FLARM isn't absolutely necessary for contest flying but it sure is safer. I tend to roll my eyes at the endless discussions here about the latest technology in soaring (despite--or, rather, because of--having worked in IT for 20 years). But after I borrowed a portable FLARM for the Nationals in 2015, I arranged to buy the loaner.

Yeah, everyone should keep their eyes out of the cockpit at all times. But we're human. We make mistakes. Vision is imperfect. We can't see behind us. FLARM isn't perfect, either, but it's a lot better than the alternatives as far as I can tell.

Much of the chatter here is about increasing the effective range because, contrary to early and earnest assurances, FLARM IS of tactical value. Stealth mode retains nearly all of the safety benefits and negates most of the tactical value but that discussion is dead. In the meantime, I'm always nervous when I learn that one or more pilots at a contest don't have FLARM. In my experience over the past 50+ years, the majority (though certainly not all) of mid-air collision risks at contests and busy gliderports are other gliders.

Holding out against FLARM reminds me of that phrase, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." You can wait for the perfect anti-collision device for gliders. In the meantime, FLARM is pretty good, doesn't require expensive regulatory compliance, doesn't need a bigger battery, and costs less. I voted with my wallet.

Chip Bearden
JB