US pilots concerned with collision avoidance, read the FLARM threads

[JS]

It's not currently certified in the USA, but pay attention to this
thing called FLARM.
http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html
This device works from (FLARM equipped) aircraft to aircraft, draws
very little current (55ma), gives you rough relative direction, height
and distance of aircraft with conflicting course to you. It doesn't go
bonkers in a gaggle. And it's a backup GPS datalogger.
Sorry, it won't wash your wings and it isn't a satellite telephone,
but it's still a very good instrument.
I would be happy if FLARM was mandated on all aircraft, as opposed to
Mode C or even S and TCAS.
Perhaps, with sensible changes to laws regarding liability, this
excellent product will become available in the USA.
Jim

[jcarlyle]

It's not a question of certification, JS, it's the fact that the FLARM
designers have specifically stated that they will not permit the use of
FLARM in the USA, due to litigation fears.

-John

JS wrote:
> It's not currently certified in the USA, but pay attention to this
> thing called FLARM.
> http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html
> This device works from (FLARM equipped) aircraft to aircraft, draws
> very little current (55ma), gives you rough relative direction, height
> and distance of aircraft with conflicting course to you. It doesn't go
> bonkers in a gaggle. And it's a backup GPS datalogger.
> Sorry, it won't wash your wings and it isn't a satellite telephone,
> but it's still a very good instrument.
> I would be happy if FLARM was mandated on all aircraft, as opposed to
> Mode C or even S and TCAS.
> Perhaps, with sensible changes to laws regarding liability, this
> excellent product will become available in the USA.
> Jim

[Al Eddie]

At 11:48 10 October 2006, Jcarlyle wrote:
>It's not a question of certification, JS, it's the
>fact that the FLARM
>designers have specifically stated that they will not
>permit the use of
>FLARM in the USA, due to litigation fears.
>
>-John

Hmmm....

I can't find any reference to that either on the FLARM
website or in the forums.

Who do you work for...?

;o)

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> I can't find any reference to that either on the FLARM
> website or in the forums.

It's in the manual:

Until further notice FLARM may not be used in the USA
or Canada without written authority of FLARM Technology,
or in an aircraft that is registered and/or insured in
the USA or Canada. Likewise, operation of FLARM is
forbidden in aircraft in which one or more of the occupants
resides in or is a citizen of the USA or Canada. Likewise,
use of FLARM is forbidden if the aircraft concerned takes
off from, makes an intermediate or final landing in the
USA or Canada.

The phrasing makes it quite clear to me that fear of litigation is the reason
for it.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you
do something and the time you tell a woman what you did."

[jcarlyle]

I work for a small company that uses acoustics to evaluate the
structual integrity of aircraft, bridges, cranes, pipelines and
pressure vessels. Does that help you better evaluate my post regarding
FLARM usage in the USA?

-John

Al Eddie wrote:
> Hmmm....
>
> I can't find any reference to that either on the FLARM
> website or in the forums.
>
> Who do you work for...?
>
> ;o)

[Fred[_1_]]

My information was that the frequency range used is not available from
the FCC. If it were solely a liability issue, I do not understand the
inclusion of Canada. I tend to put more weight on the frequency issue.
Fred

[5Z]

On Oct 10, 8:12 am, "Fred" > wrote:
> My information was that the frequency range used is not available from
> the FCC. If it were solely a liability issue, I do not understand the
> inclusion of Canada. I tend to put more weight on the frequency issue.
>

To quote the manual quote:
Likewise, operation of FLARM is forbidden in aircraft in which one or
more of the occupants resides in or is a citizen of the USA or Canada.

So according to this, a US citizen, may not fly in the Alps, as most
sailplanes there do have FLARM installed.

Seems to me there have been a lot of people already ignoring this
"rule". I'm sure it is in there as "protection" against a liability
claim.

-Tom

[jcarlyle]

Interesting thought, Fred, but I don't think so for at least 2 reasons:


(1) Let's say I go to Australia, where they use FLARM. According to the
paragraph in the manual that Marian Aldenhövel quoted above (it also
appears in the Australian FLARM manual), FLARM may not be used if I'm
riding in a FLARM equiped aircraft (I'm a US citizen). How can that be
a frequency issue?

(2) the Australians use a different frequency than the European FLARM
units, but it is still a licensed FLARM useage. Canada could do the
same thing if it was just a frequency issue, but the manual expressly
forbids FLARM in Canada.

-John


Fred wrote:
> My information was that the frequency range used is not available from
> the FCC. If it were solely a liability issue, I do not understand the
> inclusion of Canada. I tend to put more weight on the frequency issue.
> Fred

[bumper]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
Key to Flexibility."
>
> What is wrong with looking outside of the cockpit? Do we really want to
> put more equipment in our sailplanes? Do you really think that
> transponders or FLARMs will prevent collisions? The idea, no matter how
> you slice it or dice it, is to look outside of the window ; and we have
> a great ones, nice clear bubbles of clear lexan without any
> obstructions. I think everybody forgot the good old airmanship- that is
> the distinction of a "glider operator" and a "good pilot". How many
> times you have seen a pilot flying his/her glider and looking at their
> PDA's? And they never saw you...... they never even knew you just flew
> by them.
> Did I just opened a case of worms? This is just my thoughts.
>
> Jacek
> Washington State
>

Jacek,

Perhaps you don't fly in or near relatively busy terminal areas? If you're
thermalling or being overtaken, a small jet coming straight at you doing 300
to 350 knots is difficult to see before you are looking directly into an
engine intake. I've posted before, that my TPAS alerted and had me S-turning
to find an overtaking Bonanza at my altitude while I was flying straight. I
may have a nice clear bubble to look out of, but it's tough to check six
several times a minute while running between thermals.

I've not heard anyone say there's anything inherently wrong with looking out
the window - - only that the FAA's "See and Avoid" concept is, by itself,
inadequate. The electronic gizmos, if designed properly, serve to enhance
S&A by notifying the pilot that there's a threat aircraft nearby, and to get
about acquiring it visually. It's not at all hard to imagine the recent
Minden mid-air would not have occurred if the jet had been able to acquire
the glider while still a mile or two away. Even if they could not have
acquired the glider visually, their TCAS would have issued a conflict
resolution had the glider's transponder had been on and functional. I'm
aware not all biz-jets have TCAS.

And no, I'm not saying all gliders should be equipped with transponders.
What I am saying is that the technology exists to all but eliminate mid-air
collisions, and has existed for many years. A simple GPS / moving map / low
power transceiver combination could do the job (like ADS-B only cheaper and
available as a portable unit, and like FLARM only optimized for both power
and glider) yet the FAA, FCC, legal system in the US, etc. etc. has
prevented this from happening.

Until they get their act together, I'll continue to look out the window and
fly with my transponder and TPAS (Proxalert R-5).
--
bumper ZZ (reverse all after @)>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
Quiet Vent kit & MKII yaw string

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> What is wrong with looking outside of the cockpit?

Nothing of course.

> Do we really want to put more equipment in our sailplanes?

FLARM is so unobtrusive that it is no fun to look at. Can't be less
distracting. It does not even have interesting knobs to fiddle with.

I have very little experience flying, having soloed last year. Every
day I fly, still in the vicinity of the field only, I get at least one
warning from FLARM for aircraft I did not see. "Look out better" you say,
and I really, really, really try.

But what bothers me more is that I cannot immediately find half of the
targets I get warned of even though FLARM tells me where exactly to look
for them. It always takes some searching. My eyes are OK, the damn things
are just so hard to spot. And scanning techniques have to be learned.

I am happy we have our club fleet FLARM-equipped by 100% and most others
at the field have, too.

> Do you really think that transponders or FLARMs will prevent collisions?

Definitely yes.

Not that I feel I would have actually hit any of my "bleepers", but it
might have been a lot closer than I would have liked it.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you
do something and the time you tell a woman what you did."

[COLIN LAMB]

Trial lawyers are a powerful lobby in the US, and they would thwart any
attempt to limit liability. It has been attempted before on medical issues
and failed. The trial lawyer associations can outspend any group that
attempts, for the purpose of public policy and safety, to impose limits on
liability.

Sadly, congresssmen are controlled by that lobby and will not use reason and
common sense to pass a law that would protect general aviation - or any
other group. And, collectively, the trial lawyers have absolutely no
conscience.

I am a lawyer and embarassed by how the system has got out of hand.

Colin

[Eric Greenwell]

COLIN LAMB wrote:
> Trial lawyers are a powerful lobby in the US, and they would thwart any
> attempt to limit liability. It has been attempted before on medical issues
> and failed. The trial lawyer associations can outspend any group that
> attempts, for the purpose of public policy and safety, to impose limits on
> liability.
>
> Sadly, congresssmen are controlled by that lobby and will not use reason and
> common sense to pass a law that would protect general aviation - or any
> other group. And, collectively, the trial lawyers have absolutely no
> conscience.

Congress did pass a very important law limiting general aviation
liability several years ago. It limited the aircraft manufacturers
liability for aircraft more 18 years old (as best I can remember). This
liability limitation is credited with much/most of the resurgence in the
"low end" (say, under a million dollars) general aviation sector.

A trial lawyer friend of mine whose primary clients were aircraft
manufacturers said his business tanked after the law was enacted. He's
replaced those clients with a tire manufacturer or two, and other
businesses, so he's doing fine again. So, it is possible for congress to
do good things, and remember there is a trial lawyer on each side, which
you might say suggests that half of them have a conscience!

Regardless, none of this addresses the question of how the TPAS
manufacturers deal with the liability issue, or what the issue really is.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[JS]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Regardless, none of this addresses the question of how the TPAS
> manufacturers deal with the liability issue, or what the issue really is.
>

Or the perceived issue.
Doubt it's easy to start legal action in North America against a
Swiss company. If liability was a serious problem, none of our toys
would be available in North America.
All of these traffic warning devices are second oppinions. Of course
see and be seen is the first. And of course, that is mentioned in the
FLARM manual. Unfortunately there have been times that see and be seen
didn't work, so a second oppinion is good.
Remember, the rest of the instrument panel is essentially a second
oppinion too. You can fly without an audio vario, but it's a great help
in finding the core of a weak thermal, just as a device such as FLARM
will help maintain awareness of other aircraft, while still too distant
to be easily seen.
Jim