FLARM

[Robert Hart]

Hi

This summer season in Australia has seen our first use of FLARM
anti-collision system for gliders.
http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html
and
http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html
(the local manufacturer for Australia)

It would seem that FLARM is becoming very rapidly accepted here in
Australia (my club now has all club gliders and tugs and all but a
couple of private gliders and tugs) fitted. I know that in continental
Europe (where FLARM originated) it is also very widespread.

I am interested in how the UK and US gliding fraternity feel about it -
and whether FLARM may also be of interest to the micro/ultralight and
hang glider fraternity.

Robert

[Marc Ramsey]

jcarlyle wrote:
> I know, ADSB is what is being touted, but price is never mentioned. A
> $500 dollar FLARM unit in all US aircraft would probably be much
> cheaper than ADSB. Getting the FAA to sign on to or to back FLARM,
> though, is another big problem.

Current ADS-B transceivers are expensive, right now, because they are
currently being produced in small quantities. In fact, a basic ADS-B
UAT (Universal Access Transceiver) is essentially no more complex or
expensive to implement than a FLARM-like device. The difference is
price comes down to the cost of certification and manufacturing to TSO
requirements. If a FLARM-like device was mandated by the FAA, it would
cost nearly as much as an ADS-B UAT.

> Perhaps it would be beneficial to approach both SSA and AOPA about
> FLARM, to try to get them to back it rather than ATSB?

There is a minute chance that the SSA could be convinced, but AOPA has
already thrown its support to ADS-B...

Marc

[jcarlyle]

Thanks for the info, Marc. Do you know what kind of time frame is
envisioned for us to see a quantity produced ADS-B UATS? And, do you
think it will be a low current drain device?

-John

[Stefan]

jcarlyle wrote:

> know, however, there are frequency band problems in the US as well as
> legal problems. Indeed, a lot of what I've read indicates that the
> legal issues have been responsible for stopping FLARM's introduction
> into the US.

No, it's the FLARM people's fear of the US liability issues. Therefore
they (the FLARM people) explicitely forbid the use of FLARM in US
registered aircraft, in US airspace or with an US citicen on board.

Stefan

[jcarlyle]

Thanks, Stephan - what you said about "fear of liability" is what I
meant by "legal issues".

I've done some Googling to learn more about ADS-B. Here's a technology
overview link: http://www.flyadsb.com/techoverview/techoverview.htm,
and here's something on the avionics installation:
http://www.flyadsb.com/downloads/Avionics_Installers_v0.83.pdf. The bad
news for glider pilots is that the Garmin GDL-90 is $8,000 list, the
Garmin MX20 is $8,500 list, and the installation weighs almost 24 lbs.

Seems to me, if the FAA and AOPA are going forward with ADS-B, that
what is needed for gliders is an ADSB-Lite. This wouldn't take
advantage of any of the ground based part of ATS-B. Rather, it would
just implement the airborne part of ATS-B and would use a simple
FLARM-like sector/height LED display. GPS data could come from an
existing GPS in the glider, and the transmitter could be deliberately
low-powered so it would have only a 5 mile range.

Liability is of course the issue. How about naming the device the HAT
Alert? HAT stands for Half Assed Traffic, simultaneously indicating
that you're only getting some of the airborne traffic picture, and
hopefully blocking legal challenges when Joe Doofus ignores the alert
and gets mid-aired.

Those who are more versed in this field, would you please educate me?
I'm sure there's significant problems with this approach I haven't
thought of.

-John

[Don Johnstone]

Currently in the UK there is little or no interest
in FLARM, I know of no glider that has it fitted and
long may it remain so.
The cockpit area in gliders is cluttered enough and
battery life with current units is unacceptable.

At 04:18 05 March 2006, Jcarlyle wrote:
>Thanks for the info, Marc. Do you know what kind of
>time frame is
>envisioned for us to see a quantity produced ADS-B
>UATS? And, do you
>think it will be a low current drain device?
>
>-John
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

> I have heard of a suggestion that FLARM should be made mandatory for
> International Competitions, in which case how will Americans and
> Canadians compete if they are excluded from using FLARM as stated in the
> FLARM manual?

Perhaps the Australians would be willing to sell us units?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Mal]

> Perhaps the Australians would be willing to sell us units?


Yeah we could chuck in a few bags of wheat as well.



http://rf-developments.com/page008.html

[Eric Greenwell]

Mal wrote:
>> Perhaps the Australians would be willing to sell us units?
>
>
> Yeah we could chuck in a few bags of wheat as well.
> http://rf-developments.com/page008.html

We have quite a bit of wheat already, but maybe a few bottles of Shiraz?
The big ones?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Don Johnstone]

At 16:30 05 March 2006, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>This reply is typical of Don, but is not representative
>of UK thinking.
>At a nominal 55mA current drain, this should not significantly
>affect
>Battery life. If Don had ever seen a FLARM display
>he might not utter
>such ill-informed opinions about cluttering the cockpit.
>
>True, there are, AFAIK, no FLARM installations in UK,
>

Sorry Tim, I think that what I said is truly representative
of the thinking of UK glider pilots. I have yet to
speak to any who have a burning desire to install FLARM,
or indeed transponders.
I bet you a new FLARM unit that I could find more pilots
who don't want FLARM or who don't care than you can
find pilots that desire it.

I do not have room on my panel for any additional display

The reasons for my view may not be representative of
UK thinking, but I think you would have to admit that
there is general apathy surrounding FLARM in the UK.

[Don Johnstone]

At 16:30 05 March 2006, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>This reply is typical of Don, but is not representative
>of UK thinking.
>At a nominal 55mA current drain, this should not significantly
>affect
>Battery life. If Don had ever seen a FLARM display
>he might not utter
>such ill-informed opinions about cluttering the cockpit.
>
>True, there are, AFAIK, no FLARM installations in UK,
>

Sorry Tim, I think that what I said is truly representative
of the thinking of UK glider pilots. I have yet to
speak to any who have a burning desire to install FLARM,
or indeed transponders.
I bet you a new FLARM unit that I could find more pilots
who don't want FLARM or who don't care than you can
find pilots that desire it.

I do not have room on my panel for any additional display

The reasons for my view may not be representative of
UK thinking, but I think you would have to admit that
there is general apathy surrounding FLARM in the UK.

Who is pushing for this anyway, could it be the manufacturers/
suppliers of said items perchance? Will there be an
approved list with the most economical excluded?

[Stefan]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> Who is pushing for this anyway, could it be the manufacturers/
> suppliers of said items perchance?

This I can answer. In Switzerland we had a couple of glider midairs over
the last years, some of them with fatal results. Triggered by this
experience, some glider pilots who happened to be electronics students
gathered and developed FLARM. The Swiss FOCA was very cooperative, and
many Swiss glider clubs ordered (and payed) FLARM units before it was
even working, which made the development possible. So, all in all, it
was a non-profit project initiated by some students and subsidized by
Swiss glider clubs. No ugly big money hungry company behind it.

I don't know whether it's become a profit company now, but I doubt they
make much money.

Stefan

[robert]

I am a Nimbus 2C pilot from the same club as Robert H. who started this
thread.

It is great to see so much discussion about what is a serious issue, knowing
the risks of midair's.

LOOK OUT is still KING!

The units I have used at our club are small, don't seem to compromise
battery life, are easy to use and great to have as an aid.

I believe after thirty five plus years as a glider pilot, I kept good
lookout.

The Flarm finds all the gliders fitted with Flarm and quite a few I
certainly did not see. This is in the wide open skies of Australia, all be
it a fairly big club and private fleet at the DDSC club www.ddsc.org.au..

I have to admit our Nimbus is one of the very few not fitted at present at
the club, but this has more to do with partners and finance at present.

Don't know about the politics, litigation etc, but it certainly is one of
the best safety features after good training I have seen.

[Guy Acheson]

I am glad the origens of FLARM have come up because
it answers some of my questions. I have flown in the
southern Alps and their environment for flight is unlike
any I know of in the USA or Australia. Flying in the
southern Alps many days consists of HUNDREDS of gliders
flying below peak height in all directions throughout
a mountain range that has valleys and passes in all
directions. Flying out of St Auban last year we were
using wrecked gliders as landmarks for navigation.
Collision avoidance is a very high energy activity
in that airspace. Power traffic is virtually non-existant
in that airspace. The power people just fly high above
all the mountains and valleys.

Here in the USA our most common partners in the airspace
are power planes. Power planes have transponders.
I fly out of Minden, NV and for years had fairly regular
close encounters with power planes. Commercial planes
coming in and out of Reno would turn right at you,
your flight path goes accross standard flight paths
in and out of Reno. Military traffic was especially
scary with fighters and heavies just dropping out of
the cloud deck right on top of me or directly in my
flight path. Then I installed a transponder and my
experiences are very different. I monitor the air
traffic people while flying and am very impressed how
well they see me and warn power traffic of my presence.
Commercial planes know where I am and no longer turn
into me. If our paths will cross the power planes
alter their altitude.

As for people being worried about battery problems,
that is just whining. I fly with a radio, transponder,
encoder, Cambridge, and iPAQ using a 12 amp hour battery.
I have never had a problem flying up to six hours.
I take that back. I had a problem for a couple weeks
and it turned out to be a bad battery charger.

For the USA I really believe that installing a transponder
is the responsible thing to do for all air traffic.
Wings and Wheels sells a unit that sounds a lot like
the FLARM but recognizes transponders. It makes much
more sense to me to go with the technology that has
the largest installed base, equipment availability
and support.


At 12:48 06 March 2006, Bert Willing wrote:
>Either you don't know what you are talking about (ever
>seen the external
>Flarm display?), or your panel is crap.
>
>'Don Johnstone' wrote in message
...
>> I do not have room on my panel for any additional
>>display
>>
>
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

I think Tim in his reply to my post highlighted the
biggest failing in FLARM, lack of interest by the majority.
Having a FLARM in your glider is totally useless unless
eveyone else has one in theirs, and the only way to
achieve that is by compulsion.
Anyone who thinks that the majority of pilots will
fit one voluntarily is deluding themselves.
Right now in most of the world FLARM is just a useless
expensive piece of electronics and unless fitting it
becomes compulsory it will go the same way as Betamax
video tapes.

In answer to Bert my panel is full of instruments which
are of some use to me.






At 13:42 06 March 2006, Guy Acheson wrote:
>I am glad the origens of FLARM have come up because
>it answers some of my questions. I have flown in the
>southern Alps and their environment for flight is unlike
>any I know of in the USA or Australia. Flying in the
>southern Alps many days consists of HUNDREDS of gliders
>flying below peak height in all directions throughout
>a mountain range that has valleys and passes in all
>directions. Flying out of St Auban last year we were
>using wrecked gliders as landmarks for navigation.
> Collision avoidance is a very high energy activity
>in that airspace. Power traffic is virtually non-existant
>in that airspace. The power people just fly high above
>all the mountains and valleys.
>
>Here in the USA our most common partners in the airspace
>are power planes. Power planes have transponders.
> I fly out of Minden, NV and for years had fairly regular
>close encounters with power planes. Commercial planes
>coming in and out of Reno would turn right at you,
>your flight path goes accross standard flight paths
>in and out of Reno. Military traffic was especially
>scary with fighters and heavies just dropping out of
>the cloud deck right on top of me or directly in my
>flight path. Then I installed a transponder and my
>experiences are very different. I monitor the air
>traffic people while flying and am very impressed how
>well they see me and warn power traffic of my presence.
> Commercial planes know where I am and no longer turn
>into me. If our paths will cross the power planes
>alter their altitude.
>
>As for people being worried about battery problems,
>that is just whining. I fly with a radio, transponder,
>encoder, Cambridge, and iPAQ using a 12 amp hour battery.
> I have never had a problem flying up to six hours.
> I take that back. I had a problem for a couple weeks
>and it turned out to be a bad battery charger.
>
>For the USA I really believe that installing a transponder
>is the responsible thing to do for all air traffic.
> Wings and Wheels sells a unit that sounds a lot like
>the FLARM but recognizes transponders. It makes much
>more sense to me to go with the technology that has
>the largest installed base, equipment availability
>and support.
>
>
>At 12:48 06 March 2006, Bert Willing wrote:
>>Either you don't know what you are talking about (ever
>>seen the external
>>Flarm display?), or your panel is crap.
>>
>>'Don Johnstone' wrote in message
...
>>> I do not have room on my panel for any additional
>>>display
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

Reality check - 3000 units worldwide out of how many
gliders and light aircraft? Hardly something I would
call universal. Two european countries, half the antipodes,
and parts of the USA does not in my opinion equate
to most of the world either.
Fitting the unit is my glider right now would be stupid
and if the straw poll I have conducted over the past
couple of days is anything to go by will remain so.
I have yet to speak to a pilot who has any intention
of fitting an (relatively) expensive piece of kit
which may or may not be useful in the distant future.
Certainly according to Tim no-one in the UK has shown
an interest as yet.

If I thought for one moment that FLARM improved safety
I would be the first to support it. At best right now
it is ineffective at worst it distracts attention away
from a more practical way of solving the problem, an
irrelevance.

While there may be very few of the worlds problems
that cannot be solved with high explosive, problems
in gliding cannot all be solved by an electronic gizzmo.
Proper pilot training has to be the way to reach the
majority. Do you think that FLARM will ever be used
by the majority voluntarily? (How many Ka6's are there
in the world?)

At 23:30 06 March 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>> I think Tim in his reply to my post highlighted the
>> biggest failing in FLARM, lack of interest by the
>>majority.
>> Having a FLARM in your glider is totally useless unless
>> eveyone else has one in theirs, and the only way to
>> achieve that is by compulsion.
>> Anyone who thinks that the majority of pilots will
>> fit one voluntarily is deluding themselves.
>> Right now in most of the world FLARM is just a useless
>> expensive piece of electronics and unless fitting
>>it
>> becomes compulsory it will go the same way as Betamax
>> video tapes.
>
>FLARM: 3000 units already delivered without compulsion,
>because the
>benefits are obvious to the pilots flying in the high-traffic
>glider
>areas in Europe. It won't go the way of the Betamax,
>unless someone
>develops the VHS equivalent of FLARM.
>
>In my opinion, compulsion will only be needed in areas
>where FLARM has
>little or no value. And, if FLARM continues to include
>new features such
>as an IGC approved flight recorder and club aircraft
>monitoring, it
>might not take much compulsion, either.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
>www.motorglider.org - Download 'A Guide to Self-launching
>Sailplane
>Operation'
>

[Bert Willing]

You're expressing exactly the view of hundreds of pilots one or two years
ago in continental Europe, who are all now happily flying with Flarm and are
very convinced of the device.

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> Reality check - 3000 units worldwide out of how many
> gliders and light aircraft? Hardly something I would
> call universal. Two european countries, half the antipodes,
> and parts of the USA does not in my opinion equate
> to most of the world either.
> Fitting the unit is my glider right now would be stupid
> and if the straw poll I have conducted over the past
> couple of days is anything to go by will remain so.
> I have yet to speak to a pilot who has any intention
> of fitting an (relatively) expensive piece of kit
> which may or may not be useful in the distant future.
> Certainly according to Tim no-one in the UK has shown
> an interest as yet.
>
> If I thought for one moment that FLARM improved safety
> I would be the first to support it. At best right now
> it is ineffective at worst it distracts attention away
> from a more practical way of solving the problem, an
> irrelevance.
>
> While there may be very few of the worlds problems
> that cannot be solved with high explosive, problems
> in gliding cannot all be solved by an electronic gizzmo.
> Proper pilot training has to be the way to reach the
> majority. Do you think that FLARM will ever be used
> by the majority voluntarily? (How many Ka6's are there
> in the world?)
>
> At 23:30 06 March 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>Don Johnstone wrote:
>>> I think Tim in his reply to my post highlighted the
>>> biggest failing in FLARM, lack of interest by the
>>>majority.
>>> Having a FLARM in your glider is totally useless unless
>>> eveyone else has one in theirs, and the only way to
>>> achieve that is by compulsion.
>>> Anyone who thinks that the majority of pilots will
>>> fit one voluntarily is deluding themselves.
>>> Right now in most of the world FLARM is just a useless
>>> expensive piece of electronics and unless fitting
>>>it
>>> becomes compulsory it will go the same way as Betamax
>>> video tapes.
>>
>>FLARM: 3000 units already delivered without compulsion,
>>because the
>>benefits are obvious to the pilots flying in the high-traffic
>>glider
>>areas in Europe. It won't go the way of the Betamax,
>>unless someone
>>develops the VHS equivalent of FLARM.
>>
>>In my opinion, compulsion will only be needed in areas
>>where FLARM has
>>little or no value. And, if FLARM continues to include
>>new features such
>>as an IGC approved flight recorder and club aircraft
>>monitoring, it
>>might not take much compulsion, either.
>>
>>--
>>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>>
>>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>>
>>www.motorglider.org - Download 'A Guide to Self-launching
>>Sailplane
>>Operation'
>>
>
>
>

[bumper]

"Guy Acheson" > wrote in message
...
> Here in the USA our most common partners in the airspace
> are power planes. Power planes have transponders.
> I fly out of Minden, NV and for years had fairly regular
> close encounters with power planes. Commercial planes
> coming in and out of Reno would turn right at you,
> your flight path goes accross standard flight paths
> in and out of Reno. Military traffic was especially
> scary with fighters and heavies just dropping out of
> the cloud deck right on top of me or directly in my
> flight path. Then I installed a transponder and my
> experiences are very different.

My experience, also flying out of Minden, NV, mirrors Guy's. Reno Approach
(ATC) even has a transponder code (0440) set aside for VFR glider use - - so
they can tell what type of traffic we are when they point us out as traffic
advisories to other aircraft. Besides the transponder, I also fly with a
TPAS (transponder passive alert system), the Proxalert R-5. This helps alert
me to the presence of transponder equipped aircraft even if they are not
talking to ATC.

In managing the inherent risks of flying, it's wise to do what you
reasonably can to be safe. At least for relatively busy areas like Minden, I
think it's almost criminal to *not* use a transponder. As to do so, puts all
those people in airliners more at risk of a collision with an "unmarked" and
hard to visually acquire glider.

bumper

[Christoph]

In Austria there is a Flarm coverage of about 80%. Taking into
consideration the cross country pilots only, the coverage might be 90%+

regards

Christoph

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> Reality check - 3000 units worldwide out of how many
> gliders and light aircraft?

It is not fitted world-wide: it is fitted where there is a serious
problem that it can mitigate.

> Hardly something I would
> call universal.

No one claimed it was universal. I claim 3000 units (and growing) in
areas of high glider density is a grand success story.

Two european countries,

Come on, Don! At least check out FLARM.com, where you will see it is
being sold in EIGHT European countries!

half the antipodes,
> and parts of the USA

Nowhere is it in use in the USA. In fact, FLARM refuses to sell it to
the USA.

> does not in my opinion equate
> to most of the world either.

And we all agree with that.

> Fitting the unit is my glider right now would be stupid

Yes! Don, FLARM is not about you and your personal situation. Try to
understand why it was initiated by glider pilots in Europe, and in three
or so years delivered 3000 units!

> and if the straw poll I have conducted over the past
> couple of days is anything to go by will remain so.
> I have yet to speak to a pilot who has any intention
> of fitting an (relatively) expensive piece of kit
> which may or may not be useful in the distant future.
> Certainly according to Tim no-one in the UK has shown
> an interest as yet.
>
> If I thought for one moment that FLARM improved safety
> I would be the first to support it.

It does improve safety in Europe. If you flew in the Alps and other high
density areas, you would find yourself quite interested in
renting/borrowing one while you where there. I support the concept, and
I live in the USA, where they refuse to sell FLARM. You can support
FLARM without using one.

> At best right now
> it is ineffective at worst it distracts attention away
> from a more practical way of solving the problem, an
> irrelevance.

A strong opinion from someone who has not ever flown with a FLARM, and
especially not in Europe! Or, apparently, even read any of the history
of the device.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Andreas Maurer]

On 7 Mar 2006 10:37:16 GMT, Don Johnstone
> wrote:


>If I thought for one moment that FLARM improved safety
>I would be the first to support it. At best right now
>it is ineffective at worst it distracts attention away
>from a more practical way of solving the problem, an
>irrelevance.

Hi Don,

your opinion is precisely the contrary of nearly all pilots who are
flying in really crowded airspace (the Alps).

I guess the sales numbers of FLARM speak for themselves - and so far I
have NEVER heard anyone who has seen it in action doubt its
effectivity. 100% positive user comments. Impressive.

A lot more impressive than your opinion which isn't based on any
direct experience with FLARM. ;)







Bye
Andreas

[Don Johnstone]

OK I will concede that the unit is useful in certain
defined areas however I still contend that as a useful
safety device for gliding all over the world it has
a major and probably fatal weakness. Me fitting one
to my glider does not improve my safety one jot as
I have to rely on others fitting it to their gliders,
it is only then that the item is of use. Even then
it is only partially of use as it is only used by other
gliders according to the FLARM website.
Frankly if I felt the need to go down a gizzmo route
the tried and tested SSR technology is a far better
bet.

Just as a matter of interest by how much have mid-air
collisions reduced in areas where FLARM is in use?





At 04:24 08 March 2006, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On 7 Mar 2006 10:37:16 GMT, Don Johnstone
> wrote:
>
>
>>If I thought for one moment that FLARM improved safety
>>I would be the first to support it. At best right now
>>it is ineffective at worst it distracts attention away
>>from a more practical way of solving the problem, an
>>irrelevance.
>
>Hi Don,
>
>your opinion is precisely the contrary of nearly all
>pilots who are
>flying in really crowded airspace (the Alps).
>
>I guess the sales numbers of FLARM speak for themselves
>- and so far I
>have NEVER heard anyone who has seen it in action doubt
>its
>effectivity. 100% positive user comments. Impressive.
>
>A lot more impressive than your opinion which isn't
>based on any
>direct experience with FLARM. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>

[Stefan]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> it is ineffective at worst it distracts attention away
> from a more practical way of solving the problem, an
> irrelevance.

Obviously you've never even seen a FLARM device.

> Proper pilot training has to be the way to reach the
> majority.

I've always thought that my lookout was pretty good. FLARM really opened
my eyes. The problem are all those gliders you'll never know you haven't
seen.

> Do you think that FLARM will ever be used
> by the majority voluntarily?

It already is in certain European countries.

Frankly, at the beginning, I was not a FLARM enthusiast at all but
extremely sceptic about it. It took only one season to completely change
my mind.

Stefan

[Bert Willing]

On top of that, it's hard to do statistics on events that don't happen.

I for myself have performed an evasive maneuvre twice last year when the
Flarm indicated a high level alert to head-on traffic. I've seen the
"target" only on turning right after the alarm. Once I just didn't see it
before, once we were both on the ridge but seperated from view by rocks.

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> Just as a matter of interest by how much have mid-air
>> collisions reduced in areas where FLARM is in use?
>
> Luckily, there are too few midairs to apply statistics.
>
> Stefan

[Don Johnstone]

At 14:07 08 March 2006, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>Don is just a Luddite at heart (Luddite? see
>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm
>).
>
>But even that does not explain why he cannot see the
>advantages that
>FLARM has in UK where cloud flying is legal. 'See and
>be Seen' simply
>does not apply in cloud.

Tim, attacking me personally does nothing for the argument.
I can see the theoretical benefit of FLARM properly
applied but in it's current state, as you have so eloquently
told us, it is useless in the UK. It cannot be used
in the USA at all. Is it likely then that it is the
answer to the problem it seeks to solve? All along
I have argued that it does not, not because I am against
it in principle but because it is never likely to be
of general practical use. Unless 100% of gliders have
it installed it cannot be effective,surely you can
see that.

The replies to my question re reduction in collisions
indicate that there is no evidence that FLARM has prevented
one confliction. I accept that it has given some glider
pilots peace of mind, but is this a false sense of
security. What about the glider not equipped with FLARM
that is not seen, you will never know. The anecdotal,
'I saw something that I would not have' is not evidence.

I am not a luddite, I am very much in favour of progress
I just don't see this approach to the problem as progress.

Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the UK
to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
about the same chance as winning the national lottery.

If the sky is populated with aircraft all carrying
FLARM I can see the benefit. If there are significant
number not so equipped then FLARM is inefective at
best and at worst dangerous.
>
>Tim Newport-Peace
>
>'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'
>

[Dave Martin]

Even the RAF are getting in on the act. RAF Linton
on Ouse have just developed and are installing a TCAS
system for collision avoidance in their Tucanos. It
is based on the USA company Goodrich Skywatch system.

The web site states:

'Tucanos equipped with TCAS will be able to spot other
aircraft within a 35-mile radius. The system displays
to pilots a detected aircraft's range, bearing, height
and closure rate, information that will allow crews
to decide if avoiding action is necessary. An aural
warning is added should a collision threat exits.'


The Goodrich site says the system is based on decoding
transponder signals from other aircraft.

The development was given great press coverage and
the inference was that our brylcream boys will be flying
round the skies believing that all aircraft have transponders
and therefore'can be seen'. There are 6 local gliding
club within that 35 mile radius and several others
who use the Vale or York for soaring and I suspect
few if any of the 100 or so gliders from those clubs
have transponders.

Until all gliders are transponder equipped it is a
dangerous precident. Legislation changes and the rapidly
closing UK airspace mean that in a few years time transponders
will be a must for any XC pilot. So like it or not
it is coming.

The FLARM system was introduced by the Swiss on safety
grounds. Is there any information on the success of
the system. (ie reduced accidents figures)

The basic Goodrich system is in the £5000 range.
The FLARM considerably cheaper may be about a tenth
the cost.

I can see the advantages but will the increased cost
just drive more away from the sport?

Dave Martin

At 23:36 08 March 2006, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 14:07 08 March 2006, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>>Don is just a Luddite at heart (Luddite? see
>>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm
>>).
>>
>>But even that does not explain why he cannot see the
>>advantages that
>>FLARM has in UK where cloud flying is legal. 'See and
>>be Seen' simply
>>does not apply in cloud.
>
>Tim, attacking me personally does nothing for the argument.
>I can see the theoretical benefit of FLARM properly
>applied but in it's current state, as you have so eloquently
>told us, it is useless in the UK. It cannot be used
>in the USA at all. Is it likely then that it is the
>answer to the problem it seeks to solve? All along
>I have argued that it does not, not because I am against
>it in principle but because it is never likely to be
>of general practical use. Unless 100% of gliders have
>it installed it cannot be effective,surely you can
>see that.
>
>The replies to my question re reduction in collisions
>indicate that there is no evidence that FLARM has prevented
>one confliction. I accept that it has given some glider
>pilots peace of mind, but is this a false sense of
>security. What about the glider not equipped with FLARM
>that is not seen, you will never know. The anecdotal,
>'I saw something that I would not have' is not evidence.
>
>I am not a luddite, I am very much in favour of progress
>I just don't see this approach to the problem as progress.
>
>Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the UK
>to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
>about the same chance as winning the national lottery.
>
>If the sky is populated with aircraft all carrying
>FLARM I can see the benefit. If there are significant
>number not so equipped then FLARM is inefective at
>best and at worst dangerous.
>>
>>Tim Newport-Peace
>>
>>'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'

[Guy Acheson]

IMHO, You guys from the UK and such who are singing
the virtues of the FLARM are just swimming upstream.
Transponders are the standard aircraft identification
system. Claims that FLARM is the most cost effective
manner to enhance awareness of other traffic is very
short sighted since it will never deal with power aircraft.
Most of you are also claiming that any collision avoidance
system that functions with transponders is WAY TOO
EXPENSIVE!

Take a look a Wings and Wheels website. They sell
several portable collision avoidance systems (PCAS).
One goes for 289 USD. Another for 499 USD. A fairly
sophisticated unit goes for 1700 USD. All work with
the transponder system. A couple function off AA batteries
so the concerns about power consumption are also handled.


Again, IMHO sailplanes are aircraft, not toys. Transponders
work and are not that expensive. There are many portable,
low cost, and self powered units that provide the same
'heads up' alert that FLARM does but work with a system
that will identify many more aircraft. And if sailplanes
are required to have transponders, most aircraft will
be detected. That still leaves the hang gliders, ultralights,
and paragliders out of the loop. So looking outside
the cockpit will still be required.



At 01:00 09 March 2006, Dave Martin wrote:
>Even the RAF are getting in on the act. RAF Linton
>on Ouse have just developed and are installing a TCAS
>system for collision avoidance in their Tucanos. It
>is based on the USA company Goodrich Skywatch system.
>
>The web site states:
>
>'Tucanos equipped with TCAS will be able to spot other
>aircraft within a 35-mile radius. The system displays
>to pilots a detected aircraft's range, bearing, height
>and closure rate, information that will allow crews
>to decide if avoiding action is necessary. An aural
>warning is added should a collision threat exits.'
>
>
>The Goodrich site says the system is based on decoding
>transponder signals from other aircraft.
>
>The development was given great press coverage and
>the inference was that our brylcream boys will be flying
>round the skies believing that all aircraft have transponders
>and therefore'can be seen'. There are 6 local gliding
>club within that 35 mile radius and several others
>who use the Vale or York for soaring and I suspect
>few if any of the 100 or so gliders from those clubs
>have transponders.
>
>Until all gliders are transponder equipped it is a
>dangerous precident. Legislation changes and the rapidly
>closing UK airspace mean that in a few years time transponders
>will be a must for any XC pilot. So like it or not
>it is coming.
>
>The FLARM system was introduced by the Swiss on safety
>grounds. Is there any information on the success of
>the system. (ie reduced accidents figures)
>
>The basic Goodrich system is in the £5000 range.
>The FLARM considerably cheaper may be about a tenth
>the cost.
>
>I can see the advantages but will the increased cost
>just drive more away from the sport?
>
>Dave Martin
>
>At 23:36 08 March 2006, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>At 14:07 08 March 2006, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>>>Don is just a Luddite at heart (Luddite? see
>>>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm
>>>).
>>>
>>>But even that does not explain why he cannot see the
>>>advantages that
>>>FLARM has in UK where cloud flying is legal. 'See and
>>>be Seen' simply
>>>does not apply in cloud.
>>
>>Tim, attacking me personally does nothing for the argument.
>>I can see the theoretical benefit of FLARM properly
>>applied but in it's current state, as you have so eloquently
>>told us, it is useless in the UK. It cannot be used
>>in the USA at all. Is it likely then that it is the
>>answer to the problem it seeks to solve? All along
>>I have argued that it does not, not because I am against
>>it in principle but because it is never likely to be
>>of general practical use. Unless 100% of gliders have
>>it installed it cannot be effective,surely you can
>>see that.
>>
>>The replies to my question re reduction in collisions
>>indicate that there is no evidence that FLARM has prevented
>>one confliction. I accept that it has given some glider
>>pilots peace of mind, but is this a false sense of
>>security. What about the glider not equipped with FLARM
>>that is not seen, you will never know. The anecdotal,
>>'I saw something that I would not have' is not evidence.
>>
>>I am not a luddite, I am very much in favour of progress
>>I just don't see this approach to the problem as progress.
>>
>>Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the UK
>>to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
>>about the same chance as winning the national lottery.
>>
>>If the sky is populated with aircraft all carrying
>>FLARM I can see the benefit. If there are significant
>>number not so equipped then FLARM is inefective at
>>best and at worst dangerous.
>>>
>>>Tim Newport-Peace
>>>
>>>'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'
>
>
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Guy Acheson wrote:
>
> Take a look a Wings and Wheels website. They sell
> several portable collision avoidance systems (PCAS).
> One goes for 289 USD. Another for 499 USD. A fairly
> sophisticated unit goes for 1700 USD. All work with
> the transponder system. A couple function off AA batteries
> so the concerns about power consumption are also handled.

Umm, for these PCAS systems to work, the threat aircraft have to have
transponders, which do draw considerable power. So if you want the PCAS
in the other glider to notice you, plan on a minimum 500 ma more current
drain from your 12 volt battery, not a couple of AA batteries.

> Again, IMHO sailplanes are aircraft, not toys. Transponders
> work and are not that expensive.

Looking at the Wings and Wheels website you mention, I see the cheapest
transponder with encoder and antenna is US$1900, and can easily be
$3000+ with installation by an aircraft mechanic. More, if you have to
install an additional battery and it's mounting and wiring. Expensive by
my standards.

Not that I'm against transponders: I do have one in my glider. My cost
was "only" $1850 because I was able to install it myself and I didn't
need more batteries. Where I fly, airliners and airplanes are the
principal collision hazard, not other gliders. FLARM was developed for
glider pilots whose main hazard is other glider pilots, and for them an
$US800 (installed!) FLARM is more effective and a lot cheaper than a
transponder.

FLARM was never intended to nor claimed to solve the all collision
problems everywhere in the world, yet it's detractors argue that because
it doesn't, it's worthless and doomed to failure. Each region, perhaps
each pilot, must determine the threat he faces and it's appropriate
response, such FLARM, transponders, looking out the canopy, or just
trusting to luck.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[PB]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> Unless 100% of gliders have it installed it cannot be effective,surely you can
> see that.

Not really Don, if any percentage of gliders is equipped with Flarm, the
risk of collision is reduced, surely you can see that.
>
> Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the UK
> to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
> about the same chance as winning the national lottery.

Well, I do not know about UK, but I do know that at my club, DDSC in
Queensland Australia we have achieved a nearly 100 % compliance within
few weeks. Upon request by the club committee, enough money was donated
by members to equip all club gliders and tugs. Almost all private
gliders were also fitted with Flarm.
In a recent competition 60 or so gliders were equipped with Flarm. A
questionnaire and interviews after the comp showed that all pilots were
very positive about the Flarm.
So, I am not so sure that it will be so difficult to get a high level of
voluntary compliance.
The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European version) will be
able to receive communication from transponders and thus give
information on the power aircraft.
I find your position quite interesting Don. Clearly you have no
experience with Flarm, yet you dismiss it. Likewise you seem to able to
speak on behalf of a vast majority of UK pilots - no mean feat.
Clearly Flarm is not a device that will solve all the problems. Lookout
is important and will remain so. However it has failed many time, I
guess in some cases because it was not particularly good, but in other
cases it could have been due to physiological limitation of pilots.
Equally you cannot see in your blind spot, Flarm can.
Personally I have only flown with Flarm 2 or 3 times. I have found that
it showed me gliders I did not see, once dead ahead but well bellow, so
I have changed course slightly and spotted it. One other time at my 10
o'clock a long way away. Overall I have found that it has improved my
situational awareness as the Australian Flarm actually shows you where
the gliders are (well +- 22.5 deg).
Finally we all spend money on chutes (about 3x as much) and yet their
potential to save one is quite limited.

regards

paul

[Don Johnstone]

The question of usage within the UK is now a bit of
a moot point. The latest competition rules forbid the
use of data transmission (FLARM) in competitions and
rightly so. Given the data they transmit they could
provide a big advantage to a competitor with the knowledge
and resources to decode the information.

My position is clear, if we are going to have to install
something let it be something that works not some half
baked Mickey Mouse idea that for a multitude of reasons
will never be universally accepted.

At 08:30 09 March 2006, Pb wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> Unless 100% of gliders have it installed it cannot
>>be effective,surely you can
>> see that.
>
>Not really Don, if any percentage of gliders is equipped
>with Flarm, the
>risk of collision is reduced, surely you can see that.
>>
>> Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the
>>UK
>> to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
>> about the same chance as winning the national lottery.
>
>Well, I do not know about UK, but I do know that at
>my club, DDSC in
>Queensland Australia we have achieved a nearly 100
>% compliance within
>few weeks. Upon request by the club committee, enough
>money was donated
>by members to equip all club gliders and tugs. Almost
>all private
>gliders were also fitted with Flarm.
>In a recent competition 60 or so gliders were equipped
>with Flarm. A
>questionnaire and interviews after the comp showed
>that all pilots were
>very positive about the Flarm.
>So, I am not so sure that it will be so difficult to
>get a high level of
>voluntary compliance.
>The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European
>version) will be
>able to receive communication from transponders and
>thus give
>information on the power aircraft.
>I find your position quite interesting Don. Clearly
>you have no
>experience with Flarm, yet you dismiss it. Likewise
>you seem to able to
>speak on behalf of a vast majority of UK pilots - no
>mean feat.
>Clearly Flarm is not a device that will solve all the
>problems. Lookout
>is important and will remain so. However it has failed
>many time, I
>guess in some cases because it was not particularly
>good, but in other
>cases it could have been due to physiological limitation
>of pilots.
>Equally you cannot see in your blind spot, Flarm can.
>Personally I have only flown with Flarm 2 or 3 times.
> I have found that
>it showed me gliders I did not see, once dead ahead
>but well bellow, so
>I have changed course slightly and spotted it. One
>other time at my 10
>o'clock a long way away. Overall I have found that
>it has improved my
>situational awareness as the Australian Flarm actually
>shows you where
>the gliders are (well +- 22.5 deg).
>Finally we all spend money on chutes (about 3x as much)
>and yet their
>potential to save one is quite limited.
>
>regards
>
>paul
>

[Bert Willing]

Don, you really don't know what you are talking about. IGC rules explicitely
allow Flarm since July.
I agree that in areas where the main collision risk is powered aircraft, the
best way to go is a transponder with TCAS (and non-directional warnings
don't learn me anything new, I *know* that there is traffic outside).
In other regions (and that is the Alps in Europe, Germany, France ist
starting as well) there are 3000+ sailplane pilots who happily fly with
Flarm, and one could by now well claim that it is tested.

You calling it "a half baked Mickey Mouse idea" without having any precise
idea what you are talking about is just pathetic.

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> The question of usage within the UK is now a bit of
> a moot point. The latest competition rules forbid the
> use of data transmission (FLARM) in competitions and
> rightly so. Given the data they transmit they could
> provide a big advantage to a competitor with the knowledge
> and resources to decode the information.
>
> My position is clear, if we are going to have to install
> something let it be something that works not some half
> baked Mickey Mouse idea that for a multitude of reasons
> will never be universally accepted.
>
> At 08:30 09 March 2006, Pb wrote:
>>Don Johnstone wrote:
>>
>>> Unless 100% of gliders have it installed it cannot
>>>be effective,surely you can
>>> see that.
>>
>>Not really Don, if any percentage of gliders is equipped
>>with Flarm, the
>>risk of collision is reduced, surely you can see that.
>>>
>>> Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the
>>>UK
>>> to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
>>> about the same chance as winning the national lottery.
>>
>>Well, I do not know about UK, but I do know that at
>>my club, DDSC in
>>Queensland Australia we have achieved a nearly 100
>>% compliance within
>>few weeks. Upon request by the club committee, enough
>>money was donated
>>by members to equip all club gliders and tugs. Almost
>>all private
>>gliders were also fitted with Flarm.
>>In a recent competition 60 or so gliders were equipped
>>with Flarm. A
>>questionnaire and interviews after the comp showed
>>that all pilots were
>>very positive about the Flarm.
>>So, I am not so sure that it will be so difficult to
>>get a high level of
>>voluntary compliance.
>>The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European
>>version) will be
>>able to receive communication from transponders and
>>thus give
>>information on the power aircraft.
>>I find your position quite interesting Don. Clearly
>>you have no
>>experience with Flarm, yet you dismiss it. Likewise
>>you seem to able to
>>speak on behalf of a vast majority of UK pilots - no
>>mean feat.
>>Clearly Flarm is not a device that will solve all the
>>problems. Lookout
>>is important and will remain so. However it has failed
>>many time, I
>>guess in some cases because it was not particularly
>>good, but in other
>>cases it could have been due to physiological limitation
>>of pilots.
>>Equally you cannot see in your blind spot, Flarm can.
>>Personally I have only flown with Flarm 2 or 3 times.
>> I have found that
>>it showed me gliders I did not see, once dead ahead
>>but well bellow, so
>>I have changed course slightly and spotted it. One
>>other time at my 10
>>o'clock a long way away. Overall I have found that
>>it has improved my
>>situational awareness as the Australian Flarm actually
>>shows you where
>>the gliders are (well +- 22.5 deg).
>>Finally we all spend money on chutes (about 3x as much)
>>and yet their
>>potential to save one is quite limited.
>>
>>regards
>>
>>paul
>>
>
>
>

[Chris Reed]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> Unless 100% of gliders have
> it installed it cannot be effective

If 99% of gliders had it installed, and there were 100 other gliders
flying in the area, the risk of not being aware of one would be
decreased by 99%. If 50%, risk decreased by 50%.

Not as effective as if 100% had FLARM installed, but surely not
completely ineffective?

I'm not (yet at any rate) planning to install FLARM for flying in the
UK, but would if I flew in the Alps. I can use a 50%+ improvement in my
chances of spotting other aircraft.

[phil collin]

What your all forgetting is that dear old Don applies two basic rules to
flying.
1st Always fly in the middle of the air. The extremities can be very
dangerous, there you will find Land, Tree's, Mountains, Water, Space and
Other Aircraft
2nd If you hear a loud bang you know you've hit something.

Therefore he doesn't need FLARM

Phil :-)


Chris Reed wrote:
> Don Johnstone wrote:
>> Unless 100% of gliders have
>> it installed it cannot be effective
>
> If 99% of gliders had it installed, and there were 100 other gliders
> flying in the area, the risk of not being aware of one would be
> decreased by 99%. If 50%, risk decreased by 50%.
>
> Not as effective as if 100% had FLARM installed, but surely not
> completely ineffective?
>
> I'm not (yet at any rate) planning to install FLARM for flying in the
> UK, but would if I flew in the Alps. I can use a 50%+ improvement in my
> chances of spotting other aircraft.

[Knacklappen]

Just a reflection rather than a comment, really:

I think it's good that we have this discussion and that it is conducted
that enthusiastically. I even want to thank Don for being the punching
bag here, because he manages to provoke responses with lots of insight.
This threads should be saved as an FAQ list for later reference.

As for myself: having been slightly interested in FLARM from the
beginning, I am getting increasingly convinced that I should buy one,
even though it is not sold in Sweden, which probably also implies that
the number of installed devices it insignificant at the moment...

Seems to be the "Catch-22" like same problem as with the fax machine,
that has been invented decades before its break-through just because
others need to have it in order for it being useful to yourself... All
you can hope for are the "Early adopters".

[Don Johnstone]

At 09:48 09 March 2006, Bert Willing wrote:
>Don, you really don't know what you are talking about.
>IGC rules explicitely
>allow Flarm since July.

One assumes that the heigh information is based on
GPS information, a measurement which the IGC have
previously ruled is not accurate or suitable. Have
they changed their minds? Will they now accept loggers
and files from GPS units that use GPS height information
as they have accepted that it is accurate enough for
this purpose, a much more critical purpose I might
add.

>I agree that in areas where the main collision risk
>is powered aircraft, the
>best way to go is a transponder with TCAS (and non-directional
>warnings
>don't learn me anything new, I *know* that there is
>traffic outside).
>In other regions (and that is the Alps in Europe, Germany,
>France ist
>starting as well) there are 3000+ sailplane pilots
>who happily fly with
>Flarm, and one could by now well claim that it is tested.

And what happens if many more units are all transmitting
at the same time? What is the limit? There has to be
a limit on the number of transmissions does there not?
>
>You calling it 'a half baked Mickey Mouse idea' without
>having any precise
>idea what you are talking about is just pathetic.

Is it now, is the information transmitted securely
encoded so that it cannot be intercepted and used by
competitors in a competition to their advantage.
I think my description is very apt. If it is such a
good idea then why is it not fitted into every aircraft
now flying?

I accept I misread the BGA rules. Data transmission
for safety purposes and collision avoidance is excepted.

>'Don Johnstone' wrote in message
...
>> The question of usage within the UK is now a bit of
>> a moot point. The latest competition rules forbid
>>the
>> use of data transmission (FLARM) in competitions and
>> rightly so. Given the data they transmit they could
>> provide a big advantage to a competitor with the knowledge
>> and resources to decode the information.
>>
>> My position is clear, if we are going to have to install
>> something let it be something that works not some
>>half
>> baked Mickey Mouse idea that for a multitude of reasons
>> will never be universally accepted.
>>
>> At 08:30 09 March 2006, Pb wrote:
>>>Don Johnstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless 100% of gliders have it installed it cannot
>>>>be effective,surely you can
>>>> see that.
>>>
>>>Not really Don, if any percentage of gliders is equipped
>>>with Flarm, the
>>>risk of collision is reduced, surely you can see that.
>>>>
>>>> Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the
>>>>UK
>>>> to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
>>>> about the same chance as winning the national lottery.
>>>
>>>Well, I do not know about UK, but I do know that at
>>>my club, DDSC in
>>>Queensland Australia we have achieved a nearly 100
>>>% compliance within
>>>few weeks. Upon request by the club committee, enough
>>>money was donated
>>>by members to equip all club gliders and tugs. Almost
>>>all private
>>>gliders were also fitted with Flarm.
>>>In a recent competition 60 or so gliders were equipped
>>>with Flarm. A
>>>questionnaire and interviews after the comp showed
>>>that all pilots were
>>>very positive about the Flarm.
>>>So, I am not so sure that it will be so difficult to
>>>get a high level of
>>>voluntary compliance.
>>>The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European
>>>version) will be
>>>able to receive communication from transponders and
>>>thus give
>>>information on the power aircraft.
>>>I find your position quite interesting Don. Clearly
>>>you have no
>>>experience with Flarm, yet you dismiss it. Likewise
>>>you seem to able to
>>>speak on behalf of a vast majority of UK pilots - no
>>>mean feat.
>>>Clearly Flarm is not a device that will solve all the
>>>problems. Lookout
>>>is important and will remain so. However it has failed
>>>many time, I
>>>guess in some cases because it was not particularly
>>>good, but in other
>>>cases it could have been due to physiological limitation
>>>of pilots.
>>>Equally you cannot see in your blind spot, Flarm can.
>>>Personally I have only flown with Flarm 2 or 3 times.
>>> I have found that
>>>it showed me gliders I did not see, once dead ahead
>>>but well bellow, so
>>>I have changed course slightly and spotted it. One
>>>other time at my 10
>>>o'clock a long way away. Overall I have found that
>>>it has improved my
>>>situational awareness as the Australian Flarm actually
>>>shows you where
>>>the gliders are (well +- 22.5 deg).
>>>Finally we all spend money on chutes (about 3x as much)
>>>and yet their
>>>potential to save one is quite limited.
>>>
>>>regards
>>>
>>>paul
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Bert Willing]

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> One assumes that the heigh information is based on
> GPS information, a measurement which the IGC have
> previously ruled is not accurate or suitable. Have
> they changed their minds? Will they now accept loggers
> and files from GPS units that use GPS height information
> as they have accepted that it is accurate enough for
> this purpose, a much more critical purpose I might
> add.

No, that's not what I meant. It is a logger (but not a secure logger). But
the IGC explicitely allowed to operate it during competitions. But you will
still need an IGC logger for scoring.

> And what happens if many more units are all transmitting
> at the same time? What is the limit? There has to be
> a limit on the number of transmissions does there not?

I have been in pre-start goggles of 50+ gliders with their Flarms working,
but at that point I don't care if there is a limitation.

The most dangerous situations occur if you THINK you're alone.
However, you can never rely on Flarm for collision avoidance - it does tell
you if there is a glider (equally equipped), and it does that amazingly
well, but you mustn't think that it tells you that there is no other glider.
And even if it does show you a glider, that doesn't mean that there is not
another glider on a collision - it just shows you the first one you probably
will hit.

> Is it now, is the information transmitted securely
> encoded so that it cannot be intercepted and used by
> competitors in a competition to their advantage.

No need for that. The transmission range is 1.5 -2 km, and even IGC thinks
that's not an issue. So what?

> I think my description is very apt. If it is such a
> good idea then why is it not fitted into every aircraft
> now flying?

More than 3000 units sold 2 years after introduction without any regulatory
means - show me ANY device in soaring that has achieved this.

[MaD]

>...If it is such a
>good idea then why is it not fitted into every aircraft
>now flying?

Because of people like you, perhaps?

Marcel Duenner, Switzerland, in a 95% FLARM-equipped area and very glad
it's that way.

[bumper]

I'd sure like to see the personal attacks and innuendo left out of this
discussion.

FLARM, TPAS, ADS-B, etc, etc, . . . none of it is bad. All of it is pointing
towards some admittedly imperfect solutions to a very real problem.

What bothers me is that the technology is out there to all but solve the
threat of mid-air collisions. Not just between gliders in those "FLARM"
areas where glider density makes other gliders the primary threat, but also
in other areas where power planes pose an equal or greater risk. In fact,
one system could do-it-all.

The problem is getting an international standard established, implementing
just one "FLARM like device" for all aircraft, glider and powered. This
device would ideally be available as a portable unit or panel mounted. It
would consist of a low-power transceiver, GPS, and moving map w/alert
mechanism - - much like the existing ADS-B (which I haven't seen or used),
but cheaper and less power hungry.

No, I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen and will continue
to use my transponder and TPAS in the interim.

bumper
Minden, NV

"MaD" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >...If it is such a
>>good idea then why is it not fitted into every aircraft
>>now flying?
>
> Because of people like you, perhaps?
>
> Marcel Duenner, Switzerland, in a 95% FLARM-equipped area and very glad
> it's that way.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

PB wrote:

> The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European version) will be
> able to receive communication from transponders and thus give
> information on the power aircraft.

Can you point to a website that discusses this? If it's true, it's very
interesting, because the transponder detectors available aren't much
cheaper than FLARM, and can't supply a GPS signal to navigation
computers, or make a flight log. It would make FLARM a good value even
if no other glider had one.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Martin Gregorie]

bumper wrote:
> I'd sure like to see the personal attacks and innuendo left out of this
> discussion.
>
> FLARM, TPAS, ADS-B, etc, etc, . . . none of it is bad. All of it is pointing
> towards some admittedly imperfect solutions to a very real problem.
>
> What bothers me is that the technology is out there to all but solve the
> threat of mid-air collisions. Not just between gliders in those "FLARM"
> areas where glider density makes other gliders the primary threat, but also
> in other areas where power planes pose an equal or greater risk. In fact,
> one system could do-it-all.
>
Its a nice thought, but one-size-fits-all would most likely attract all
the glider pilot bitching about power consumption, size and price that's
currently directed at transponders and ADS-B.

There's one simple reason for this: a universal solution would also need
to be applicable to faster aircraft and would have to radiate
proportionately more power. A system that would give the same avoidance
time against a 250 kt airliner as for a 100 kt glider would need 2.5
times the range and hence must radiate 6.25 times as much power.
Suddenly your 100 mA FALARM equivalent is eating 625 mA.

In practice a universal device would burn a LOT more power than I just
calculated because:
- the worst case warning range for two 250 kt aircraft is 42% more than
I calculated above, so the transmission power is doubled.
- airlines would want a longer avoidance period than we need.
- the range requirement at least doubles again (and transmission power
quadruples) when you consider jet transports at full cruising speed
above 10,000 ft or fast jets at any altitude?

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Marc Ramsey]

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Its a nice thought, but one-size-fits-all would most likely attract all
> the glider pilot bitching about power consumption, size and price that's
> currently directed at transponders and ADS-B.
>
> There's one simple reason for this: a universal solution would also need
> to be applicable to faster aircraft and would have to radiate
> proportionately more power. A system that would give the same avoidance
> time against a 250 kt airliner as for a 100 kt glider would need 2.5
> times the range and hence must radiate 6.25 times as much power.
> Suddenly your 100 mA FALARM equivalent is eating 625 mA.
>
> In practice a universal device would burn a LOT more power than I just
> calculated because:
> - the worst case warning range for two 250 kt aircraft is 42% more than
> I calculated above, so the transmission power is doubled.
> - airlines would want a longer avoidance period than we need.
> - the range requirement at least doubles again (and transmission power
> quadruples) when you consider jet transports at full cruising speed
> above 10,000 ft or fast jets at any altitude?

Which is why ADS-B exists (in the US, and Australia now, I believe) in
two forms. An ICAO-approved Mode S "squitter" is basically layered on
top of a Mode S transponder, and has similar power requirements. A
Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) is intended for use by lower slower
aircraft (like gliders), and has significantly lower power requirements.
A network of ground stations provides the interface between ATC, Mode
S squitter, and UAT equipped aircraft...

Marc

[PB]

http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepitsoaring/nsw2005/img/Flarm_Subsidy_NSWGA.doc

If interested reed the last page titled Why Flarm

also

http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html

cheers

paul


Eric Greenwell wrote:
> PB wrote:
>
>> The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European version) will
>> be able to receive communication from transponders and thus give
>> information on the power aircraft.
>
>
> Can you point to a website that discusses this? If it's true, it's very
> interesting, because the transponder detectors available aren't much
> cheaper than FLARM, and can't supply a GPS signal to navigation
> computers, or make a flight log. It would make FLARM a good value even
> if no other glider had one.
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

At 06:54 10 March 2006, Pb wrote:
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepitsoaring/nsw2005/img/Flarm_Subsi
>>dy_NSWGA.doc
>
>If interested reed the last page titled Why Flarm

Yes I have. The letter claims a 70% reduction in collisions.
Can you tell me where I can see the data that supports
this claim please, if it is true it would negate many
of my arguments.
>
>also
>
>http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html

From the above document: Note: This system requires
other gliders to be fitted with a unit for it to work,
we do not sense transponder equipped traffic. We accept
no responsibility for its operation, this system will
never replace primary SEE and AVOID techniques. OzFLARM
is an aid for traffic awareness as well as providing
other handy features such as back up logger for comps
etc. The USER of OZFLARM accepts full responsibility
for good airmanship and acknowledges that OzFLARM is
not intended to replace lookout!

That is what is called a get out clause. Will pilots
look at it in the same way though?
>
>cheers
>
>paul
>
>
>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> PB wrote:
>>
>>> The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European
>>>version) will
>>> be able to receive communication from transponders
>>>and thus give
>>> information on the power aircraft.
>>
>>
>> Can you point to a website that discusses this? If
>>it's true, it's very
>> interesting, because the transponder detectors available
>>aren't much
>> cheaper than FLARM, and can't supply a GPS signal
>>to navigation
>> computers, or make a flight log. It would make FLARM
>>a good value even
>> if no other glider had one.
>>
>>
>

[Bert Willing]

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> From the above document: Note: This system requires
> other gliders to be fitted with a unit for it to work,
> we do not sense transponder equipped traffic. We accept
> no responsibility for its operation, this system will
> never replace primary SEE and AVOID techniques. OzFLARM
> is an aid for traffic awareness as well as providing
> other handy features such as back up logger for comps
> etc. The USER of OZFLARM accepts full responsibility
> for good airmanship and acknowledges that OzFLARM is
> not intended to replace lookout!
>
> That is what is called a get out clause. Will pilots
> look at it in the same way though?

I would call that a common sense clause :-)

However, pilots not looking at it in the same way shouldn't fly gliders in
the first place...

[Martin Gregorie]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> Its a nice thought, but one-size-fits-all would most likely attract
>> all the glider pilot bitching about power consumption, size and price
>> that's currently directed at transponders and ADS-B.
>>
>> There's one simple reason for this: a universal solution would also
>> need to be applicable to faster aircraft and would have to radiate
>> proportionately more power. A system that would give the same
>> avoidance time against a 250 kt airliner as for a 100 kt glider would
>> need 2.5 times the range and hence must radiate 6.25 times as much
>> power. Suddenly your 100 mA FALARM equivalent is eating 625 mA.
>>
>> In practice a universal device would burn a LOT more power than I just
>> calculated because:
>> - the worst case warning range for two 250 kt aircraft is 42% more than
>> I calculated above, so the transmission power is doubled.
>> - airlines would want a longer avoidance period than we need.
>> - the range requirement at least doubles again (and transmission power
>> quadruples) when you consider jet transports at full cruising speed
>> above 10,000 ft or fast jets at any altitude?
>
> Which is why ADS-B exists (in the US, and Australia now, I believe) in
> two forms. An ICAO-approved Mode S "squitter" is basically layered on
> top of a Mode S transponder, and has similar power requirements. A
> Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) is intended for use by lower slower
> aircraft (like gliders), and has significantly lower power requirements.
> A network of ground stations provides the interface between ATC, Mode S
> squitter, and UAT equipped aircraft...
>
As a matter of interest, how is the ground station network paid for? Is
it added into the UAT purchase price, an annual subscription, or does
the general taxpayer pick up the tab?

I'm not grinding axes, just curious.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[PB]

Neither link was posted as an argument to support Flarm, rather a reply
to Eric G for information regarding the integration between Flarm and
other transponders.

Paul

Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 06:54 10 March 2006, Pb wrote:
>
>>http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepitsoaring/nsw2005/img/Flarm_Subsi
>>
>>>dy_NSWGA.doc
>>
>>If interested reed the last page titled Why Flarm
>
>
> Yes I have. The letter claims a 70% reduction in collisions.
> Can you tell me where I can see the data that supports
> this claim please, if it is true it would negate many
> of my arguments.
>
>>also
>>
>>http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html
>
>
> From the above document: Note: This system requires
> other gliders to be fitted with a unit for it to work,
> we do not sense transponder equipped traffic. We accept
> no responsibility for its operation, this system will
> never replace primary SEE and AVOID techniques. OzFLARM
> is an aid for traffic awareness as well as providing
> other handy features such as back up logger for comps
> etc. The USER of OZFLARM accepts full responsibility
> for good airmanship and acknowledges that OzFLARM is
> not intended to replace lookout!
>
> That is what is called a get out clause. Will pilots
> look at it in the same way though?
>
>>cheers
>>
>>paul
>>
>>
>>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>>PB wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European
>>>>version) will
>>>>be able to receive communication from transponders
>>>>and thus give
>>>>information on the power aircraft.
>>>
>>>
>>>Can you point to a website that discusses this? If
>>>it's true, it's very
>>>interesting, because the transponder detectors available
>>>aren't much
>>>cheaper than FLARM, and can't supply a GPS signal
>>>to navigation
>>>computers, or make a flight log. It would make FLARM
>>>a good value even
>>>if no other glider had one.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

PB wrote:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepitsoaring/nsw2005/img/Flarm_Subsidy_NSWGA.doc
>
>
> If interested reed the last page titled Why Flarm

That is intriguing: it says FLARM will be able to sense ADSB units, but
not transponders. Where are the modules mentioned available or
discussed? I can't find mention of them on the FLARM site or the RF Dev
elopements site. Not that there is any hurry, given the limited
deployment of ADSB.

>
> also
>
> http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html

This states their unit can not sense transponders, a disappointment, but
I'm not surprised. It's an different technology on a different frequency
band.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Simon Waddell]

I can imagine Don appying the same reasoning shortly after the the invention
the telephone, the car, the radio, the radio, email and probably the wheel.

The price of a FLARM is trivial when compared with the cost of owning and
operating a glider (even an old one). Personally I go with the principle
that "every little helps" as the monkey said.

New technology is always driven by early adopters - the Dons of the world
catch up a fews years later - remember the early debates over GPS and PDAs
(some still ongoing).

FLARM is a partial solution to a problem that may be better solved by other
technologies in the future. While I'm waiting, I prefer to get whatever
benefit I can from something that's available today at very modest cost.

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
>I think Tim in his reply to my post highlighted the
> biggest failing in FLARM, lack of interest by the majority.
> Having a FLARM in your glider is totally useless unless
> eveyone else has one in theirs, and the only way to
> achieve that is by compulsion.
> Anyone who thinks that the majority of pilots will
> fit one voluntarily is deluding themselves.
> Right now in most of the world FLARM is just a useless
> expensive piece of electronics and unless fitting it
> becomes compulsory it will go the same way as Betamax
> video tapes.
>
> In answer to Bert my panel is full of instruments which
> are of some use to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 13:42 06 March 2006, Guy Acheson wrote:
>>I am glad the origens of FLARM have come up because
>>it answers some of my questions. I have flown in the
>>southern Alps and their environment for flight is unlike
>>any I know of in the USA or Australia. Flying in the
>>southern Alps many days consists of HUNDREDS of gliders
>>flying below peak height in all directions throughout
>>a mountain range that has valleys and passes in all
>>directions. Flying out of St Auban last year we were
>>using wrecked gliders as landmarks for navigation.
>> Collision avoidance is a very high energy activity
>>in that airspace. Power traffic is virtually non-existant
>>in that airspace. The power people just fly high above
>>all the mountains and valleys.
>>
>>Here in the USA our most common partners in the airspace
>>are power planes. Power planes have transponders.
>> I fly out of Minden, NV and for years had fairly regular
>>close encounters with power planes. Commercial planes
>>coming in and out of Reno would turn right at you,
>>your flight path goes accross standard flight paths
>>in and out of Reno. Military traffic was especially
>>scary with fighters and heavies just dropping out of
>>the cloud deck right on top of me or directly in my
>>flight path. Then I installed a transponder and my
>>experiences are very different. I monitor the air
>>traffic people while flying and am very impressed how
>>well they see me and warn power traffic of my presence.
>> Commercial planes know where I am and no longer turn
>>into me. If our paths will cross the power planes
>>alter their altitude.
>>
>>As for people being worried about battery problems,
>>that is just whining. I fly with a radio, transponder,
>>encoder, Cambridge, and iPAQ using a 12 amp hour battery.
>> I have never had a problem flying up to six hours.
>> I take that back. I had a problem for a couple weeks
>>and it turned out to be a bad battery charger.
>>
>>For the USA I really believe that installing a transponder
>>is the responsible thing to do for all air traffic.
>> Wings and Wheels sells a unit that sounds a lot like
>>the FLARM but recognizes transponders. It makes much
>>more sense to me to go with the technology that has
>>the largest installed base, equipment availability
>>and support.
>>
>>
>>At 12:48 06 March 2006, Bert Willing wrote:
>>>Either you don't know what you are talking about (ever
>>>seen the external
>>>Flarm display?), or your panel is crap.
>>>
>>>'Don Johnstone' wrote in message
...
>>>> I do not have room on my panel for any additional
>>>>display
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Bear]

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

> It came to my attention today, that one insurer in Europe is offering a
> 10% discount to FLARM users.
>

The Swiss Pool of Aviation Insurances supported the develpment of FLARM
already in 2004.
see www.flarm.com/news/index_en.html
Swiss insurances are usually pretty good in financial calculation and do
not like to waste money.

regards
Bear

[Robert Hart]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Mal wrote:
>>> Perhaps the Australians would be willing to sell us units?
>>
>>
>> Yeah we could chuck in a few bags of wheat as well.
>> http://rf-developments.com/page008.html
>
> We have quite a bit of wheat already, but maybe a few bottles of Shiraz?
> The big ones?
>
>
There is no such thing as a 'small' Australian Shiraz!
:-)

[Robert Hart]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> Currently in the UK there is little or no interest
> in FLARM, I know of no glider that has it fitted and
> long may it remain so.
> The cockpit area in gliders is cluttered enough and
> battery life with current units is unacceptable.

As reasons for not adopting FLARM, I have to disagree with you on both
counts - and then add some additional food for thought.

I have been flying with FLARM in my glider since Nov last year (when it
was introduced at the New South Wales State comps). My observations are

1) Cockpit clutter

It is very easy to fit and does not clutter up the cockpit. Mine sits on
the sloping side of the instrument panel (compete with a black
polystyrene 'hat' that shades it from the very strong Aussie sun and
also shades its front display, making that more visible in strong sunlight).

In terms of cockpit workload and 'noise' clutter, it was very easy to
include the FLARM in my standard lookout scan and as the alarm tone
sounds as part of the power on self test, so learning that came quickly.


2) Battery life

This is not adversely affected by FLARM (provided your glider has well
charged and well cared for batteries). It consumes 50ma so that is
hardly a huge drain on a battery.


3) Usage

At the NSW state comps in Nov 2005 (the first major usage of FLARM in
Australia), almost every pilot (there were over 60 gliders competing)
admitted that FLARM alerted him/her at least once to nearby glider
traffic BEFORE it was seen. FLARM was seen as a very useful supplement
to a good lookout. The pilots' meeting voted overwhelmingly in favour of
a motion requesting the GFA to mandate FLARM for all gliding
competitions in Australia.

Since that comp, I have been flying at a club where all the gliders
(club and private) and tugs are now FLARM equipped. Conscious that we
cannot allow our members to relax their lookout habits, the Instructor
Panel has introduced a small training package for pilots new to FLARM,
that provides basic operation info and guidelines for using it.

(See http://www.ddsc.org.au/documents/manuals/Using%20FLARM.pdf for this
document).

As it is fitted in all our two seat trainers, new pilots are starting
off with FLARM.

4) Other FLARM benefits

It is worth noting that FLARM is an IGC type logger (although _NOT_ IGC
approved, so it cannot be used for badge/record claims) and produces
NMEA sentences on a serial output. Last week I wired up a friend's
glider to use the FLARM NMEA output as input to an iPAQ running mobile
SeeYou (which supports FLARM).

With FLARMs in all club gliders and desktop SeeYou on the club
computers, we are making it very easy for pilots to start using modern
analysis tools to help improve their cross country soaring skills.
There's the side benefit that all their flights can be uploaded to the
Online Comp (the GFA runs it's decentralised competition online at this
site).


Finally, it is worth remembering that the major collision risk to
gliders is other gliders (and glider tugs). In Australia, there has
never been a collision between a glider and a non gliding involved
aircraft (I don't know about the rest of the world, but I suspect the
stats to be similar) and so FLARM certainly addresses the major
collision risk we face here.

We had a mid air collision with one fatality last year in Victoria. At
the Qld State comps (immediately prior to the NSW comps mentioned
above), there were five reported air miss incidents (and bar talk
suggested there were at least another 6). At the NSW state comps were
FLARM was introduced, there were no such reports.

We pay about AU$2,000 for a parachute to use _if_ we are alive and
conscious after a mid air collision. Paying about AU$700 for a gadget
that warns you of impending collisions in time to avoid them is a "no
brainer".

I would dearly love to see GA, ultra/micro lights and hang gliders
adopts FLARM. There is an active hang gliding club near my gliding club
and I know from experience how hard these can be to see! The ozFLARM
manufacturer is working on an ADS-B (in/out) add-on that would provide
FLARM capability to ADS-B units - and also an ADS-B (in only) to FLARM.
Once ADS-B is more widespread, I will certainly look to add that to my
FLARM.