FLARM

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

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

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

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

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

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






At 13:42 06 March 2006, Guy Acheson wrote:
I am glad the origens of FLARM have come up because
it answers some of my questions. I have flown in the
southern Alps and their environment for flight is unlike
any I know of in the USA or Australia. Flying in the
southern Alps many days consists of HUNDREDS of gliders
flying below peak height in all directions throughout
a mountain range that has valleys and passes in all
directions. Flying out of St Auban last year we were
using wrecked gliders as landmarks for navigation.
Collision avoidance is a very high energy activity
in that airspace. Power traffic is virtually non-existant
in that airspace. The power people just fly high above
all the mountains and valleys.

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

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

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


At 12:48 06 March 2006, Bert Willing wrote:
Either you don't know what you are talking about (ever
seen the external
Flarm display?), or your panel is crap.

'Don Johnstone' wrote in message
...
I do not have room on my panel for any additional
display

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

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

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

At 23:30 06 March 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:
I think Tim in his reply to my post highlighted the
biggest failing in FLARM, lack of interest by the
majority.
Having a FLARM in your glider is totally useless unless
eveyone else has one in theirs, and the only way to
achieve that is by compulsion.
Anyone who thinks that the majority of pilots will
fit one voluntarily is deluding themselves.
Right now in most of the world FLARM is just a useless
expensive piece of electronics and unless fitting
it
becomes compulsory it will go the same way as Betamax
video tapes.

FLARM: 3000 units already delivered without compulsion,
because the
benefits are obvious to the pilots flying in the high-traffic
glider
areas in Europe. It won't go the way of the Betamax,
unless someone
develops the VHS equivalent of FLARM.

In my opinion, compulsion will only be needed in areas
where FLARM has
little or no value. And, if FLARM continues to include
new features such
as an IGC approved flight recorder and club aircraft
monitoring, it
might not take much compulsion, either.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

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

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

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

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

At 23:30 06 March 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:
I think Tim in his reply to my post highlighted the
biggest failing in FLARM, lack of interest by the
majority.
Having a FLARM in your glider is totally useless unless
eveyone else has one in theirs, and the only way to
achieve that is by compulsion.
Anyone who thinks that the majority of pilots will
fit one voluntarily is deluding themselves.
Right now in most of the world FLARM is just a useless
expensive piece of electronics and unless fitting
it
becomes compulsory it will go the same way as Betamax
video tapes.

FLARM: 3000 units already delivered without compulsion,
because the
benefits are obvious to the pilots flying in the high-traffic
glider
areas in Europe. It won't go the way of the Betamax,
unless someone
develops the VHS equivalent of FLARM.

In my opinion, compulsion will only be needed in areas
where FLARM has
little or no value. And, if FLARM continues to include
new features such
as an IGC approved flight recorder and club aircraft
monitoring, it
might not take much compulsion, either.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

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

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

Hardly something I would
call universal.

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

Two european countries,

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

half the antipodes,
and parts of the USA

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

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

And we all agree with that.

Fitting the unit is my glider right now would be stupid

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

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

If I thought for one moment that FLARM improved safety
I would be the first to support it.

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

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

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


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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

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


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

Hi Don,

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

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

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







Bye
Andreas

Don Johnstone wrote:

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

Obviously you've never even seen a FLARM device.

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

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

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

It already is in certain European countries.

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

Stefan

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

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





At 04:24 08 March 2006, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On 7 Mar 2006 10:37:16 GMT, Don Johnstone
wrote:


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

Hi Don,

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

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

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







Bye
Andreas

At 14:07 08 March 2006, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
Don is just a Luddite at heart (Luddite? see
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm
).

But even that does not explain why he cannot see the
advantages that
FLARM has in UK where cloud flying is legal. 'See and
be Seen' simply
does not apply in cloud.

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

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

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

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

If the sky is populated with aircraft all carrying
FLARM I can see the benefit. If there are significant
number not so equipped then FLARM is inefective at
best and at worst dangerous.

Tim Newport-Peace

'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'

Don Johnstone wrote:

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

Not really Don, if any percentage of gliders is equipped with Flarm, the
risk of collision is reduced, surely you can see that.

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

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

regards

paul

PB wrote:

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

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


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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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