to the cockpit environment. I see an indication of possible PF traffic and immediately try to get a visual contact. I see a Transponder ring and altitude and immediately try to scan to find the object.
>
> My eyes are out of the cockpit much more than previously, when I thought I was all by my lonesome in the Big Blue Sky. I am informed of relative traffic on many occasions when I would have been blissfully unaware of their presence.
>
> Dan is entitled to his opinion, but he should be aware that he is in the minority, and his insistence on only a transponder makes US aware of HIM, but he is not taking advantage of a valuable tool that might make his flying safer for HIM (and US!)
>
> And his assertion that he has "a whole brain" is a subject of regular debate amongst other Moriarty pilots. You might want to get a second opinion, Dan.
>
> Just kidding :-)

[Sean Fidler]

I have used US Powerflarm in every flight I have made since it was released in the USA at Uvalde 2011. This includes around 10 contests. For me, FLARM solves one key problem and one key problem only. Anything else that it provides is a bonus.

THE ONE KEY PROBLEM FLARM SOLVES IS:

Powerflarm (if properly installed) MAY alert me to gliders that I MIGHT otherwise not be aware of (PERIOD).

This potential knowledge is a highly valuable thing to have. In my opinion glider collisions where one pilot (or both) sees the other are quite rare. Glider collisions are usually a result of BOTH PILOTS NOT being aware of the other. FLARM gives both pilots a fighting chance to avoid being unaware of each other and the chance to visually acquire each other before a surprise collision can occur. Period.

Situations in which 2 gliders may be dangerously unaware of each other may include: gliders flying the same course (behind, below, above or to the side), head on collisions, entering a thermal from different directions, entering the pattern, in the pattern, the chaos of the starting cylinder (gliders coming from any direction, little organization), or (most importantly) THE CHAOS OF A GLIDER GLUB OR COMMERCIAL OPERATION WITH MANY GLIDERS LOITERING NEAR THE AIRPORT.

Flarm (IMO) is also very good at managing up to 3 gliders at the same altitude in the same thermal.

What I DO NOT expect Flarm to do well for me is to manage MANY gliders (5+) in the same thermal ALTHOUGH PowerFlarm is usually very good at only providing relevant collision warnings even in crowded thermals. The problem I have is when more than 3 gliders in a thermal I have absolutely no time to look at the FLARM display and need 100% focus outside the glider on the other sailplanes nearby. The Flarms audible collision warnings are still useful to me however. I can usually easily/immediately correlate an audible warning to a change in turn radius by a nearby glider that could result in a collision. That audible warning "makes sense" even though I am no longer referring to the FLARM display to confirm it.

The scary part is when you get an audible alert in a very crowded thermal and nothing that you see visually from the other gliders around you seems to warrant that FLARM audible warning!

In regards to the (ch^%p) pilots who don't have FLARM, won't buy it or argue that it doesn't work or provide safety value. I have one simple statement for them:

Darwin was absolutely spot on.

http://youtu.be/iKz01UB8QrY

[Dan Marotta]

Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from
flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of
the flight path? I flew at Nephi last week (in a Flarm-equipped ship)
and saw and heard *nothing*. Does that mean there were no other gliders
nearby?

Those making the most stringent arguments for Flarm seem only to
denigrate the intelligence of those who choose not to use it while, on
other threads, complain about such things as antennae placement, blind
spots (below and behind), software, displays, false alerts, no alerts,
etc. I'll bet they also drive hybrid cars and lobby for wind energy and
against nuclear energy.

And as to buying unfinished technology - who actually believes he can
beat Kawa by buying an ASG-29 or a JS-1?

Dan Marotta

On 8/5/2014 10:46 PM, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
> Op woensdag 6 augustus 2014 06:03:21 UTC+2 schreef Ramy:
>> As for statistics, I believe there is enough statistics that showing that the number of mid airs were reduced drastically since Flarm was introduced. The Flarm folks have the statistics and keep track of midairs. Wish they would chime in.
>
> Last time I checked the numbers for the busy Alps it came to about a factor of 8 less deaths due to mid-airs and flight into wires.
>
> 8 TIMES, not percent. That's dozens of lives over the last decade...
>
> Until you fly with (Power)flarm you're simply not aware how much traffic you do not see.
>
> IMHO, those arguing against FLARM suffer from the same cognitive dissonance we see in people arguing against seat belts or medicines that can save lives...

[Mike Clarke[_2_]]

At 14:26 06 August 2014, Dan Marotta wrote:
>Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from
>flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of
>the flight path?

http://www.flarm.com:

"obstacle database covers Italian, Swiss, Austrian, French and German
obstacles, with updates (functionality at cost)"

That is why helicopters carry Flarm in the Alps.

Mike

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 6:58:12 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> So, Mark, are you trying to say that
> the last time you almost ran over me you would have seen me had I
> had a PF installed?� Why didn't your PF provide you with an alert
> on my Mode S transponder?� Oh, yeah, that inconvenient co-altitude
> thing.
>
>
>
> After some 30+ years as a systems engineer, I know how to develop
> requirements for systems way more complex than PF and I also know
> how to choose existing systems which deliver what they claim.�
> Reading all of the PF comments on here by the believers still
> leads me to different conclusions.� Please note also that I only
> state negative opinions when someone makes a ridiculous statement
> first.
>
>
>
> Should you want to discuss this further, I'll be towing today and
> tomorrow.� Drop by.
>
> Dan Marotta
> On 8/5/2014 8:45 PM, Mark628CA wrote:
>
>
>
> I fly with Dan Marotta on a regular basis from Moriarty. He constantly denigrates Power Flarm to any and all, and refuses to consider it as anything but something to bitch about.
>
> Many of us at Moriarty use Power Flarm and find it to be a welcome addition to the cockpit environment. I see an indication of possible PF traffic and immediately try to get a visual contact. I see a Transponder ring and altitude and immediately try to scan to find the object.
>
> My eyes are out of the cockpit much more than previously, when I thought I was all by my lonesome in the Big Blue Sky. I am informed of relative traffic on many occasions when I would have been blissfully unaware of their presence.
>
> Dan is entitled to his opinion, but he should be aware that he is in the minority, and his insistence on only a transponder makes US aware of HIM, but he is not taking advantage of a valuable tool that might make his flying safer for HIM (and US!)
>
> And his assertion that he has "a whole brain" is a subject of regular debate amongst other Moriarty pilots. You might want to get a second opinion, Dan.
>
> Just kidding :-)

PowerFlarm does not have a Mode S co-altitude problem. Mode S response is unique to the transponder and effectively filtered. Mode C, yes. Mode S will only warn if it is simultaneously being queried by third party radar, and will warn only altitude, not position or vector. It carries far less information than a Flarm based warning.

Flarm has an obstacle data base warning of wires and towers. Not available for the US yet (and far less of a problem here).

Your criticism of Flarm might carry more weight if you knew more about it. It isn't perfect but pretty much does what the brochure says.

Sean: Audible warnings come in two flavors: a beep warning you to look at the display (just when you would rather not), vs. a voice saying "GLIDER, 12 O'CLOCK HIGH" which requires only evasive action. I prefer the latter. Eyes on the panel are not needed to decode.

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:26:53 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from
>
> flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of
>
> the flight path? I flew at Nephi last week (in a Flarm-equipped ship)
>
> and saw and heard *nothing*. Does that mean there were no other gliders
>
> nearby?

Dan, if you actually knew something about FLARM you would realize what a stupid statement that is. Obstacle avoidance (for Europe/Alps) is one of the big features of FLARM. As far as not seeing other gliders? Did YOU see any other gliders? So yes, probably any other gliders were either not FLARM equipped, out of range, or just NOT THERE!


> Those making the most stringent arguments for Flarm seem only to
>
> denigrate the intelligence of those who choose not to use it while, on
>
> other threads, complain about such things as antennae placement, blind
>
> spots (below and behind), software, displays, false alerts, no alerts,
>
> etc. I'll bet they also drive hybrid cars and lobby for wind energy and
>
> against nuclear energy.

No, I drive an old Jeep Cherokee, and have had NO problem with my PFLARM installation since day one. Have all three antennas, see Mode A/C/S transponders (that would be you), other FLARMs, and ADS-B airliners all the time. Where I fly locally there is one other PF and when we fly together, I get warnings of towplane activity, VFR traffic along I-70, airliners going into STL, and when he is near, NR on the PF - with an occasional collision warning when we get frisky during thermalling. No false alerts that I can tell. By your logic, fighters should not be using RADAR because it still does not detect everything from all aspects at all altitudes in all directions! FLARM is a SENSOR that does something humans are very poor at - detecting small airplanes in a big sky. And to me, the argument that pilots will look out less because of a PF and are therefore more dangerous is absurd - most of the time most pilots aren't scanning correctly and don't see traffic that a PF will detect easily - it's that Big Sky at work again!

> And as to buying unfinished technology - who actually believes he can
>
> beat Kawa by buying an ASG-29 or a JS-1?

ALL TECHNOLOGY IS UNFINISHED. And isn't Kawa flying a Diana 2, which is no-**** an unfinished glider!

Hey, if you like flying around blissfully unaware of who is around you, go ahead; at least PF will see your Mode S and give a warning. Me, I enjoy knowing who is sharing my airspace.

And what was it they said about most pilots shot down during WW1 & 2? Oh - yeah - they never saw the plane that shot them down. So much for See and Avoid!

Cheers!

Kirk
66

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:00:03 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Glider collisions are usually a result of BOTH PILOTS NOT being aware of the other. FLARM gives both pilots a fighting chance to avoid being unaware of each other and the chance to visually acquire each other before a surprise collision can occur.

That's an excellent summary. It reads better on its own, don't you think :-)?

My $0.02: The flarm boosters and the flarm critics are both right. I have a foot in each camp.

The technology works pretty well, given a decent installation, configuration and cockpit interface. Sadly, I have seen plenty of crappy installations, mis-configurations and horrid cockpit displays... bad in enough in many cases to render the device somewhere between handicapped and completely non-functional. It does seem like the product and support could be improved.....

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Mark628CA]

Dan's comments display what I was talking about. Don't bother flaming him. It doesn't work. He knows everything.

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks. Mocho told me that today at the airport. Despite how we rail
at each other on this forum, we actually get along pretty well.

Considering the accuracy of GPS, I would assume that the database which
alerts users of obstacles is more for awareness than specific avoidance.

I really appreciate a straight answer!

Dan Marotta

On 8/6/2014 8:52 AM, Mike Clarke wrote:
> At 14:26 06 August 2014, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from
>> flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of
>> the flight path?
> http://www.flarm.com:
>
> "obstacle database covers Italian, Swiss, Austrian, French and German
> obstacles, with updates (functionality at cost)"
>
> That is why helicopters carry Flarm in the Alps.
>
> Mike
>

[Dan Marotta]

Gee... All this meanness. If I agree with you will you stop calling names?

Look, bottom line is this: I'm not convinced that the technology has
matured enough yet and I only pipe up on these threads when some kool
aide drinker starts calling us non users names. Be assured - I'm not
the only one, I'm simply the one who's not afraid to call the emperor
naked. Please try to deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with
you; that doesn't mean we're any more or less intelligent, only of
different backgrounds and experiences.

I will now bow out. Flame away.

Dan Marotta

On 8/6/2014 11:29 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:26:53 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from
>>
>> flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of
>>
>> the flight path? I flew at Nephi last week (in a Flarm-equipped ship)
>>
>> and saw and heard *nothing*. Does that mean there were no other gliders
>>
>> nearby?
> Dan, if you actually knew something about FLARM you would realize what a stupid statement that is. Obstacle avoidance (for Europe/Alps) is one of the big features of FLARM. As far as not seeing other gliders? Did YOU see any other gliders? So yes, probably any other gliders were either not FLARM equipped, out of range, or just NOT THERE!
>
>
>> Those making the most stringent arguments for Flarm seem only to
>>
>> denigrate the intelligence of those who choose not to use it while, on
>>
>> other threads, complain about such things as antennae placement, blind
>>
>> spots (below and behind), software, displays, false alerts, no alerts,
>>
>> etc. I'll bet they also drive hybrid cars and lobby for wind energy and
>>
>> against nuclear energy.
> No, I drive an old Jeep Cherokee, and have had NO problem with my PFLARM installation since day one. Have all three antennas, see Mode A/C/S transponders (that would be you), other FLARMs, and ADS-B airliners all the time. Where I fly locally there is one other PF and when we fly together, I get warnings of towplane activity, VFR traffic along I-70, airliners going into STL, and when he is near, NR on the PF - with an occasional collision warning when we get frisky during thermalling. No false alerts that I can tell. By your logic, fighters should not be using RADAR because it still does not detect everything from all aspects at all altitudes in all directions! FLARM is a SENSOR that does something humans are very poor at - detecting small airplanes in a big sky. And to me, the argument that pilots will look out less because of a PF and are therefore more dangerous is absurd - most of the time most pilots aren't scanning correctly and don't see traffic that a PF will detect easily - it's that Big Sky at work again!
>
>> And as to buying unfinished technology - who actually believes he can
>>
>> beat Kawa by buying an ASG-29 or a JS-1?
> ALL TECHNOLOGY IS UNFINISHED. And isn't Kawa flying a Diana 2, which is no-**** an unfinished glider!
>
> Hey, if you like flying around blissfully unaware of who is around you, go ahead; at least PF will see your Mode S and give a warning. Me, I enjoy knowing who is sharing my airspace.
>
> And what was it they said about most pilots shot down during WW1 & 2? Oh - yeah - they never saw the plane that shot them down. So much for See and Avoid!
>
> Cheers!
>
> Kirk
> 66

[Ramy[_2_]]

Dan, you kidding about the accuracy of GPS, right? Or maybe trolling? I realize you may have never used a GPS in gliders, but I am sure you've seen GPS in cars which can pin point in which Lane you are traveling. OK, I am not going to fall into this trap.

Ramy

[Ramy[_2_]]

Intelligence aside, we are irritated since the non believers are risking our lives.

Ramy

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 04:39 07 August 2014, Ramy wrote:
>Intelligence aside, we are irritated since the non believers are risking
>our lives.
>
>Ramy
>

As a uk pilot let me put some background to this .
It's a comp that is proud of the fact that it can put 50 or 60 sailplanes
in the
air in well under a hour.
I flew there in the similar comp about 12 years ago,and while I completed
the
week I decided that it was outside my comfort zone and have not been back.
I was a very early user of flarm,probably because I lost 2 friends to a mid
air.
Other than including the flarm display in my scan I don't real look at it
unless
I get a bleep .
If I am in a gaggle I reduce my cockpit scan ,because by far the most
important thing is monitoring the rest of the circus plus the joining
gliders
that do not alway arrive at the bottom.,some will try and bounce the
thermal
arriving at mid hight at speed,pulling up and going back on track .
Dangerous you say ,that's comp pilots for you.
Flarm is great for spotting the distant glider before it becomes a problem

,once in a gaggle it's just a distraction.

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 06:40 07 August 2014, Jonathon May wrote:

>
>As a uk pilot let me put some background to this .
>It's a comp that is proud of the fact that it can put 50 or 60
sailplanes
>in the
>air in well under a hour.
>I flew there in the similar comp about 12 years ago,and while
I completed
>the
>week I decided that it was outside my comfort zone and have
not been back.
>I was a very early user of flarm,probably because I lost 2
friends to a mid
>air.
>Other than including the flarm display in my scan I don't real
look at it
>unless
>I get a bleep .
>If I am in a gaggle I reduce my cockpit scan ,because by far
the most
>important thing is monitoring the rest of the circus plus the
joining
>gliders
>that do not alway arrive at the bottom.,some will try and
bounce the
>thermal
>arriving at mid hight at speed,pulling up and going back on
track .
>Dangerous you say ,that's comp pilots for you.
>Flarm is great for spotting the distant glider before it becomes
a problem
>
>,once in a gaggle it's just a distraction.
>
>
Swiss FLARM have said right from the start that see and avoid
rather than FLARM is the most important safety measure in
concentric gaggles. I support nearly everything that you say
but would like to look more at your last comment about FLARM
being *just* a distraction in gaggles:

Every alert received equals one given. You are confident of
your look out in thermal gaggles so you find receiving FLARM
alerts there a distraction. Fair enough - I don't react
specifically to each individual alert in a busy gaggle either.
But are you just as confident of other pilots' look out - the ones
that you are simultaneously giving the FLARM alerts to? The
ones that may be in your blind spot? Would you prefer that
they get FLARM alerts in gaggles as a wake up call to look out
all around or do you think that they will be so distracted by
them that their see and avoid will be compromised?

I don't think there is a definite right or wrong answer but I very
much prefer to give and receive alerts to keep us all on our toes
and also to help me to fly so as not to give alerts to others.

John Galloway

[Stats Watcher]

At 04:37 07 August 2014, Ramy wrote:
>Dan, you kidding about the accuracy of GPS, right? Or maybe
trolling? I
>realize you may have never used a GPS in gliders, but I am sure
you've seen
>GPS in cars which can pin point in which Lane you are traveling.
OK, I am
>not going to fall into this trap.
>
>Ramy
>

Most automotive GPS systems augment the raw GPS signal with a
'Lock to Road' function. If you have a route set they also often
assume you are traveling the route, so assume you will be and
display you in the correct lane.

You can see this in two ways... On my system if I choose to ignore
the guidance and take a different route the GPS shows me
travelling the the suggest route for a few seconds before snapping
to the new road. If you turn off the 'lock to road' function, it will
often show you several (or even tens) of metres from the road.

Using a modern ( and FLARM is not) GPS engine in an optimum
installation, raw GPS is still +-8m at 95% confidence and 16m at
99% confidence (Current US DoD stats)

[jfitch]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 1:30:14 AM UTC-7, Stats Watcher wrote:
> At 04:37 07 August 2014, Ramy wrote:
>
> >Dan, you kidding about the accuracy of GPS, right? Or maybe
>
> trolling? I
>
> >realize you may have never used a GPS in gliders, but I am sure
>
> you've seen
>
> >GPS in cars which can pin point in which Lane you are traveling.
>
> OK, I am
>
> >not going to fall into this trap.
>
> >
>
> >Ramy
>
> >
>
>
>
> Most automotive GPS systems augment the raw GPS signal with a
>
> 'Lock to Road' function. If you have a route set they also often
>
> assume you are traveling the route, so assume you will be and
>
> display you in the correct lane.
>
>
>
> You can see this in two ways... On my system if I choose to ignore
>
> the guidance and take a different route the GPS shows me
>
> travelling the the suggest route for a few seconds before snapping
>
> to the new road. If you turn off the 'lock to road' function, it will
>
> often show you several (or even tens) of metres from the road.
>
>
>
> Using a modern ( and FLARM is not) GPS engine in an optimum
>
> installation, raw GPS is still +-8m at 95% confidence and 16m at
>
> 99% confidence (Current US DoD stats)

Isn't the Flarm GPS WAAS corrected? The WAAS standard of performance is 1.6M nominal horizontal (95%). When the NDGPS system is functional (and GPS engines take advantage of it) this will be reduced to 15 cm.

[Ramy[_2_]]

Even with 8m accuracy, It is more than sufficient for accurate collision avoidance, unless someone considers half a wingspan not accurate enough for collision warning with another glider or obstacle.

Ramy

[Stats Watcher]

At 15:04 07 August 2014, jfitch wrote:

>Isn't the Flarm GPS WAAS corrected? The WAAS standard of
performance is
>1.6M nominal horizontal (95%). When the NDGPS system is
functional (and GPS
>engines take advantage of it) this will be reduced to 15 cm.
>

Not in Europe as WAAS is US only. A search of the Powerflarm
website returned 0 (zero) occurrences of the term 'WAAS'. So it
seems unlikley.... Same result for NDGPS, so that seems unlikely
too.. If someone finds something different I will obviously be wrong
but until that point it's still +-16m (ie a whole wingspan) at 99%
confidence

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, 7 August 2014 16:49:07 UTC+1, Stats Watcher wrote:
> Not in Europe as WAAS is US only. A search of the Powerflarm
> website returned 0 (zero) occurrences of the term 'WAAS'. So it
> seems unlikley.... Same result for NDGPS, so that seems unlikely
> too.. If someone finds something different I will obviously be wrong
> but until that point it's still +-16m (ie a whole wingspan) at 99%
> confidence

EGNOS is the European equivalent of WAAS.

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 11:46:30 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> Even with 8m accuracy, It is more than sufficient for accurate collision avoidance, unless someone considers half a wingspan not accurate enough for collision warning with another glider or obstacle.

Prompted to comment here by my Geek Fascination Syndrome (GFS)...

I'd guess that the error on each position fix is not significant. Flarm is computing trajectories from multiple position fixes, so a maximum +/- 8M error for each fix will be smoothed out by the statistical distribution of a large number of position fix errors. Some of the errors are + and some are -. Average 100 GPS position fixes and you will get a pretty accurate position.

I'd expect that the sampling rate is high enough to make the trajectory calculations quite accurate. If the sampling rate was not fast enough they could put a faster processor into the units. Plus as Ramy pointed out, FLARM must be alerting for 'possible near misses' because there will be small deviations in trajectory caused by turbulence and pilot control inputs.

The 8M 'error' of GPS is unlikely to be the critical factor that keeps FLARM from fulfilling its mission. I'd bet that the critical factor is the human pilot, that being the most inherently error prone and undependable part of the system.

[Stats Watcher]

At 16:06 07 August 2014, son_of_flubber wrote:
>On Thursday, August 7, 2014 11:46:30 AM UTC-4, Ramy
wrote:
>> Even with 8m accuracy, It is more than sufficient for
accurate
>collision=
> avoidance, unless someone considers half a wingspan not
accurate enough
>fo=
>r collision warning with another glider or obstacle.=20
>
>Prompted to comment here by my Geek Fascination Syndrome
(GFS)...
>
>I'd guess that the error on each position fix is not significant.
Flarm is
>=
>computing trajectories from multiple position fixes, so a
maximum +/- 8M
>er=
>ror for each fix will be smoothed out by the statistical
distribution of a
>=
>large number of position fix errors. Some of the errors are +
and some are
>=
>-. Average 100 GPS position fixes and you will get a pretty
accurate
>positi=
>on.
>
>I'd expect that the sampling rate is high enough to make the
trajectory
>cal=
>culations quite accurate. If the sampling rate was not fast
enough they
>co=
>uld put a faster processor into the units. Plus as Ramy pointed
out,
>FLARM=
> must be alerting for 'possible near misses' because there will
be small
>de=
>viations in trajectory caused by turbulence and pilot control
inputs.
>
>The 8M 'error' of GPS is unlikely to be the critical factor that
keeps
>FLAR=
>M from fulfilling its mission. I'd bet that the critical factor is the
>hum=
>an pilot, that being the most inherently error prone and
undependable part
>=
>of the system.
>

+-8m 95% of the time is best case, under ideal conditions and
installations. Do you fly only in ideal conditions and have an
ideal installation? f the answer is 'no' your error will be larger.
Also this is 2D error. As everyone 'knows' and goes on ad-
nauseam, GPS vertical error is significantly worse.

Have you 'any' evidence for the rest of your post or is it just
pure supposition? If you analyse the data rate and bandwidth
requirements of the data link you'll realise what you suggest is
impossible

[JS]

Whether or not any of this has a thing to do with the original post:
The technology discussed is not perfect, and like a vario is supplementary.
Is your scan 100% perfect? Are your eyes? After 8 hours of flying? Burning from sweat and sunscreen?
Will your vision improve with age? Will you admit it?
Jim

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

Op donderdag 7 augustus 2014 18:55:16 UTC+2 schreef Stats Watcher:


Error is cumulative, that's how d-GPS and WAAS work. So the guy a mile away from you also has 8 or more meters of error. In exactly the same direction vector as for you. So relative accuracy is virtually +/-0...

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > son_of_flubber > writes:
>On Thursday, August 7, 2014 11:46:30 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
>> Even with 8m accuracy, It is more than sufficient for accurate collision=
> avoidance, unless someone considers half a wingspan not accurate enough fo=
>r collision warning with another glider or obstacle.=20
>
>Prompted to comment here by my Geek Fascination Syndrome (GFS)...
>
>I'd guess that the error on each position fix is not significant. Flarm is =
>computing trajectories from multiple position fixes, so a maximum +/- 8M er=
>ror for each fix will be smoothed out by the statistical distribution of a =
>large number of position fix errors. Some of the errors are + and some are =
>-. Average 100 GPS position fixes and you will get a pretty accurate positi=
>on.

Not so much as you might expect. The error varies more slowly over
time. If those 100 fixes were taken one every hour or two, then they
would average out much better than fixes taken once per second.

The fact that the error moves more slowly helps the trajectory calculation
as successive samples will have a similar error.

Alan

[jfitch]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 8:49:07 AM UTC-7, Stats Watcher wrote:
> At 15:04 07 August 2014, jfitch wrote:
>
>
>
> >Isn't the Flarm GPS WAAS corrected? The WAAS standard of
>
> performance is
>
> >1.6M nominal horizontal (95%). When the NDGPS system is
>
> functional (and GPS
>
> >engines take advantage of it) this will be reduced to 15 cm.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Not in Europe as WAAS is US only. A search of the Powerflarm
>
> website returned 0 (zero) occurrences of the term 'WAAS'. So it
>
> seems unlikley.... Same result for NDGPS, so that seems unlikely
>
> too.. If someone finds something different I will obviously be wrong
>
> but until that point it's still +-16m (ie a whole wingspan) at 99%
>
> confidence

From the Flarm.com product page:

"FLARM incorporates a high-precision WAAS 16-channel GPS receiver and an integrated low-power radio transceiver. Static obstacles are included in FLARM's database."

Nevertheless, WAAS is intended to correct for atmospheric and geometric anomalies, to improve absolute position accuracy. For gliders in close proximity, these errors are tracking. The fact is, the Flarm GPS has several times the accuracy required to perform the expected function.

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 12:55:16 PM UTC-4, Stats Watcher wrote:
> If you analyse the data rate and bandwidth
> requirements of the data link you'll realise what you suggest is
> impossible

The error correcting computations that I suggest consume ZERO communication bandwidth between FLARM units. The only thing that needs to be broadcast over the data link is the trajectory vector.

[Ramy[_2_]]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 1:15:37 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Thursday, August 7, 2014 8:49:07 AM UTC-7, Stats Watcher wrote:
>
> > At 15:04 07 August 2014, jfitch wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Isn't the Flarm GPS WAAS corrected? The WAAS standard of
>
> >
>
> > performance is
>
> >
>
> > >1.6M nominal horizontal (95%). When the NDGPS system is
>
> >
>
> > functional (and GPS
>
> >
>
> > >engines take advantage of it) this will be reduced to 15 cm.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Not in Europe as WAAS is US only. A search of the Powerflarm
>
> >
>
> > website returned 0 (zero) occurrences of the term 'WAAS'. So it
>
> >
>
> > seems unlikley.... Same result for NDGPS, so that seems unlikely
>
> >
>
> > too.. If someone finds something different I will obviously be wrong
>
> >
>
> > but until that point it's still +-16m (ie a whole wingspan) at 99%
>
> >
>
> > confidence
>
>
>
> From the Flarm.com product page:
>
>
>
> "FLARM incorporates a high-precision WAAS 16-channel GPS receiver and an integrated low-power radio transceiver. Static obstacles are included in FLARM's database."
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, WAAS is intended to correct for atmospheric and geometric anomalies, to improve absolute position accuracy. For gliders in close proximity, these errors are tracking. The fact is, the Flarm GPS has several times the accuracy required to perform the expected function.

I'll add to it that IIRC altitude separation is based on pressure altitude, not GPS altitude. But this is all academic discussion. Those who experienced flying with Flarm near other pilots can attest to its accuracy. Not once I got close enough to a collision course with another flarm equipped glider without Flarm alerting me.

Ramy

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

I'll add to it that IIRC altitude separation is based on pressure altitude, not GPS altitude. But this is all academic discussion. Those who experienced flying with Flarm near other pilots can attest to its accuracy. Not once I got close enough to a collision course with another flarm equipped glider without Flarm alerting me.
> Ramy

Your memory is correct - from the PF 3.4 manual, page 5:
"If available, PowerFLARM uses the barometric altitude from a Mode S transponder installed on the same aircraft. If not, PowerFLARM uses barometric altitude derived from the built-in pressure sensor. Barometric altitude is used for determining the relative altitude to PCAS targets."
My experience is the same as yours - never had a failure to warn on a flarm-equipped glider. I get about 4.5 km average range. I check my installation occasionally using the range analysis tool.

While I'm not in the market for a new glider, I would not buy one without there being provision for a flarm antenna in the tail with an all-around look, and low-loss coax going to the front; with installations being critical, having to shoe-horn them in (I've installed in an SZD-55 (easy), ASW24 (tight for the antennae), ASW20 (same), and Puchacz (still looking for the right space)) shouldn't be necessary.

[Bruce Hoult[_2_]]

On 2014-08-07 15:46:30 +0000, Ramy said:

> Even with 8m accuracy, It is more than sufficient for accurate
> collision avoidance, unless someone considers half a wingspan not
> accurate enough for collision warning with another glider or obstacle.

Even the old 100m accuracy when "selective availability" was turned on
was good enough for avoiding antennas or wires etc. It's not as if you
are going to fly as close as you can to them.

Also, note that the errors are not random. Two GPS receivers in the
same area at the same time will show the same error, in the same
direction (to within 6 or 8 m), thus making their relative locations
accurate enough.