FLARM Statistics

You may well be correct. Does such equipment exist? If not, when is it
likely to be available?

Meanwhile, Flarm does exist, has sold some 5,000 units worldwide, is known
to work, and in some environments is fitted 100%, in quite a few 90%

Flarm is sufficiently low priced, small, low powered and easy to install
that if it becomes obsolete in say 5 years time it is still a very sensible
fit today.

I have never flown in the USA. If I were flying out of Minden I rather
think I would like to have a transponder. This was advocated by Gordon
Boettger in an article dated 13th July
http://www.mindensoaringclub.com/int...=87&Itemi d=1
written of course before the mid-air of 28th August.

In the UK I want Flarm provided enough other people fit it. I should think
that in the USA anyone flying the White Mountains would welcome it.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
news
My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common
with powered aircraft is the answer. I would think that a combination of
a transponder that is visible by ATC and conventional TCAS, along with a
low cost low/power TCAS type device designed for gliders wouldn't be more
appropriate for the US environment.

Mike Schumann


"Ramy" wrote in message
ps.com...

I don't have any numbers but I heard of many more midairs between two
gliders or gliders with tow planes than between gliders and other
powered aircrafts. I'm afraid the White Mountains in Nevada are a
midair waiting to happen. On a good weekend you can have 20-50 gliders
flying in a very narrow band in both directions. It is very difficult,
almost impossible, to spot on time a glider flying straight and level
at closing speeds of over 200 knots, unless you know exactly when and
where to look. Remember, the moving targets we often spot easily are
not the threat, it is the one which don't move on the canopy which will
hit us. If we equip all gliders and tow planes with Flarm you will
significantly reduce midairs, as it has been proved in Europe and OZ.
One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.

Just my humble opinion,

Ramy


Mike Schumann wrote:

Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs
are between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.

Mike Schumann


"John Galloway" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
gliders in those European countries in which it is
in widespread use?

Thanks in advance.

John Galloway

I don't know what the right answer is. Here in the US, there is a lot more
power traffic than in Europe. Unless you are flying in contests or in high
glider traffic areas, I suspect that the biggest risk is not other gliders,
but power traffic.

It's very frustrating that the FAA doesn't accelerate the deployment of ADSB
here in the US. Then everyone could focus on developing cost effective
technology that will cover all traffic.

In the mean time, the best investment might be a ballistic recovery chute.

Mike Schumann

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." wrote in message
...
You may well be correct. Does such equipment exist? If not, when is it
likely to be available?

Meanwhile, Flarm does exist, has sold some 5,000 units worldwide, is known
to work, and in some environments is fitted 100%, in quite a few 90%

Flarm is sufficiently low priced, small, low powered and easy to install
that if it becomes obsolete in say 5 years time it is still a very
sensible
fit today.

I have never flown in the USA. If I were flying out of Minden I rather
think I would like to have a transponder. This was advocated by Gordon
Boettger in an article dated 13th July
http://www.mindensoaringclub.com/int...=87&Itemi d=1
written of course before the mid-air of 28th August.

In the UK I want Flarm provided enough other people fit it. I should
think
that in the USA anyone flying the White Mountains would welcome it.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
news
My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common
with powered aircraft is the answer. I would think that a combination of
a transponder that is visible by ATC and conventional TCAS, along with a
low cost low/power TCAS type device designed for gliders wouldn't be more
appropriate for the US environment.

Mike Schumann


"Ramy" wrote in message
ps.com...

I don't have any numbers but I heard of many more midairs between two
gliders or gliders with tow planes than between gliders and other
powered aircrafts. I'm afraid the White Mountains in Nevada are a
midair waiting to happen. On a good weekend you can have 20-50 gliders
flying in a very narrow band in both directions. It is very difficult,
almost impossible, to spot on time a glider flying straight and level
at closing speeds of over 200 knots, unless you know exactly when and
where to look. Remember, the moving targets we often spot easily are
not the threat, it is the one which don't move on the canopy which will
hit us. If we equip all gliders and tow planes with Flarm you will
significantly reduce midairs, as it has been proved in Europe and OZ.
One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.

Just my humble opinion,

Ramy


Mike Schumann wrote:

Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs
are between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.

Mike Schumann


"John Galloway" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
gliders in those European countries in which it is
in widespread use?

Thanks in advance.

John Galloway

Mike Schumann wrote:
I don't know what the right answer is. Here in the US, there is a lot more
power traffic than in Europe. Unless you are flying in contests or in high
glider traffic areas, I suspect that the biggest risk is not other gliders,
but power traffic.

It's very frustrating that the FAA doesn't accelerate the deployment of ADSB
here in the US. Then everyone could focus on developing cost effective
technology that will cover all traffic.

In the mean time, the best investment might be a ballistic recovery chute.

In the Minden collision, the regular parachute worked just fine, and if
he'd had an operating transponder, he'd likely not needed the parachute
at all.

A transponder and a TPAS unit will give you most of what you'd get from
having an ADSB unit in your cockpit, more cheaply than an ADSB unit (or
a ballistic parachute), and you can have it now. Powered traffic is
already flying with transponders, so you don't have to wait for the rest
of the fleet to buy into the idea. ADSB still doesn't protect you from
aircraft that don't have them, and I don't think they will be any
cheaper than a transponder. So, if powered traffic is your concern, I
think there is decent solution.

A ballistic recovery chute has some advantages, of course, but perhaps
not in the typical collision which is usually high enough that a
conscious pilot has time to get out. The problem is they are expensive
to retrofit to most gliders, and then you have an untested system.

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

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

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

Ballistic Recovery Chutes would primarily be an advantage in a low level
collision (i.e. in a traffic pattern). Are there any statistics on glider
mid-airs that can shed some light on where most of the danger is?

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:am_Wg.4860$YD.241@trndny09...
Mike Schumann wrote:
I don't know what the right answer is. Here in the US, there is a lot
more power traffic than in Europe. Unless you are flying in contests or
in high glider traffic areas, I suspect that the biggest risk is not
other gliders, but power traffic.

It's very frustrating that the FAA doesn't accelerate the deployment of
ADSB here in the US. Then everyone could focus on developing cost
effective technology that will cover all traffic.

In the mean time, the best investment might be a ballistic recovery
chute.

In the Minden collision, the regular parachute worked just fine, and if
he'd had an operating transponder, he'd likely not needed the parachute at
all.

A transponder and a TPAS unit will give you most of what you'd get from
having an ADSB unit in your cockpit, more cheaply than an ADSB unit (or a
ballistic parachute), and you can have it now. Powered traffic is already
flying with transponders, so you don't have to wait for the rest of the
fleet to buy into the idea. ADSB still doesn't protect you from aircraft
that don't have them, and I don't think they will be any cheaper than a
transponder. So, if powered traffic is your concern, I think there is
decent solution.

A ballistic recovery chute has some advantages, of course, but perhaps not
in the typical collision which is usually high enough that a conscious
pilot has time to get out. The problem is they are expensive to retrofit
to most gliders, and then you have an untested system.

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

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

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