Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

FLARM has become extremely popular in several regions of the world (Europe,
and Australia, and ...?), but it has not been "allowed" in the USA so far.
However, there are several gliders flying with FLARM here in the USA. It is
a great technology solution and safety enhancer. But technical and
liability hurdles exist here in the USA. Everyone that I've talked to that
uses FLARM in their glider loves it - especially in contests or at crowded
soaring sites, or along crowded ridges.

I would like to invite you to an informal brainstorming session on "How we
can make FLARM (or something similar) work here in the USA". The meeting
will be held on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008, from 4 to 5 PM in a small
conference room in the convention center that is hosting the SSA Convention.
Details on the meeting location will be available in the future.

This is not a marketing discussion and I will not be promoting any products.
The goal is to gather technical people together to figure out how we can use
FLARM in the USA.

Topics may include:
- FLARM Europe and FLARM Australia (OzFLARM) use different frequencies (I
think) - will either work here? If so, which one should we use?
- The FCC may (or may not) need to be contacted to figure out what
frequency to use. Or do we want to just start using it without permission
and remain "under the radar". (I prefer that it be approved by the FCC and
FLARM.)
- FLARM in Europe doesn't seem to want to allow its use here. What can we
do to change their mind? Can it be licensed and built here in the USA as it
is in Australia?
- Can we create or use a different technology that would also work for
small aircraft?
- How do the FAA's plans to implement ADSB impact this discussion? In the
short run that looks like an extremely expensive solution for the aircraft
owner.

Since I could potentially benefit from the sale of FLARM devices, I would
prefer not to run the meeting. Does anyone else want to volunteer to run
it - or co-run it? Eric Greenwell and/or Tom Serkowski come to mind as
technology minded glider pilots that may be good for the job.

I am looking forward to the meeting already. I hope you will join us.
There is no need to RSVP. My guess is that the room will be very full.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Paul Remde wrote:
> FLARM has become extremely popular in several regions of the world (Europe,
> and Australia, and ...?), but it has not been "allowed" in the USA so far.
> However, there are several gliders flying with FLARM here in the USA. It is
> a great technology solution and safety enhancer. But technical and
> liability hurdles exist here in the USA. Everyone that I've talked to that
> uses FLARM in their glider loves it - especially in contests or at crowded
> soaring sites, or along crowded ridges.

European FLARM operates in the 868.0 to 868.6 MHz range, Australian
OzFLARMs operate in the 915.0 to 928.0 MHz range. The legal range in
the US would be 902.0 to 928.0 MHz, and the combination of the
transmitter and antenna must be certified by the FCC.

European FLARMs are definitely illegal in the US, as they are smack in
the middle of the licensed commercial Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
band. If there is interference in that band (and an airborne
transmitter may interfere over a wide area), the FCC will mount a real
effort to track it down. OzFLARM may be legal, but only if the
transmitter is FCC certified, which includes limits on duty cycle which
the FLARM protocol may or may not meet.

> - How do the FAA's plans to implement ADSB impact this discussion? In the
> short run that looks like an extremely expensive solution for the aircraft
> owner.

ADS-B is, in general, a better solution for US pilots, since it will
warn of glider vs. glider and glider vs. other aircraft collisions, and
will ultimately (~2020) be required for access to certain kinds of
airspace. Technically it is not all that much more difficult to
implement than FLARM. Certification requirements are far more onerous,
and the market for a low power unit suitable for gliders, balloons,
sport aircraft, etc., just doesn't exist at the moment. I suggest you
get someone in the room with ADS-B technical knowledge, like Bernald
Smith (who will almost certainly be at the convention) to discuss that
option...

Marc

[Rory O'Conor[_2_]]

Subject: Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USAAuthor: Paul Remde <paul@remde.=
us>Date/Time: 17:30 25 October 2007



Topics may include:- FLARM in Europe doesn't seem to want to allow its use =
here. What can we do to change their mind? Can it be licensed and built her=
e in the USA as it is in Australia?
I anticipate that any small European manufacturer will need some cast-iron =
guarantee that if they do a reasonnable job, they will not be sued bankcrup=
t in US courts. On a similar note I have just been reading in the BMJ about=
the perils of treating any US citizen. British medical defence unions curr=
ently will not support doctors to treat US citizens.
=20
I certainly would not want to sell an American a product which they may use=
to stop them colliding with each other. What would the US courts do about =
the two gliders that recently collided in Europe - at least one had non-ope=
rational FLARM?
=20
I am slightly surprised that the Germans are willing to sell you gliders.
=20
Rory
__________________________________________________ _______________
Celeb spotting =96 Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes
https://www.celebmashup.com=

[Mike Schumann]

We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
affordable for glider pilots. FLARM only addresses other gliders that are
similarly equiped. We need to be visible and have visibility of not just
gliders, but also power traffic.

Mike Schumann

"Paul Remde" > wrote in message
news:uq4Ui.171151$Fc.69305@attbi_s21...
> Hi,
>
> FLARM has become extremely popular in several regions of the world
> (Europe, and Australia, and ...?), but it has not been "allowed" in the
> USA so far. However, there are several gliders flying with FLARM here in
> the USA. It is a great technology solution and safety enhancer. But
> technical and liability hurdles exist here in the USA. Everyone that I've
> talked to that uses FLARM in their glider loves it - especially in
> contests or at crowded soaring sites, or along crowded ridges.
>
> I would like to invite you to an informal brainstorming session on "How we
> can make FLARM (or something similar) work here in the USA". The meeting
> will be held on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008, from 4 to 5 PM in a small
> conference room in the convention center that is hosting the SSA
> Convention. Details on the meeting location will be available in the
> future.
>
> This is not a marketing discussion and I will not be promoting any
> products. The goal is to gather technical people together to figure out
> how we can use FLARM in the USA.
>
> Topics may include:
> - FLARM Europe and FLARM Australia (OzFLARM) use different frequencies (I
> think) - will either work here? If so, which one should we use?
> - The FCC may (or may not) need to be contacted to figure out what
> frequency to use. Or do we want to just start using it without permission
> and remain "under the radar". (I prefer that it be approved by the FCC
> and FLARM.)
> - FLARM in Europe doesn't seem to want to allow its use here. What can we
> do to change their mind? Can it be licensed and built here in the USA as
> it is in Australia?
> - Can we create or use a different technology that would also work for
> small aircraft?
> - How do the FAA's plans to implement ADSB impact this discussion? In the
> short run that looks like an extremely expensive solution for the aircraft
> owner.
>
> Since I could potentially benefit from the sale of FLARM devices, I would
> prefer not to run the meeting. Does anyone else want to volunteer to run
> it - or co-run it? Eric Greenwell and/or Tom Serkowski come to mind as
> technology minded glider pilots that may be good for the job.
>
> I am looking forward to the meeting already. I hope you will join us.
> There is no need to RSVP. My guess is that the room will be very full.
>
> Good Soaring,
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[hans]

But until that technology is available I happy fly with my FLARM
equipped gilder. But the cost of the FLARM is less than the cost of
installation of the Mode S transponder.

And yes, I have a Mode-S transponder in my glider, so that I'm visible
to the TCAS equipped guys.





Mike Schumann schrieb:
> We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
> affordable for glider pilots. FLARM only addresses other gliders that are
> similarly equiped. We need to be visible and have visibility of not just
> gliders, but also power traffic.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> news:uq4Ui.171151$Fc.69305@attbi_s21...
>> Hi,
>>
>> FLARM has become extremely popular in several regions of the world
>> (Europe, and Australia, and ...?), but it has not been "allowed" in the
>> USA so far. However, there are several gliders flying with FLARM here in
>> the USA. It is a great technology solution and safety enhancer. But
>> technical and liability hurdles exist here in the USA. Everyone that I've
>> talked to that uses FLARM in their glider loves it - especially in
>> contests or at crowded soaring sites, or along crowded ridges.
>>
>> I would like to invite you to an informal brainstorming session on "How we
>> can make FLARM (or something similar) work here in the USA". The meeting
>> will be held on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008, from 4 to 5 PM in a small
>> conference room in the convention center that is hosting the SSA
>> Convention. Details on the meeting location will be available in the
>> future.
>>
>> This is not a marketing discussion and I will not be promoting any
>> products. The goal is to gather technical people together to figure out
>> how we can use FLARM in the USA.
>>
>> Topics may include:
>> - FLARM Europe and FLARM Australia (OzFLARM) use different frequencies (I
>> think) - will either work here? If so, which one should we use?
>> - The FCC may (or may not) need to be contacted to figure out what
>> frequency to use. Or do we want to just start using it without permission
>> and remain "under the radar". (I prefer that it be approved by the FCC
>> and FLARM.)
>> - FLARM in Europe doesn't seem to want to allow its use here. What can we
>> do to change their mind? Can it be licensed and built here in the USA as
>> it is in Australia?
>> - Can we create or use a different technology that would also work for
>> small aircraft?
>> - How do the FAA's plans to implement ADSB impact this discussion? In the
>> short run that looks like an extremely expensive solution for the aircraft
>> owner.
>>
>> Since I could potentially benefit from the sale of FLARM devices, I would
>> prefer not to run the meeting. Does anyone else want to volunteer to run
>> it - or co-run it? Eric Greenwell and/or Tom Serkowski come to mind as
>> technology minded glider pilots that may be good for the job.
>>
>> I am looking forward to the meeting already. I hope you will join us.
>> There is no need to RSVP. My guess is that the room will be very full.
>>
>> Good Soaring,
>>
>> Paul Remde
>> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>>
>
>
>

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

hans wrote:
> But until that technology is available I happy fly with my FLARM
> equipped gilder. But the cost of the FLARM is less than the cost of
> installation of the Mode S transponder.
>
> And yes, I have a Mode-S transponder in my glider, so that I'm visible
> to the TCAS equipped guys.

The US has provided the option of ADS-B over the low power UAT
(Universal Access Transceiver) physical layer, so a Mode S transponder
is not required...

Marc

[Mike Schumann]

"Until that technology is available" is the key issue. Unfortunately, the
glider, balloon, and Ultra Lite community is pretty small an unlikely to get
a commercial company interested in developing a good solution that is cost
effective. This is the type of thing that the SSA should be working on. On
approach would be to partner with some professors at MIT to make this an
open source class project.

Mike Schumann

"hans" > wrote in message
...
> But until that technology is available I happy fly with my FLARM equipped
> gilder. But the cost of the FLARM is less than the cost of installation of
> the Mode S transponder.
>
> And yes, I have a Mode-S transponder in my glider, so that I'm visible to
> the TCAS equipped guys.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Schumann schrieb:
>> We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
>> affordable for glider pilots. FLARM only addresses other gliders that
>> are similarly equiped. We need to be visible and have visibility of not
>> just gliders, but also power traffic.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
>> news:uq4Ui.171151$Fc.69305@attbi_s21...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> FLARM has become extremely popular in several regions of the world
>>> (Europe, and Australia, and ...?), but it has not been "allowed" in the
>>> USA so far. However, there are several gliders flying with FLARM here in
>>> the USA. It is a great technology solution and safety enhancer. But
>>> technical and liability hurdles exist here in the USA. Everyone that
>>> I've talked to that uses FLARM in their glider loves it - especially in
>>> contests or at crowded soaring sites, or along crowded ridges.
>>>
>>> I would like to invite you to an informal brainstorming session on "How
>>> we can make FLARM (or something similar) work here in the USA". The
>>> meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008, from 4 to 5 PM
>>> in a small conference room in the convention center that is hosting the
>>> SSA Convention. Details on the meeting location will be available in the
>>> future.
>>>
>>> This is not a marketing discussion and I will not be promoting any
>>> products. The goal is to gather technical people together to figure out
>>> how we can use FLARM in the USA.
>>>
>>> Topics may include:
>>> - FLARM Europe and FLARM Australia (OzFLARM) use different frequencies
>>> (I think) - will either work here? If so, which one should we use?
>>> - The FCC may (or may not) need to be contacted to figure out what
>>> frequency to use. Or do we want to just start using it without
>>> permission and remain "under the radar". (I prefer that it be approved
>>> by the FCC and FLARM.)
>>> - FLARM in Europe doesn't seem to want to allow its use here. What can
>>> we do to change their mind? Can it be licensed and built here in the
>>> USA as it is in Australia?
>>> - Can we create or use a different technology that would also work for
>>> small aircraft?
>>> - How do the FAA's plans to implement ADSB impact this discussion? In
>>> the short run that looks like an extremely expensive solution for the
>>> aircraft owner.
>>>
>>> Since I could potentially benefit from the sale of FLARM devices, I
>>> would prefer not to run the meeting. Does anyone else want to volunteer
>>> to run it - or co-run it? Eric Greenwell and/or Tom Serkowski come to
>>> mind as technology minded glider pilots that may be good for the job.
>>>
>>> I am looking forward to the meeting already. I hope you will join us.
>>> There is no need to RSVP. My guess is that the room will be very full.
>>>
>>> Good Soaring,
>>>
>>> Paul Remde
>>> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>>>
>>
>>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eric Greenwell]

Rory O'Conor wrote:

> I certainly would not want to sell an American a product which they may use=
> to stop them colliding with each other. What would the US courts do about =
> the two gliders that recently collided in Europe - at least one had non-ope=
> rational FLARM?

It seems like there is plenty of precedent for selling instruments that
aid in collision avoidance. Zaon Flight, Monroy Aero, and Proxalert sell
transponder detectors for just that purpose, and for $500 to $800.
Foster Flight sells a visually based unit using cameras.

These are all portable, non-TSO'd, non-certified, units, as is FLARM.
So, perhaps the situation isn't as grim as suggested. I suggest
approaching these companies about producing and selling a FLARM unit, as
it would be good fit with their current business. FLARM has sold over
9000 units, so there can be a good market. In Europe, it's not just
gliders that are using them.

Even better would be a low cost ADS-B system, but right now, in the USA,
it's $7000 just for starters in a glider.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Paul Remde]

Hi Mike,

I really don't know much about ADS-B, but my impression is that it will be
very expensive for quite a long time.

Let me clarify that I don't really want a solution that is only for gliders.
I want a low cost solution that is so cost effective and simple that every
airplane will want one. I wouldn't even mind if it is mandated that
everyone needs to have one - as long as we can get the cost down to less
than $500 or even $100. The size of the market is huge if we go after all
small aircraft as the target.

Paul Remde

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
> We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
> affordable for glider pilots. FLARM only addresses other gliders that are
> similarly equiped. We need to be visible and have visibility of not just
> gliders, but also power traffic.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> news:uq4Ui.171151$Fc.69305@attbi_s21...
>> Hi,
>>
>> FLARM has become extremely popular in several regions of the world
>> (Europe, and Australia, and ...?), but it has not been "allowed" in the
>> USA so far. However, there are several gliders flying with FLARM here in
>> the USA. It is a great technology solution and safety enhancer. But
>> technical and liability hurdles exist here in the USA. Everyone that I've
>> talked to that uses FLARM in their glider loves it - especially in
>> contests or at crowded soaring sites, or along crowded ridges.
>>
>> I would like to invite you to an informal brainstorming session on "How
>> we can make FLARM (or something similar) work here in the USA". The
>> meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008, from 4 to 5 PM in
>> a small conference room in the convention center that is hosting the SSA
>> Convention. Details on the meeting location will be available in the
>> future.
>>
>> This is not a marketing discussion and I will not be promoting any
>> products. The goal is to gather technical people together to figure out
>> how we can use FLARM in the USA.
>>
>> Topics may include:
>> - FLARM Europe and FLARM Australia (OzFLARM) use different frequencies (I
>> think) - will either work here? If so, which one should we use?
>> - The FCC may (or may not) need to be contacted to figure out what
>> frequency to use. Or do we want to just start using it without
>> permission and remain "under the radar". (I prefer that it be approved
>> by the FCC and FLARM.)
>> - FLARM in Europe doesn't seem to want to allow its use here. What can
>> we do to change their mind? Can it be licensed and built here in the USA
>> as it is in Australia?
>> - Can we create or use a different technology that would also work for
>> small aircraft?
>> - How do the FAA's plans to implement ADSB impact this discussion? In
>> the short run that looks like an extremely expensive solution for the
>> aircraft owner.
>>
>> Since I could potentially benefit from the sale of FLARM devices, I would
>> prefer not to run the meeting. Does anyone else want to volunteer to run
>> it - or co-run it? Eric Greenwell and/or Tom Serkowski come to mind as
>> technology minded glider pilots that may be good for the job.
>>
>> I am looking forward to the meeting already. I hope you will join us.
>> There is no need to RSVP. My guess is that the room will be very full.
>>
>> Good Soaring,
>>
>> Paul Remde
>> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

[5Z]

On Oct 25, 1:57 pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
> affordable for glider pilots.

I agree.

But... I doubt ADS-B will have the smarts to provide intelligent
warnings and ignore false alerts due to the close proximity we fly in.

I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing which gliders in the
gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?

-Tom

[Ian]

On 25 Oct, 18:32, "Paul Remde" > wrote:

> FLARM has become extremely popular in several regions of the world (Europe,
> and Australia, and ...?), but it has not been "allowed" in the USA so far.
> However, there are several gliders flying with FLARM here in the USA. It is
> a great technology solution and safety enhancer. But technical and
> liability hurdles exist here in the USA. Everyone that I've talked to that
> uses FLARM in their glider loves it - especially in contests or at crowded
> soaring sites, or along crowded ridges.

I have never used it myself [1] but I was chatting about it just a few
days ago with an instructor at a busy ridge site here. His view was
that it's a menace: it generates far too many false alarms, and pilots
who try to evade non-existent hazards may thereby cause significant
danger. What are you supposed to do, he asked, if you get a six-second-
t-death warning about a glider which is supposedly dead ahead but
which you can't see? He reckoned the main problem was that the system
only believes in "cruising" and "thermalling" and gets hopelessly
confused by the turn at the end of a beat on the ridge.

Ian

[1] and have no intention of doing so: I'm profoundly sceptical about
a further increase in the number of things to fiddle with and focus on
inside the glider. Why not just look out?

[Marc Ramsey]

5Z wrote:
> On Oct 25, 1:57 pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
> nospam.com> wrote:
>> We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
>> affordable for glider pilots.
>
> I agree.
>
> But... I doubt ADS-B will have the smarts to provide intelligent
> warnings and ignore false alerts due to the close proximity we fly in.

Actually, the ADS-B specification says nothing about how collisions are
detected, it just provides a standardized means of periodically
broadcasting aircraft type (e.g. glider), altitude, position, and
velocity vector. An uncertified glider specific UAT receiver and threat
display could be developed. Or, a future version of SeeYou Mobile or
WinPilot could perhaps license the FLARM algorithm, and apply it to the
data stream received from a dumb UAT device...

Marc

[John Wilton]

"5Z" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 25, 1:57 pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
> nospam.com> wrote:
>> We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
>> affordable for glider pilots.
>
> I agree.
>
> But... I doubt ADS-B will have the smarts to provide intelligent
> warnings and ignore false alerts due to the close proximity we fly in.
>
> I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing which gliders in the
> gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?
>
> -Tom
>

I have not flown with Flarm but a comment that I received from an
experienced pilot flying with his new Flarm unit in a competition this
summer was: 'I ended up switching it off half the time because it was going
off all the time when thermalling in gaggles'

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

That is an interesting data point from one person. I sure there are people
that turn off their FLARM units from time to time. That seems very... I
can't think of a better word than "stupid". I imagine that the FLARM
devices can be annoying at times when near a lot of other users. But
turning it off seems very similar to the glider pilot that had his
transponder turned off and was hit by a jet.

However, the feedback I have received from glider pilots in Europe and
Australia and New Zealand and more recently the U.K. is that FLARM is an
extremely useful safety enhancing device.

I don't recall the exact details, but there was a soaring competition in New
Zealand or Australia at which everyone was encouraged to try FLARM. I don't
know whether it was required, or rented to the pilots, or loaned to them,
or... Many of them were very skeptical about FLARM until they tried it.
But the end result I heard was that nearly everyone was very impressed with
the FLARM units - so much so that they purchased them. I also heard that at
least one head-on collision was avoided due to the FLARM units in 2 gliders
during the competition.

It would be impossible to know how many lives FLARM has saved in the
European Alps. My guess is that it has saved many.

I'm sure it seems like I'm trying to push new technology so I can sell it.
Well... I would like to sell it. But I am sincere in my desire to increase
safety. I would love to have FLARM or something similar in all the gliders
I fly ASAP. But that would only be of benefit if everyone else in the area
(gliders and power planes alike) was also using it. So how can we get
there? We have many very intelligent people in soaring. Let's drive a
movement to get there.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

"John Wilton" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "5Z" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On Oct 25, 1:57 pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
>> nospam.com> wrote:
>>> We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that
>>> is
>>> affordable for glider pilots.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> But... I doubt ADS-B will have the smarts to provide intelligent
>> warnings and ignore false alerts due to the close proximity we fly in.
>>
>> I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing which gliders in the
>> gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?
>>
>> -Tom
>>
>
> I have not flown with Flarm but a comment that I received from an
> experienced pilot flying with his new Flarm unit in a competition this
> summer was: 'I ended up switching it off half the time because it was
> going off all the time when thermalling in gaggles'
>

[JS]

On Oct 26, 8:32 am, 5Z > wrote:
>
> I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing which gliders in the
> gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?
>
> -Tom

CORRECT.
Nothing else I've seen will look at a similarly equipped towplane at
the other end of the rope, or a glider in the same gaggle and tell you
it's there but not tell you to leave.
Jim

[Ramy]

On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian > wrote:
<SNIP>
> [1] and have no intention of doing so: I'm profoundly sceptical about
> a further increase in the number of things to fiddle with and focus on
> inside the glider. Why not just look out?

Because your human eyes can't detect most threats on time to avoid it,
especially gliders and especially if they are comming from behind or
the side. The only exception is during thermaling and maybe traffic
pattern where you know when and where to look.
See http://dwp.bigplanet.com/fosterflight/scottsrants/

Ramy

[Mark Dickson]

>On Oct 26, 8:32 am, 5Z wrote:
>>
>> I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing
>>which gliders in the
>> gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?
>>
>> -Tom
>
Incorrect.
Flarm is merely a distraction in gaggles. Its value
is between thermals and approaching them. The makers
obviously believe this aswell because it has a 5 minute
mute facility specifically intended for use gaggles.

[Mark Dickson]

>On Oct 26, 8:32 am, 5Z wrote:
>>
>> I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing
>>which gliders in the
>> gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?
>>
>> -Tom
>
Incorrect.
Flarm is merely a distraction in gaggles. Its value
is between thermals and approaching them. The makers
obviously believe this aswell because it has a 5 minute
mute facility specifically intended for use in gaggles.

[Mark Dickson]

>On Oct 26, 8:32 am, 5Z wrote:
>>
>> I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing
>>which gliders in the
>> gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?
>>
>> -Tom
>
Incorrect.
Flarm is merely a distraction in gaggles. Its value
is between thermals and approaching them. The makers
obviously believe this aswell because it has a 5 minute
mute facility specifically intended for use in gaggles.

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark Dickson wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 8:32 am, 5Z wrote:
>>> I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing
>>> which gliders in the
>>> gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?
>>>
>>> -Tom
> Incorrect.
> Flarm is merely a distraction in gaggles. Its value
> is between thermals and approaching them. The makers
> obviously believe this aswell because it has a 5 minute
> mute facility specifically intended for use gaggles.

Does it warn you when a new glider approaches to join the gaggle? That
would be useful, even if the gliders already in the gaggle were muted.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:LOsUi.39$MW.24@trndny05...
> Mark Dickson wrote:
>>> On Oct 26, 8:32 am, 5Z wrote:
>>>> I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing
>>>> which gliders in the
>>>> gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?
>>>>
>>>> -Tom
>> Incorrect.
>> Flarm is merely a distraction in gaggles. Its value
>> is between thermals and approaching them. The makers
>> obviously believe this aswell because it has a 5 minute
>> mute facility specifically intended for use gaggles.
>
> Does it warn you when a new glider approaches to join the gaggle? That
> would be useful, even if the gliders already in the gaggle were muted.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Keep in mind that Flarm, and for that matter ADS-B, are basically systems
for aircraft to exchange position information in real time. What the
receiving aircraft does with that information is determined by software.
Software, by its nature, is constantly under development.

This means that we can expect constant improvement in how traffic conflict
is determined and how that information is displayed. We're still very early
in this game.

Bill Daniels

[Mike Schumann]

As someone else noted, ADS-B is purely a way to broadcast the position,
speed, direction, and altitude of all aircraft. The ability to interpret
this data and display or announce it in a way that is meaningful to a pilot
will vary greatly from one potential implementation to another.

Obviously, gliders need some very specialized collision avoidance algorithms
on the receiving end, as we tend to intentionally fly in close proximity to
one another. However, that does not mean that the system should be turned
off in a gaggle. Rather it means that we need more intelligence in glider
specific ADS-B units, so we can determine if there is a collision threat in
a gaggle, or if there is an orderly structure to the gliders in the thermal
that does not pose any issues. There are lots of times that I am in a
gaggle and lose sight of the other glider(s). It would be great to have a
way to know where the gliders are that I can't see, in a way that does not
provide sensory overload.

It would be very interesting if someone could come up with a low cost ADS-B
transceiver that had an interface to a PDA (if desired) to handle the
processing and display of inbound traffic and weather data. That would make
it easy for a lot of different people to get very creative with innovative
collision avoidance software, without incurring the big costs associated
with hardware development and with certification issues.

Mike Schumann

"5Z" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 25, 1:57 pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
> nospam.com> wrote:
>> We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
>> affordable for glider pilots.
>
> I agree.
>
> But... I doubt ADS-B will have the smarts to provide intelligent
> warnings and ignore false alerts due to the close proximity we fly in.
>
> I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing which gliders in the
> gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?
>
> -Tom
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mark Dickson]

If you mute Flarm it mutes all contacts. The problem
with it in a gaggle (all Flarm equipped) is that it
is constantly going off and it is difficult if not
impossible to be sure who it is warning you about;
it would certainly not be possible to tell whether
the conflict was in the gaggle or joining (at least
not with my Swiss Flarm). That said, I don't mute
mine and it is a valuable aid to lookout. When thermalling
alone or with one other glider it gives early warning
of other gliders approaching your thermal and overall
it is a valuable addition to a good lookout; as long
as others have it. I have only had limited use of
mine and my experiences may well be contradicted by
others.

At 21:18 26 October 2007, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Mark Dickson wrote:
>>> On Oct 26, 8:32 am, 5Z wrote:
>>>> I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing
>>>> which gliders in the
>>>> gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?
>>>>
>>>> -Tom
>> Incorrect.
>> Flarm is merely a distraction in gaggles. Its value
>> is between thermals and approaching them. The makers
>> obviously believe this aswell because it has a 5 minute
>> mute facility specifically intended for use gaggles.
>
>Does it warn you when a new glider approaches to join
>the gaggle? That
>would be useful, even if the gliders already in the
>gaggle were muted.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>* Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>* 'Transponders in Sailplanes' http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
>* 'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation' at
>www.motorglider.org
>

[pascal]

We have been using Flarm devices for the last two seasons and are very
satisfied with its performance, between thermals, near airports and in
gaggles. Yes it does warn you of threats in a gaggle and it tends to
be surprisingly appropriate (risque de resource intempestive for
instance). There may be situations where alarms bother more than they
inform, but it's not very frequent, and I personally don't care the
extra noise. It's always a shock when you pass a glider coming from
the front without having the warning (because it is not equipped with
flarm); and despite looking out you surprise yourself not having
noticed that particular glider. Don't hesitate: try it in different
situations, and you will see how effective the algorithms are. I have
been using it for x-country flights, competitions and passenger
flights near the airport, at home and abroad (France): not without any
more on a day with hundreds of gliders in the air.
In addition, cables, towers and other obstacles are listed; flying in
the Alps knowing the flarm will tell you about these terrible dangers
is so much better. No, you can't rely entirely on flarm warnings, but
it does add a lot to your own vigilance.

Pascal Duport
Geneva
Groupe genevois de vol à voile - Montricher

[danlj]

Aviation Consumer's current issue has an article on traffic-detection
systems. It points out that mode S is already going away and ADS-B in
only just beginning to be installed. and that a defect of ADS-B is
that several seconds may elapse between the time aircraft A replies to
the radar facility, the facility processes the signal and calculates
vector information, and then broadcasts this. So this isn't going to
help as much as we'd like in gaggles, never mind that it won't be
available everywhere for a long time.

It sounds as though FLARM is available and functional. It might be
possible for pilots to cooperatively use it without an FAA
imprimateur, though the FTC will have jurisdiction over the use of
frequency.

Dan

On Oct 26, 4:53 pm, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> As someone else noted, ADS-B is purely a way to broadcast the position,
> speed, direction, and altitude of all aircraft. ...
>
> ...we need more intelligence in glider specific ADS-B units,
> so we can determine if there is a collision threat in
> a gaggle, or if there is an orderly structure to the gliders in the thermal
> that does not pose any issues....
>
> > On Oct 25, 1:57 pm, "Mike Schumann" wrote:
> >> We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
> >> affordable for glider pilots.
>
> > I agree.
>
> > But... I doubt ADS-B will have the smarts to provide intelligent
> > warnings and ignore false alerts due to the close proximity we fly in.
>
> > -Tom

[[email protected]]

We should be able to attend the SSA convention in February.
If you wish we can make a presentation about FLARM.
We have no reservation whatsoever to sell FLARM in the US, legal
questions can be solved, but we would like to get positive feedback
from the US soaring community before doing so.

Some comments about the recent r.a.s. posts:

The frequency in all FLARM units can be set by software, therefore all
units work worldwide.
The transceiver is designed to meet FCC rules, but we have not yet
fully verified this.
It transmits at less than 1% duty cycle and (currently) 10mW.

"Nuisance alarms" versus "real alarms" will always be a hot topic for
any collision warning device in soaring.
1) We can and will further reduce "nuisance alarms" based on pilot
feedback and our own continuing research.
2) If the pilot "behaves well" in a gaggle he is much less likely to
suffer from "nuisance alarms" as the predicted trajectory will not
cross someone else's.
3) One of the unique features of FLARM is that each aircraft performs
and transmits its own trajectory prediction based on aircraft type,
flight path history and other parameters. This results in superior
system performance, especially in high density or heterogeneous
traffic environments.
It also safes a lot of processing power as each unit only needs to do
one sophisticated prediction and then just compares all received
trajectories to it.
Position and velocity vector is not sufficient information for a smart
collision alert, and don't get me started on the cheap "transponder
sniffer" devices... ;-)

Urs --- FLARM

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

danlj wrote:
> Aviation Consumer's current issue has an article on traffic-detection
> systems. It points out that mode S is already going away and ADS-B in
> only just beginning to be installed. and that a defect of ADS-B is
> that several seconds may elapse between the time aircraft A replies to
> the radar facility, the facility processes the signal and calculates
> vector information, and then broadcasts this. So this isn't going to
> help as much as we'd like in gaggles, never mind that it won't be
> available everywhere for a long time.

I haven't read the article, but the above is only partially correct.
This only refers to the case of an ADS-B equipped aircraft detecting a
nearby Mode C or S equipped aircraft. When two ADS-B (more correctly,
UAT) equipped aircraft are in proximity, they communicate directly with
minimal delay, the ground network and radar facilities are not involved.

> It sounds as though FLARM is available and functional. It might be
> possible for pilots to cooperatively use it without an FAA
> imprimateur, though the FTC will have jurisdiction over the use of
> frequency.

If a FLARM-like device using an FCC approved frequency was available, we
could use it without FAA approval. But, our glider population density
is much lower than Europe, except in a few areas, and other aircraft are
a hazard these days in many areas. ADS-B UAT is a FLARM-like device
with regulatory issues that make it difficult to develop a low cost
device. It seems to me that the best thing to do is attack the
regulatory problem, so that gliders, balloons, light sport aircraft,
etc. can all participate in the system at a lower cost...

Marc

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

wrote:
> Position and velocity vector is not sufficient information for a smart
> collision alert,

What more information are you using besides position, pressure altitude,
and GPS-derived velocity vector to calculate a trajectory prediction?
If adequate information and processing power is available, than it
should not matter in the least whether the prediction is made by the
transmitter or receiver...

Marc

[Ian]

On 26 Oct, 18:18, Ramy > wrote:
> On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian > wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> > [1] and have no intention of doing so: I'm profoundly sceptical about
> > a further increase in the number of things to fiddle with and focus on
> > inside the glider. Why not just look out?
>
> Because your human eyes can't detect most threats on time to avoid it,
> especially gliders and especially if they are comming from behind or
> the side.

The pilots of these gliders should be able to see me - if they are not
busy concentrating on yet another electronic gadget in the cockpit.
Anyway, my human eyes have successfully detected /all/ threats in time
to avoid them so far. How common are midair glider collisions?


Ian

[Ian]

On 27 Oct, 17:08, pascal > wrote:

> It's always a shock when you pass a glider coming from
> the front without having the warning (because it is not equipped with
> flarm); and despite looking out you surprise yourself not having
> noticed that particular glider.

I wonder how well you look (ie one looks) out when a little part of
the brain assumes that flarm would have reacted to anything that
mattered?

Ian

[Ian]

On 28 Oct, 05:51, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Position and velocity vector is not sufficient information for a smart
> > collision alert,
>
> What more information are you using besides position, pressure altitude,
> and GPS-derived velocity vector to calculate a trajectory prediction?
> If adequate information and processing power is available, than it
> should not matter in the least whether the prediction is made by the
> transmitter or receiver...

If his system is using aircraft performance as well, then for the
trajectory to be calculated by the receiver would either require:

1) aircraft type to be transmitted, and the receiver to have a
database of all possible performance parameters or

2) performance parameters to be transmitted with the other data

Both these have obvious (I think) disadvantages - it makes sense to me
to have th etransmitting aircraft say where it thinks it's going.

Ian

[[email protected]]

On Oct 27, 11:40 pm, Ian > wrote:
> On 26 Oct, 18:18, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian > wrote:
> > <SNIP>

> Anyway, my human eyes have successfully detected /all/ threats in time
> to avoid them so far. How common are midair glider collisions?
>
> Ian

How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time. What
margin of safety is that down to? How do you know other aircraft (and/
or ATC) did not take action to avoid you and you were never aware of
them? I personally do not use logic like "my past landing attempt did
not kill me so my landings are great" but I look at what you are
saying as "I've not run into anything sofar therefore my visual
lookouts are perfectly adequate" - it is not a high threshold for
fidelity in this discussion, especially when you appreciate how much
the big sky is actually part of being responsible for you still being
alive. Do you routinely do clearing turns while cruising along to
clear all those large blind spots we have? How clear of clouds do you
really stay? How do you see fast traffic about to come out the cloud?
Have you ever seen how really hard it is to see a white glider closing
at over 100 knots head on against snow laden white mountainous
background?

Go fly in an aircraft with a TCAS or PCAS or similar and see how much
general traffic you don't spot until the system warns you to really
look or (carefully) turn the aircraft so you can see traffic. Flying
with a PCAS in my gliders has warned me a few times to start looking
intensely for traffic (much more than you would be able to do
continuously as a part of standard traffic scanning). The few closest
ones have been power traffic, in uncontrolled but high density traffic
areas some close and very oblivious to my glider being there at all.
>From what I've seen the adoption of PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are
very viral. Lots of non believers until one or two glider pilots start
using them and then start reporting they really work, especially all
the traffic they otherwise would not notice...

Oh yes I've deliberately not stuck to Flarm, and I think Flarm would
be a very bad move for the USA. We need gliders in high traffic areas
with Transponders and PCAS today and ADS-B in future. Too many of us
fly in very high traffic areas, we need to be visible to and
communicating with power traffic and ATC as well as worrying about
glider-glider conflicts. Politically I am much more worried about a
glider taking out a passenger jet than I am about glider-glider
collisions. The last person who wanted to argue with me strongly that
mid-air collisions do not happen was flying with me in a Duo Discus
near Minden when not far away the ASG-29 met with a Hawker. Hell of a
way to win an argument.

Darryl

[Mike Schumann]

Is there any chance that you could adapt your FLARM system to conform to the
ADS-B specs in the US so that it would fit into the overall US airspace
strategy? That would make your device very interesting, not only to the
glider community, but also to the power aircraft market.

Mike Schumann

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> We should be able to attend the SSA convention in February.
> If you wish we can make a presentation about FLARM.
> We have no reservation whatsoever to sell FLARM in the US, legal
> questions can be solved, but we would like to get positive feedback
> from the US soaring community before doing so.
>
> Some comments about the recent r.a.s. posts:
>
> The frequency in all FLARM units can be set by software, therefore all
> units work worldwide.
> The transceiver is designed to meet FCC rules, but we have not yet
> fully verified this.
> It transmits at less than 1% duty cycle and (currently) 10mW.
>
> "Nuisance alarms" versus "real alarms" will always be a hot topic for
> any collision warning device in soaring.
> 1) We can and will further reduce "nuisance alarms" based on pilot
> feedback and our own continuing research.
> 2) If the pilot "behaves well" in a gaggle he is much less likely to
> suffer from "nuisance alarms" as the predicted trajectory will not
> cross someone else's.
> 3) One of the unique features of FLARM is that each aircraft performs
> and transmits its own trajectory prediction based on aircraft type,
> flight path history and other parameters. This results in superior
> system performance, especially in high density or heterogeneous
> traffic environments.
> It also safes a lot of processing power as each unit only needs to do
> one sophisticated prediction and then just compares all received
> trajectories to it.
> Position and velocity vector is not sufficient information for a smart
> collision alert, and don't get me started on the cheap "transponder
> sniffer" devices... ;-)
>
> Urs --- FLARM
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ian]

On 28 Oct, 07:18, " >
wrote:
> On Oct 27, 11:40 pm, Ian > wrote:
>
> > On 26 Oct, 18:18, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian > wrote:
> > > <SNIP>
> > Anyway, my human eyes have successfully detected /all/ threats in time
> > to avoid them so far. How common are midair glider collisions?

> How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time.

Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots
have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully.

> What
> margin of safety is that down to?

Can you define "margin of safety" in this case, please?

> How do you know other aircraft (and/
> or ATC) did not take action to avoid you and you were never aware of
> them?

It doesn't really matter to me whether I successfully avoided them or
they successfully avoided me (that will almost certainly have happened
a lot, as I fly wood) - but I can say that "looking out" has always
worked for me. That's not to get complacent, of course, but I would
feel a lot happier if I knew that other pilots were not, to some
inevitable extent, relying on a magic gadget to lookout for them.

> I personally do not use logic like "my past landing attempt did
> not kill me so my landings are great" but I look at what you are
> saying as "I've not run into anything sofar therefore my visual
> lookouts are perfectly adequate"

How about "unless you buy a radio altimeter you will never be able to
plan an outlanding properly?"

> Lots of non believers until one or two glider pilots start
> using them and then start reporting they really work, especially all
> the traffic they otherwise would not notice...

This is where I am sceptical. Yes, I am sure these things will give
lots of extra alerts - they'd hardly be worth buying if they didn't.
But we are not exactly plagued, world wide, by glider-glider
collisions, are we? So what this means is that pilots will spend a lot
more time reacting to false alarms (they must be false, because if
they weren't they'd end in a collision without the magic gadgets).

Do pilots have time available to do that? What are they not going to
do instead?

I can see a far stronger argument for using these things in areas
where other aircraft will not be looking out - Class A airspace, say,
or cloud flying, or scud running. But for normal flying ... colour me
unconvinced. That's only unconvinced yet, though. I'm not a complete
luddite. GPS sets are great - they may distract pilots' attention from
more important stuff, but not nearly as much as maps do. If flarm and
the like lead to a statistically significant reduction in the number
of midair collisions I'll be all for 'em.

Ian

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> So what this means is that pilots will spend a lot more time reacting to
> false alarms (they must be false, because if they weren't they'd end in a
> collision without the magic gadgets).

I have been flying FLARM-equipped aircraft from my first introductory flight.

My reaction to a FLARM-alarm is simple: Check the direction (a quick glance at
the display mounted on the top of the glare shield) and map the target to
what I know is out there. In many more cases than I'd like to admit I find
an aircraft on a conflicting course that I simply had not seen before.

I MIGHT have found it myself once it got closer or manoevered, most propably
still in time to avoid a collision (If I did not believe that, I would not
be flying at all) but FLARM notified me earlier and so I reactions typically
are more relaxed. I do not consider FLARM firing in that situation a false
alarm, it is exactly what the gadget is intended for.

I also do not mind alarms when thermalling. When sharing a thermal with
well-matched aircraft and well-behaved pilots FLARM generally stays
quiet. If there is a repeated alarm from my six I tend to leave as this
means someone is flying behind me in a way that bothers the device and
that in turn bothers me. Never mind wether the threat is real or not.

The same is true in other alarm-situations. I have never had to mute the
thing because of an annoying repeated alarm from some target I knew about.
I simply avoid them by a wide enough margin. Not just to silence the alarm,
it feels like the right thing to do anyway and the FLARM-software seems to
think the same and shuts up.

There is no fiddling with FLARM as with other gadgets. It turns on when the
battery is connected and that's it. Sure you can toggle different modes, mute
it etc.. I never do. And if you do there just the single button to press.

The only thing I really don't like about it is when I'm down on the ground
and stopped and get a shrieking "impending death"-alarm because someone else
comes in over to land further down the field :-). Yes, if there were to
be a collision in that situation I might get out and dive for cover or
something :-), but still that is the one thing I would change about the
software: Do not go off after the aircraft has come to a complete stop.

> If flarm and the like lead to a statistically significant reduction in
> the number of midair collisions I'll be all for 'em.

I firmly believe it does. I would prefer a solution that would also target
power traffic both commercial and recreational more than FLARM does (our
tow-plane has one of course :-)), but that does not mean I am not going to use
what's there.

I have not ever felt distracted by FLARM and think if there is any influence
on my lookout then it actually improves 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."

[Bruce]

Ian wrote:
> On 28 Oct, 07:18, " >
> wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 11:40 pm, Ian > wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Oct, 18:18, Ramy > wrote:
>>>> On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian > wrote:
>>>> <SNIP>
>>> Anyway, my human eyes have successfully detected /all/ threats in time
>>> to avoid them so far. How common are midair glider collisions?
>
>> How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time.
>
> Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots
> have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully.
>


>> What
>> margin of safety is that down to?
>
> Can you define "margin of safety" in this case, please?
>
>> How do you know other aircraft (and/
>> or ATC) did not take action to avoid you and you were never aware of
>> them?
>
> It doesn't really matter to me whether I successfully avoided them or
> they successfully avoided me (that will almost certainly have happened
> a lot, as I fly wood) - but I can say that "looking out" has always
> worked for me. That's not to get complacent, of course, but I would
> feel a lot happier if I knew that other pilots were not, to some
> inevitable extent, relying on a magic gadget to lookout for them.
>
>> I personally do not use logic like "my past landing attempt did
>> not kill me so my landings are great" but I look at what you are
>> saying as "I've not run into anything sofar therefore my visual
>> lookouts are perfectly adequate"
>
> How about "unless you buy a radio altimeter you will never be able to
> plan an outlanding properly?"
>
>> Lots of non believers until one or two glider pilots start
>> using them and then start reporting they really work, especially all
>> the traffic they otherwise would not notice...
>
> This is where I am sceptical. Yes, I am sure these things will give
> lots of extra alerts - they'd hardly be worth buying if they didn't.
> But we are not exactly plagued, world wide, by glider-glider
> collisions, are we? So what this means is that pilots will spend a lot
> more time reacting to false alarms (they must be false, because if
> they weren't they'd end in a collision without the magic gadgets).
>
Don't let the fact that you have not had or realised that you have had a near
miss to date blind you to the risks. Even when everyone is being careful things
can, and do, go wrong. It is generally not the aircraft we saw that represent
the highest risk we have encountered. It is the ones we failed to observe.

In at least one situation I avoided a collision more by luck than judgement.

Regional contest - lots (>20)of different performance gliders in the same
thermal. Me being the novice slowly getting the last out of the top of the
thermal - waiting for the gate to open. Fortunately someone on the other side of
the thermal saw an ASW20 flying perfectly synchronised, directly below me
getting way too close.

The ASW20 pilot did not see me around the brim of his hat. I could not see him,
even after the call. ('xxx' above you!) When he saw what he was doing he dived
away and left the thermal. I only realised it was me they were talking about
later - When we looked at the traces afterwards it was less than 5m vertical
separation...

If we had Flarm we would not have been in the situation of not knowing about
each other.

> Do pilots have time available to do that? What are they not going to
> do instead?
>
> I can see a far stronger argument for using these things in areas
> where other aircraft will not be looking out - Class A airspace, say,
> or cloud flying, or scud running. But for normal flying ... colour me
> unconvinced. That's only unconvinced yet, though. I'm not a complete
> luddite. GPS sets are great - they may distract pilots' attention from
> more important stuff, but not nearly as much as maps do. If flarm and
> the like lead to a statistically significant reduction in the number
> of midair collisions I'll be all for 'em.
>
> Ian
>
Flarm is a tool - like all tools it is only as useful as the person using it
makes it. I have met at least one pilot who's over dependence on it makes him
dangerous - Most reasonable people will use it for what it is designed to be. An
aid to optimising their lookout. It is becoming steadily more common in South
African gliders and for that reason is becoming worth having.

[Eric Greenwell]

Ian wrote:
> On 26 Oct, 18:18, Ramy > wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian > wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> [1] and have no intention of doing so: I'm profoundly sceptical about
>>> a further increase in the number of things to fiddle with and focus on
>>> inside the glider. Why not just look out?
>> Because your human eyes can't detect most threats on time to avoid it,
>> especially gliders and especially if they are comming from behind or
>> the side.
>
> The pilots of these gliders should be able to see me - if they are not
> busy concentrating on yet another electronic gadget in the cockpit.

You haven't flown with a FLARM, yet you keep saying this. Why do you
think they are "concentrating" on FLARM? From what I've read about it,
and from what users say, there is no "concentrating": you go about your
flying until it alerts you.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Robert Danewid]

There are ca 9 000 FLARM units in use in Europe, and all who use them
seems to be in favour of it. There seems to be no FLARMs in the US, but
a lot of people who is against it.

When I bought my ASW 28-18E last winter it was already equipped with a
FLARM. I used to be against FLARM for all the reasons listed in this
thread, now that I have flown with it I am in favour of it.

Robert Danewid
ASW 28-18E RD

[Eric Greenwell]

Ian wrote:
> On 27 Oct, 17:08, pascal > wrote:
>
>> It's always a shock when you pass a glider coming from
>> the front without having the warning (because it is not equipped with
>> flarm); and despite looking out you surprise yourself not having
>> noticed that particular glider.
>
> I wonder how well you look (ie one looks) out when a little part of
> the brain assumes that flarm would have reacted to anything that
> mattered?

There is always the problem of adverse compensation when a safety device
is introduced. Monitoring of the situation should continue after the
introduction to ensure the desired increase in safety occurrs. I believe
this is the case with FLARM.

What puzzles me is how skeptical you are about a widely accepted device
you have not used. FLARM has sold 9000 units. 9000! When 9000 pilots
voluntarily equip their aircraft with an $800 device, I am inclined to
think there may be something quite useful there and to look forward to
an opportunity to use one.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Ian wrote:
> On 28 Oct, 05:51, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Position and velocity vector is not sufficient information for a smart
>>> collision alert,
>> What more information are you using besides position, pressure altitude,
>> and GPS-derived velocity vector to calculate a trajectory prediction?
>> If adequate information and processing power is available, than it
>> should not matter in the least whether the prediction is made by the
>> transmitter or receiver...
>
> If his system is using aircraft performance as well, then for the
> trajectory to be calculated by the receiver would either require:
>
> 1) aircraft type to be transmitted, and the receiver to have a
> database of all possible performance parameters or
>
> 2) performance parameters to be transmitted with the other data
>
> Both these have obvious (I think) disadvantages - it makes sense to me
> to have th etransmitting aircraft say where it thinks it's going.

I can't see the need to transmit anything more than the aircraft
category and 3D velocity vector (which are both transmitted in the ADS-B
message), as what matters is what the aircraft is likely to be doing in
the next few seconds, not what it could do given a longer period of time.

Marc

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:9S1Vi.131$MW.53@trndny05...
> Ian wrote:
>> On 27 Oct, 17:08, pascal > wrote:
>>
>>> It's always a shock when you pass a glider coming from
>>> the front without having the warning (because it is not equipped with
>>> flarm); and despite looking out you surprise yourself not having
>>> noticed that particular glider.
>>
>> I wonder how well you look (ie one looks) out when a little part of
>> the brain assumes that flarm would have reacted to anything that
>> mattered?
>
> There is always the problem of adverse compensation when a safety device
> is introduced. Monitoring of the situation should continue after the
> introduction to ensure the desired increase in safety occurrs. I believe
> this is the case with FLARM.
>
> What puzzles me is how skeptical you are about a widely accepted device
> you have not used. FLARM has sold 9000 units. 9000! When 9000 pilots
> voluntarily equip their aircraft with an $800 device, I am inclined to
> think there may be something quite useful there and to look forward to an
> opportunity to use one.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

It's just human nature. It's called the "Negative Expert" syndrome. Every
technological advance in soaring has met the same negative initial response.
Later, when everybody is using the technology, the same people will defend
it against the NEXT advance.

The basic concept of real-time position exchange and conflict determination
is an outstanding idea. It's one that, properly implemented, will increase
safety and reduce cockpit workload. The only real thing to discuss is how
to best implement it. All indications are that FLARM is extremely well
executed.

It's true that glider traffic densities are far higher in Europe than in the
US which is why FLARM was developed there first. However, there are some
locations in the US where glider traffic is dense enough to justify FLARM.
There are also benefits beyond mid-air avoidance. For example, knowing
where your soaring buddy is without jamming 123.3.

Absent some wholley unexpected blooming of FAA technological leadership,
ADS-B is far enough in the future for several development cycles of FLARM to
pass before we can afford ADS-B. If FLARM can be adopted to the US legal
and regulatory environment today, I say "bring it on".

Bill Daniels

[Ian]

On 28 Oct, 13:55, Bruce > wrote:
> Ian wrote:
> > On 28 Oct, 07:18, " >
> > wrote:
> >> On Oct 27, 11:40 pm, Ian > wrote:
>
> >>> On 26 Oct, 18:18, Ramy > wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian > wrote:
> >>>> <SNIP>
> >>> Anyway, my human eyes have successfully detected /all/ threats in time
> >>> to avoid them so far. How common are midair glider collisions?
>
> >> How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time.
>
> > Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots
> > have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully.
>
> >> What
> >> margin of safety is that down to?
>
> > Can you define "margin of safety" in this case, please?
>
> >> How do you know other aircraft (and/
> >> or ATC) did not take action to avoid you and you were never aware of
> >> them?
>
> > It doesn't really matter to me whether I successfully avoided them or
> > they successfully avoided me (that will almost certainly have happened
> > a lot, as I fly wood) - but I can say that "looking out" has always
> > worked for me. That's not to get complacent, of course, but I would
> > feel a lot happier if I knew that other pilots were not, to some
> > inevitable extent, relying on a magic gadget to lookout for them.
>
> >> I personally do not use logic like "my past landing attempt did
> >> not kill me so my landings are great" but I look at what you are
> >> saying as "I've not run into anything sofar therefore my visual
> >> lookouts are perfectly adequate"
>
> > How about "unless you buy a radio altimeter you will never be able to
> > plan an outlanding properly?"
>
> >> Lots of non believers until one or two glider pilots start
> >> using them and then start reporting they really work, especially all
> >> the traffic they otherwise would not notice...
>
> > This is where I am sceptical. Yes, I am sure these things will give
> > lots of extra alerts - they'd hardly be worth buying if they didn't.
> > But we are not exactly plagued, world wide, by glider-glider
> > collisions, are we? So what this means is that pilots will spend a lot
> > more time reacting to false alarms (they must be false, because if
> > they weren't they'd end in a collision without the magic gadgets).
>
> Don't let the fact that you have not had or realised that you have had a near
> miss to date blind you to the risks. Even when everyone is being careful things
> can, and do, go wrong. It is generally not the aircraft we saw that represent
> the highest risk we have encountered. It is the ones we failed to observe.

I agree with everything you say. I only have three concerns:

1) flarm (and the like) alarms must divert the pilot's attention from
something else.

2) pilots will inevitably, and with the best will in the world, start
relying on flarm to tell them when something's approaching - "I'll
just reprogramme the GPS with a better turning point - the magic
machine will keep me safe"

3) the laws of the air very carefully specify who has right of way and
whose duty is to make to change to their course. Information on
impending conflict only, without right-of-way/stand-on responsibility,
will potentially be very difficult to interpret.

I can see some places where it could be very useful.

Ian

[Ian]

On 28 Oct, 14:53, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Ian wrote:

> > The pilots of these gliders should be able to see me - if they are not
> > busy concentrating on yet another electronic gadget in the cockpit.
>
> You haven't flown with a FLARM, yet you keep saying this. Why do you
> think they are "concentrating" on FLARM? From what I've read about it,
> and from what users say, there is no "concentrating": you go about your
> flying until it alerts you.

.... at which point, if I interpret the pictures at www.flarm.com
correctly, you have to look at the thing to get an idea of where it
thinks trouble is coming from, then work out of its real or not, then
work out what to do?

Ian

[Dan G]

On Oct 28, 8:23 pm, Ian > wrote:
> I agree with everything you say. I only have three concerns:

Those are quite common ones, but I don't think they hold much water.
Flarm's beep is quite distinctive and no pilot would ever have a
problem discerning it from his vario. The display is a bit small from
the units I've looked at, but clear. It uses the o'clock system - it
lights up to let you know another Flarm equipped glider is about, and
only beeps if it thinks there's a problem. There's no need to touch
the unit in flight. I've not heard of a pilot who has fitted Flarm and
stopped looking out - pilots aren't _that_ stupid.

If your Flarm is beeping at you, paying attention to it should be your
top priority - then searching for the conflict, and figuring out what
to do as per normal when you've sighted it.


Dan

[Dan G]

On Oct 28, 6:40 am, Ian > wrote:
> How common are midair glider collisions?

http://glidemet.co.uk/?p=414


Dan

[Dan G]

On Oct 26, 4:07 pm, Ian > wrote:
> I have never used it myself [1] but I was chatting about it just a few
> days ago with an instructor at a busy ridge site here. His view was
> that it's a menace: it generates far too many false alarms, and pilots
> who try to evade non-existent hazards may thereby cause significant
> danger. What are you supposed to do, he asked, if you get a six-second-
> t-death warning about a glider which is supposedly dead ahead but
> which you can't see? He reckoned the main problem was that the system
> only believes in "cruising" and "thermalling" and gets hopelessly
> confused by the turn at the end of a beat on the ridge.

Sounds like you're talking about the SGU trial at Portmoak (or at
least, that's the same as the opinion of one vocal instructor there -
whether or not those are the conclusions the SGU arrive at themselves
remains to be seen). They fly a rather short ridge (only a few km)
which is not representative of normal glider operations - not sure
that their findings, when published, can be extrapolated beyond their
own circumstances.

Lasham, by contrast, did find that Flarm met their needs (no doubt
partly motivated by the fatal collision there in 2004). They're a flat-
land thermal site - probably the busiest in the UK. I think the fact
that their entire fleet (some thirty gliders and tugs) has been fitted
with Flarm, and that many more units are being fitted to the private
fleet there, is a strong endorsement.


Dan

[Mike Schumann]

I don't think that people in the US are against FLARM or a similar type of
device. I think that the risk environment in the US is different than in
Europe due to the much larger amount of power VFR traffic, which poses at
least as much of a threat to gliders as other gliders. My concern is with
introducing another technology that doesn't address the entire problem,
which then diverts everyone from implementing the technology (ADS-B) which
really could solve this for everyone.

The only negatives that I can see with an ADS-B based approach is the cost,
and the very slow FAA rollout schedule. I don't understand why inherently
ADS-B technology needs to be more expensive than FLARM. If it's a
certification issue, I would suspect that the FAA would be willing to be
flexible if the options are certified units that are unaffordable, vs. cheap
units that are self certified (like Light Sport Aircraft) which would be
widely deployed by gliders, ultralights, LSAs and UAVs which otherwise
couldn't afford the technology.

The FAA rollout schedule is also not necessarily a show stopper. Without
FAA ground stations, ADS-B equipped gliders won't be visible to air traffic
control or TCAS equipped planes. However, ADS-B equipped aircraft are fully
visible to each other, just like FLARM equipped planes are in Europe. The
bonus, once the FAA catches up with everybody else, is that ADS-B users will
then be fully integrated into the air traffic control system (plus be able
to receive Nexrad weather, etc.).

Mike Schumann

"Robert Danewid" > wrote in message
...
> There are ca 9 000 FLARM units in use in Europe, and all who use them
> seems to be in favour of it. There seems to be no FLARMs in the US, but a
> lot of people who is against it.
>
> When I bought my ASW 28-18E last winter it was already equipped with a
> FLARM. I used to be against FLARM for all the reasons listed in this
> thread, now that I have flown with it I am in favour of it.
>
> Robert Danewid
> ASW 28-18E RD
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[[email protected]]

The discussion of using FLARM in the USA is just so much self
flagulation. I have flown in France and used FLARM. A very nice,
compact, and simple system that is easy to understand while flying.
The primary problem is exactly the same as gliders having a
transponder in the USA. There are many, many gliders flying around
the Alps that do not have FLARM. You get comfortable with responding
to the signals from FLARM and then WHAM...there is a glider headed
right at your nose and no FLARM !

I feel that for the USA it would be a much better course to encourage
the installation of transponders and development of systems that use
transponder technology to do the work of FLARM. These chat groups
seem dominated by people constantly arguing that they won't buy a
transponder because a new system is just over the horizon whether it
is ADS-B or Mode S. The reality that we all see is that the existing
system is going to be it for some time. By working with the existing
system you get gliders to become full fledged members of the aviation
community that exists today. You become better friends with other
traffic because they can see you on their collision avoidance
systems. Having FLARM means you are still invisable to commercial
traffic and the air traffic controllers. It means that instead of
having just two groups of gliders in the USA (with or without
transponders) you create a microscopic group that have FLARM and are
still invisable to the air traffic control system.

Flying around Reno became DRAMATICALLY better after installing a
transponder. AIr traffic control sees you and directs all of their
traffic away from you without any effort on the glider pilot's part.
Commercial traffic and others with "fish finders" happily see you and
avoid without any sweat being shed. Work should be put into small,
modestly expensive collision avoidance systems that use the existing
transponders.

Guy Acheson "DDS"

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
Work should be put into small,
> modestly expensive collision avoidance systems that use the existing
> transponders.

Do you mean something like the Zaon XRX (modestly expensive at a list
price of $1800) or the Zaon MRX ($550)?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

>> there is no "concentrating": you go about your
>> flying until it alerts you.
>
> ... at which point, if I interpret the pictures at www.flarm.com
> correctly, you have to look at the thing to get an idea of where it
> thinks trouble is coming from, then work out of its real or not, then
> work out what to do?

It then does indeed divert your attention away from whatever your are
currently doing so you can check for the incoming. If you didn't spot
them yet that diversion is a useful change of priorities I'd say. If
you did spot them before it's time to think of something to do NOW
anyway.

About the "work out what to do": Yes. You will definitely have to work
that out. Quickly. Without FLARM you would have to do it more quickly
when you notice the traffic (or just the conflict, if you had seen them
before) without electronic aid a few moments later. I prefer to have
more time.

Note that if you noticed the potential problem before the alarm as in
the vast majority of cases you will likely have manoevered long before
so there won't be an alarm at all.

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."

[Bert Willing[_2_]]

>> How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time.
>
> Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots
> have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully.

/ALL/ the pilots who died here in Europe so far have always successfully
detected and dealt with threats.

Except the last one.

[mart]

look at it from the other side.

If you and the people around you do everything right, you won't hear flarm.

If you or somebody around you makes a mistake you will hear the alarm.

The trick is to keep the instrument silent. This means there is zero extra cockpit load if you keep a proper look-out.

People against flarm are worried that there view of themselves as a "superpilot" that never needs instruments is going to have a rude awakening, because the sound of the buzzer means that somebody failed.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 27, 10:16 pm, " > wrote:
, and don't get me started on the cheap "transponder
> sniffer" devices... ;-)
>
> Urs --- FLARM

Thanks for joining the discussion and for the factual input on FLARM.

Cheap transponder sniffing devices such as the Zaon MRX that I use in
my glider and my airplane can do something that FLARM cannot do. They
can warn of the proximity of an aircraft with transponder but no FLAM.

In over 25 years of flying gliders I have had many many more near
misses with powered aircraft than with other gliders. It was my last
experience of a King Air going through my gaggle with 2 other glider
that convinced me to buy the Zaon.

I'll be the first to admit that Xaon MRX would be useless if all
gliders had transponders. The designer was approached to see if an
intelligent muting alogorith could be added but he responded there was
insufficient processing power in that unit. So integrate the sniffer
with FLARM and provide intelligent muting of transponder alerts then
you would have a US market.


Andy

[Ian]

On 29 Oct, 07:25, Marian Aldenhövel > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> there is no "concentrating": you go about your
>
> >> flying until it alerts you.
>
> > ... at which point, if I interpret the pictures atwww.flarm.com
> > correctly, you have to look at the thing to get an idea of where it
> > thinks trouble is coming from, then work out of its real or not, then
> > work out what to do?

> About the "work out what to do": Yes. You will definitely have to work
> that out. Quickly. Without FLARM you would have to do it more quickly
> when you notice the traffic (or just the conflict, if you had seen them
> before) without electronic aid a few moments later. I prefer to have
> more time.

As I said on my first post in this thread, my only contact with flarm
has been through an instructor I know who occasionally teaches at a
site which has fitted it to two-seaters. He reports that, while ridge
soaring, he gets a huge number of false alarms: alerts for gliders
which aren't there at all, or whose turns at the end of a ridge beat
are being misinterpreted. So his students end up spending time
checking up false alarms ... time which they could be using to look
out better for real things?

I can see that I need to see what it's like myself, so I'm going to
have a go in one one these two seaters as soon as I can manage it.

Ian

[Ian]

On 28 Oct, 23:24, Dan G > wrote:

> Lasham, by contrast, did find that Flarm met their needs (no doubt
> partly motivated by the fatal collision there in 2004). They're a flat-
> land thermal site - probably the busiest in the UK. I think the fact
> that their entire fleet (some thirty gliders and tugs) has been fitted
> with Flarm, and that many more units are being fitted to the private
> fleet there, is a strong endorsement.

I note the point. Lasham, however, does sometimes seem to be a
slightly faddy place. It's not that long ago that they were telling us
all that motor gliders were the only way to do ab-initio training.

Are they making flarm mandatory for all private gliders on site?

Ian

[Ian]

On 28 Oct, 15:07, Robert Danewid >
wrote:
> There are ca 9 000 FLARM units in use in Europe, and all who use them
> seems to be in favour of it.

"In favour of" will soon be irrelevant, if it isn't already. With that
number around, the accident statistics should soon make the balance
between genuine information and distraction clear ... if it hasn't
already done so.

Ian

[Eric Greenwell]

Andy wrote:

> I'll be the first to admit that Xaon MRX would be useless if all
> gliders had transponders. The designer was approached to see if an
> intelligent muting alogorith could be added but he responded there was
> insufficient processing power in that unit.

If gliders everywhere were assigned a separate code, like the 0440 in
Minden, it might be a much easier task. Nearby gliders would not
generate alerts, for example, while airplanes using the 1200 code would be.

> So integrate the sniffer
> with FLARM and provide intelligent muting of transponder alerts then
> you would have a US market.

Yes! And if the logger were IGC approved, it would be an even bigger market.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Dan G]

On Oct 29, 6:02 pm, Ian > wrote:
> I note the point. Lasham, however, does sometimes seem to be a
> slightly faddy place. It's not that long ago that they were telling us
> all that motor gliders were the only way to do ab-initio training.

Yes, and they once claimed to have trained to someone to solo standard
on a simulator. Not heard of it since. However the loss of Alan
Purnell in a mid-air in 2004 must be a strongly motivating factor. He
was a very experienced pilot and instructor - but that's not always
enough.

> Are they making flarm mandatory for all private gliders on site?

No, in fact the take-up rate in the private fleet seems quite low. I
think a lot of people are waiting for the IGC-approved Flarm to come
out. But I do know of other gliders based elsewhere (e.g. two at
Dunstable) which are now Flarm-equipped because Lasham's move has jump-
started the market in the UK.


Dan

[Robert Danewid]

Eric Greenwell skrev:
Buy a Colibri FLARM and you have it!

Robert Danewid
AS 28-18E RD
>
> Yes! And if the logger were IGC approved, it would be an even bigger
> market.
>

[Bruce]

Those concerns are fairly universal, and because they are valid, you often get
people arguing one side of the story vociferously. In reality, when you analyse
it objectively, as I said it is a useful tool. So looking at the concerns -

1 -People who are susceptible to distraction will get distracted. The cause of
the distraction is not the problem there.

2- Complacency is very dangerous. Flarm alarm is a notice that you need your
eyes out of the cockpit and working on what the situation is - who should take
what action etc. Pilots who disregard their own safety may blame gadgets, but
again they are not the problem.

3 - As you commented, you need time to work out what to to, the more time you
have the better. Right of way is a really good , useful concept but personal
preference is for being alive rather than right about "the other guy should have
given way". I have given way on final approach for some witless power XC student
who was so intent on making his touch and go he had not remembered to switch
frequencies, or looked up from the runway at any point after the airfield came
into view. He never noticed the gliders in the circuit, probably was not aware
of winching going on. I sincerely hope he is now a safer, more experienced pilot
than the chap who no doubt reported an uneventful flight that day. Who knows,
but Flarm is unlikely to help with these situations because it is unlikely that
all/any of the school planes will get Flarm installed.

So yes, there is no substitute for the MK1 eyeball, but, like many other things
in the cockpit, Flarm can certainly help. Those whose bad habits are exacerbated
by toys may just benefit too. Even if indirectly, because if the other guy has
Flarm at least they will generally be taking evasive action. I really can't see
how you can lose.


Dan G wrote:
> On Oct 28, 8:23 pm, Ian > wrote:
>> I agree with everything you say. I only have three concerns:
>
> Those are quite common ones, but I don't think they hold much water.
> Flarm's beep is quite distinctive and no pilot would ever have a
> problem discerning it from his vario. The display is a bit small from
> the units I've looked at, but clear. It uses the o'clock system - it
> lights up to let you know another Flarm equipped glider is about, and
> only beeps if it thinks there's a problem. There's no need to touch
> the unit in flight. I've not heard of a pilot who has fitted Flarm and
> stopped looking out - pilots aren't _that_ stupid.
>
> If your Flarm is beeping at you, paying attention to it should be your
> top priority - then searching for the conflict, and figuring out what
> to do as per normal when you've sighted it.
>
>
> Dan
>

[Bruce]

touche!

Bert Willing wrote:
>>> How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time.
>> Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots
>> have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully.
>
> /ALL/ the pilots who died here in Europe so far have always successfully
> detected and dealt with threats.
>
> Except the last one.
>
>

[Bruce]

Dan G wrote:
> On Oct 26, 4:07 pm, Ian > wrote:
>> I have never used it myself [1] but I was chatting about it just a few
>> days ago with an instructor at a busy ridge site here. His view was
>> that it's a menace: it generates far too many false alarms, and pilots
>> who try to evade non-existent hazards may thereby cause significant
>> danger. What are you supposed to do, he asked, if you get a six-second-
>> t-death warning about a glider which is supposedly dead ahead but
>> which you can't see? He reckoned the main problem was that the system
>> only believes in "cruising" and "thermalling" and gets hopelessly
>> confused by the turn at the end of a beat on the ridge.
>
> Sounds like you're talking about the SGU trial at Portmoak (or at
> least, that's the same as the opinion of one vocal instructor there -
> whether or not those are the conclusions the SGU arrive at themselves
> remains to be seen). They fly a rather short ridge (only a few km)
> which is not representative of normal glider operations - not sure
> that their findings, when published, can be extrapolated beyond their
> own circumstances.
>
> Lasham, by contrast, did find that Flarm met their needs (no doubt
> partly motivated by the fatal collision there in 2004). They're a flat-
> land thermal site - probably the busiest in the UK. I think the fact
> that their entire fleet (some thirty gliders and tugs) has been fitted
> with Flarm, and that many more units are being fitted to the private
> fleet there, is a strong endorsement.
>
Only flown there once and the weather was lousy, but I would hardly call those
things thermals ;-)
>
> Dan
>

[Ramy]

On Oct 28, 5:39 am, Ian > wrote:

> Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots
> have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully.
>

Gee, Ian, do you really believe in that or just trolling? You have
about the same chance to get hit whether you look outside or fly blind
folded! What saves you is the big sky and nothing else. And all the
"threats" you think you detect are most likely non threats, the ones
which catch your eyes as moving targets close by. The real threats are
those which do not move and turned from a dot to full size in less
than 10 seconds. There are very few pilots who can honestly say they
had detected and avoided one of those thanks to just looking outside.

> This is where I am sceptical. Yes, I am sure these things will give
> lots of extra alerts - they'd hardly be worth buying if they didn't.
> But we are not exactly plagued, world wide, by glider-glider
> collisions, are we? So what this means is that pilots will spend a lot
> more time reacting to false alarms (they must be false, because if
> they weren't they'd end in a collision without the magic gadgets).
>
And what you think the reaction to those false alarm is? Looking
outside and scanning for the threat! Do you see a problem with this?

Ramy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 29, 1:14 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> If gliders everywhere were assigned a separate code, like the 0440 in
> Minden, it might be a much easier task. Nearby gliders would not
> generate alerts, for example, while airplanes using the 1200 code would be.

The Zaon MRX does not do anything with the squawk code except to
report the host aircraft code. Target tracking and reporting is based
only on signal strength which is interpreted as target distance.
Based on the the designers response to intelligent muting I have no
doubt that intelligent muting based on squawk code would be a non-
starter.

Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 29, 3:55 pm, Robert Danewid > >
Buy a Colibri FLARM and you have it!

I don't think so! Are you saying the Colibri has integrated PCAS and
reports transponder targets?

Andy

[Eric Greenwell]

Andy wrote:
> On Oct 29, 1:14 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>> If gliders everywhere were assigned a separate code, like the 0440 in
>> Minden, it might be a much easier task. Nearby gliders would not
>> generate alerts, for example, while airplanes using the 1200 code would be.
>
> The Zaon MRX does not do anything with the squawk code except to
> report the host aircraft code. Target tracking and reporting is based
> only on signal strength which is interpreted as target distance.
> Based on the the designers response to intelligent muting I have no
> doubt that intelligent muting based on squawk code would be a non-
> starter.

It was a general observation that applies to transponder detectors. I
think it would require less processing power and provide better muting
if the unit could determine which threat was a glider and which was an
airplane.

I would like to hear from MRX-equipped (or similar units) pilots that
fly with other gliders equipped with transponders. I've done a limited
amount of it, and with only a few gliders at a time. By setting the
altitude warning band tighter and ocasionally using the mute button on
the MRX (though I'd like the mute to automatically reset after 5 or 10
minutes), I wasn't bothered by excessive alerts.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[bumper]

I've been flying with a Proxalert R-5 for over 5 years. It displays the
squawk code of the threat aircraft so I can tell, at least near Minden, if
it's a glider (0440) or someone not talking to ATC (1200), or if the other
aircraft *is* talking to ATC (discreet code) and thus likely has been told
about me.

The R5's ability to display squawk appears to be not enough of an advantage
to overcome its more expensive price tag and larger form factor as compared
to the diminutive and more popular ZAON

I wonder if enough people asked them to add squawk code display, ZAON would
add that to there next model. I'd buy one.

bumper


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:Z2UVi.4372$pT.572@trndny07...
> Andy wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 1:14 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>>> If gliders everywhere were assigned a separate code, like the 0440 in
>>> Minden, it might be a much easier task. Nearby gliders would not
>>> generate alerts, for example, while airplanes using the 1200 code would
>>> be.
>>
>> The Zaon MRX does not do anything with the squawk code except to
>> report the host aircraft code. Target tracking and reporting is based
>> only on signal strength which is interpreted as target distance.
>> Based on the the designers response to intelligent muting I have no
>> doubt that intelligent muting based on squawk code would be a non-
>> starter.
>
> It was a general observation that applies to transponder detectors. I
> think it would require less processing power and provide better muting if
> the unit could determine which threat was a glider and which was an
> airplane.
>
> I would like to hear from MRX-equipped (or similar units) pilots that fly
> with other gliders equipped with transponders. I've done a limited amount
> of it, and with only a few gliders at a time. By setting the altitude
> warning band tighter and ocasionally using the mute button on the MRX
> (though I'd like the mute to automatically reset after 5 or 10 minutes), I
> wasn't bothered by excessive alerts.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 30, 10:06 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> I would like to hear from MRX-equipped (or similar units) pilots that
> fly with other gliders equipped with transponders. I've done a limited
> amount of it, and with only a few gliders at a time. By setting the
> altitude warning band tighter and ocasionally using the mute button on
> the MRX (though I'd like the mute to automatically reset after 5 or 10
> minutes), I wasn't bothered by excessive alerts.

I have the MRX and have flown at meets where there was at least one
transponder equipped glider. It was not a problem. For the case
where I was nearly mown down by a King Air, the MRX would have given
no protection if one of the other gliders with me had been transponder
equipped and I had muted the MRX. Intelligent muting requires that
the unit will unmute if a new threat is detected. It could perhaps be
made more intelligent if unmute was not activated by a new glider
target but that's debatable.

I think there is great potential for integrating FLARM or ADS-B (with
CDTI) with PCAS devices. I hope that will be discussed at the
meeting.


Andy