FLARM.....for good, or evil??

On Oct 26, 10:08*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:53*am, "



wrote:
From Sept 2010 "Soaring"...article on FLARM...

..."we were flying in big undiciplined gaggles"...

..."I received indications about one idiot who pulled in behind and
then passed 10 feet over me."...

..."I received many beeps from gliders following 20 feet behind and
just outside..."

Holy close call Batman! *..Undisciplined??!! .. * Idiot??!! * .. 10
feet over??!!.. * 20 feet??!!

*Are you thinking what I'm thinking???

Cookie

Well, I'm thinking I'm glad to be alive. I'm thinking that I like the
trend in US contest rules that take us away from mass gaggle flying,
and wish the worlds would take a stab in that direction as well. I'm
thinking flarm is a pretty darn good idea. What are you thinking?

John Cochrane

John,

I do not disagree with anything you say above. I am glad you are
still alive. I see the problem with big gaggles. I think FLARM is a
useful tool in avoiding glider to glider collisions.

Well, I was thinking that maybe FLARM is creating false sense of
security? Could contest pilots actually be tempted to fly
dangerously, taking extra risks, assuming that if everybody has a
FLARM there is no problem??

How could two flarm equipped gliders possibly get within 10 feet of
each other? I mean, at some earlier point in time they we
considerably further apart, so at what point does one or both pilots
take evasive action?

Or does FLARM somehow allow safe flight within 20 feet or 10 feet or
even closer?

Cookie

It is no great surprise that See and Avoid beats Flarm in busy thermal
gaggles - that is what the manufacturers themselves advise - however I
find that the general beeping really keeps my mind on lookout and I
never silence it. See page 12 on this PowerPoint presentation:

http://www.flarm.com/files/basic_presentation_en.ppt

As to Flarm induced complacency - this has been looked at in various
reports and there is no evidence to support that notion - quite the
reverse, Flarm seems to increase awareness of collision risk and
encourage lookout. Finding out how many gliders you wouldn't have
been aware of without Flarms is a big eye opener.

The question below about how 2 gliders can get very close without a
Flarm alert sounding is easily and logically explained; Flarm is not a
proximity alert, it is a potential collision course alert. If two
gliders are close to each other but not on a collision course there is
no alert but if one then turns towards the other an alert will sound.
How else would one want the device to be configured? Two Flarmed
gliders can cruise very close and parallel to each other (e.g. pair
flying) with no alerts but as soon as they turn only a few degrees
towards each other then the alarm sounds.

John Galloway



On 26 Oct, 18:47, "
wrote:
John,

I do not disagree with anything you say above. *I am glad you are
still alive. *I see the problem with big gaggles. *I think FLARM is a
useful tool in avoiding glider to glider collisions.

Well, I was thinking that maybe FLARM is creating false sense of
security? *Could contest pilots actually be tempted *to fly
dangerously, taking extra risks, assuming that if everybody has a
FLARM there is no problem??

How could two flarm equipped gliders possibly get within 10 feet of
each other? *I mean, at some earlier point in time they we
considerably further apart, so at what point does one or both pilots
take evasive action?

Or does FLARM somehow allow safe flight within 20 feet or 10 feet or
even closer?

Cookie

On Oct 26, 3:11*pm, johngalloway wrote:
It is no great surprise that See and Avoid beats Flarm in busy thermal
gaggles - that is what the manufacturers themselves advise - however I
find that the general beeping really keeps my mind on lookout and I
never silence it. *See page 12 on this PowerPoint presentation:

http://www.flarm.com/files/basic_presentation_en.ppt

As to Flarm induced complacency - this has been looked at in various
reports and there is no evidence to support that notion - quite the
reverse, Flarm seems to increase awareness of collision risk and
encourage lookout. *Finding out how many gliders you wouldn't have
been aware of without Flarms is a big eye opener.

The question below about how 2 gliders can get very close without a
Flarm alert sounding is easily and logically explained; Flarm is not a
proximity alert, it is a potential collision course alert. *If two
gliders are close to each other but not on a collision course there is
no alert but if one then turns towards the other an alert will sound.
How else would one want the device to be configured? *Two Flarmed
gliders can cruise very close and parallel to each other (e.g. pair
flying) with no alerts but as soon as they turn only a few degrees
towards each other then the alarm sounds.

John Galloway

On 26 Oct, 18:47, "
wrote:



John,

I do not disagree with anything you say above. *I am glad you are
still alive. *I see the problem with big gaggles. *I think FLARM is a
useful tool in avoiding glider to glider collisions.

Well, I was thinking that maybe FLARM is creating false sense of
security? *Could contest pilots actually be tempted *to fly
dangerously, taking extra risks, assuming that if everybody has a
FLARM there is no problem??

How could two flarm equipped gliders possibly get within 10 feet of
each other? *I mean, at some earlier point in time they we
considerably further apart, so at what point does one or both pilots
take evasive action?

Or does FLARM somehow allow safe flight within 20 feet or 10 feet or
even closer?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John G.

So, are you suggesting that two gliders can come within 10 feet of
each other and neither receive a FLARM alarm?

Seems to me the simple fact that they were previously some distance
apart, then, later, only 10 feet apart, seems like converging flight
paths to me.

Cookie

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:29:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



So, are you suggesting that two gliders can come within 10 feet of
each other and neither receive a FLARM alarm?

Seems to me the simple fact that they were previously some distance
apart, then, later, only 10 feet apart, seems like converging flight
paths to me.


Yes, you can get very close to a glider without Flarm to warn you (in
alarm mode). It's a matter of speeds and heading. You can fly long
distances, on a ridge for examples, leeching or side by side; you only
get occasional warnings when the paths change.

in "awareness mode", of course a led will indicate where the closer
glider is, but still alarms will only be triggered when a deviation
makes the collision a real possibility.


aldo cernezzi

On Oct 26, 1:47*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:08*am, John Cochrane
wrote:





On Oct 26, 6:53*am, "

wrote:
From Sept 2010 "Soaring"...article on FLARM...

..."we were flying in big undiciplined gaggles"...

..."I received indications about one idiot who pulled in behind and
then passed 10 feet over me."...

..."I received many beeps from gliders following 20 feet behind and
just outside..."

Holy close call Batman! *..Undisciplined??!! .. * Idiot??!! * ... 10
feet over??!!.. * 20 feet??!!

*Are you thinking what I'm thinking???

Cookie

Well, I'm thinking I'm glad to be alive. I'm thinking that I like the
trend in US contest rules that take us away from mass gaggle flying,
and wish the worlds would take a stab in that direction as well. I'm
thinking flarm is a pretty darn good idea. What are you thinking?

John Cochrane

John,

I do not disagree with anything you say above. *I am glad you are
still alive. *I see the problem with big gaggles. *I think FLARM is a
useful tool in avoiding glider to glider collisions.

Well, I was thinking that maybe FLARM is creating false sense of
security? *Could contest pilots actually be tempted *to fly
dangerously, taking extra risks, assuming that if everybody has a
FLARM there is no problem??

How could two flarm equipped gliders possibly get within 10 feet of
each other? *I mean, at some earlier point in time they we
considerably further apart, so at what point does one or both pilots
take evasive action?

Or does FLARM somehow allow safe flight within 20 feet or 10 feet or
even closer?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Guys........

I think you are missing my point / question here............In my
original post, I did not intend to simply re-open the FALRM pro or con
arguement...Note I changed the heading.

My point / question is in regard to John C's article in soaring, in
which his accounts left me with a very uneasy feeling.

Not about the FLARM, but about what a perceive as possible misuse of
FLARM, or false confidence, or increased risk taking, knowing every
glider is FLARM equipped (that's the "evil" part in my heading).

I am referring to the parts in the article about "idiot" and
"undisciplined".....and what a perceive as some close, near
collisions........

Are the pilots "idiots" and "undisciplined" because of the FALRM? Or
are they "idiots" and "undisciplined" in spite of the FLARM?

Cookie

On Oct 26, 4:38*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:47*pm, "





wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:08*am, John Cochrane
wrote:

On Oct 26, 6:53*am, "

wrote:
From Sept 2010 "Soaring"...article on FLARM...

..."we were flying in big undiciplined gaggles"...

..."I received indications about one idiot who pulled in behind and
then passed 10 feet over me."...

..."I received many beeps from gliders following 20 feet behind and
just outside..."

Holy close call Batman! *..Undisciplined??!! .. * Idiot??!! * .. 10
feet over??!!.. * 20 feet??!!

*Are you thinking what I'm thinking???

Cookie

Well, I'm thinking I'm glad to be alive. I'm thinking that I like the
trend in US contest rules that take us away from mass gaggle flying,
and wish the worlds would take a stab in that direction as well. I'm
thinking flarm is a pretty darn good idea. What are you thinking?

John Cochrane

John,

I do not disagree with anything you say above. *I am glad you are
still alive. *I see the problem with big gaggles. *I think FLARM is a
useful tool in avoiding glider to glider collisions.

Well, I was thinking that maybe FLARM is creating false sense of
security? *Could contest pilots actually be tempted *to fly
dangerously, taking extra risks, assuming that if everybody has a
FLARM there is no problem??

How could two flarm equipped gliders possibly get within 10 feet of
each other? *I mean, at some earlier point in time they we
considerably further apart, so at what point does one or both pilots
take evasive action?

Or does FLARM somehow allow safe flight within 20 feet or 10 feet or
even closer?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Guys........

I think you are missing my point / question here............In my
original post, I did not intend to simply re-open the FALRM pro or con
arguement...Note I changed the heading.

My point / question is in regard to John C's article in soaring, in
which his accounts left me with a very uneasy feeling.

Not about the FLARM, but about what a perceive as possible misuse of
FLARM, or false confidence, or increased risk taking, knowing every
glider is FLARM equipped *(that's the "evil" *part in my heading).

I am referring to the parts in the article about "idiot" and
"undisciplined".....and what a perceive as some close, near
collisions........

Are the pilots "idiots" and "undisciplined" because of the FALRM? *Or
are they "idiots" and "undisciplined" in spite of the FLARM?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The answer to your question is the same as the answer to the following
question: Are you flying less carefully because you are wearing a
parachute? I don't think so.

Ramy

On Oct 26, 8:29*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Oct 26, 4:38*pm, "





wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:47*pm, "

wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:08*am, John Cochrane
wrote:

On Oct 26, 6:53*am, "

wrote:
From Sept 2010 "Soaring"...article on FLARM...

..."we were flying in big undiciplined gaggles"...

..."I received indications about one idiot who pulled in behind and
then passed 10 feet over me."...

..."I received many beeps from gliders following 20 feet behind and
just outside..."

Holy close call Batman! *..Undisciplined??!! .. * Idiot??!! * .. 10
feet over??!!.. * 20 feet??!!

*Are you thinking what I'm thinking???

Cookie

Well, I'm thinking I'm glad to be alive. I'm thinking that I like the
trend in US contest rules that take us away from mass gaggle flying,
and wish the worlds would take a stab in that direction as well. I'm
thinking flarm is a pretty darn good idea. What are you thinking?

John Cochrane

John,

I do not disagree with anything you say above. *I am glad you are
still alive. *I see the problem with big gaggles. *I think FLARM is a
useful tool in avoiding glider to glider collisions.

Well, I was thinking that maybe FLARM is creating false sense of
security? *Could contest pilots actually be tempted *to fly
dangerously, taking extra risks, assuming that if everybody has a
FLARM there is no problem??

How could two flarm equipped gliders possibly get within 10 feet of
each other? *I mean, at some earlier point in time they we
considerably further apart, so at what point does one or both pilots
take evasive action?

Or does FLARM somehow allow safe flight within 20 feet or 10 feet or
even closer?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Guys........

I think you are missing my point / question here............In my
original post, I did not intend to simply re-open the FALRM pro or con
arguement...Note I changed the heading.

My point / question is in regard to John C's article in soaring, in
which his accounts left me with a very uneasy feeling.

Not about the FLARM, but about what a perceive as possible misuse of
FLARM, or false confidence, or increased risk taking, knowing every
glider is FLARM equipped *(that's the "evil" *part in my heading).

I am referring to the parts in the article about "idiot" and
"undisciplined".....and what a perceive as some close, near
collisions........

Are the pilots "idiots" and "undisciplined" because of the FALRM? *Or
are they "idiots" and "undisciplined" in spite of the FLARM?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The answer to your question is the same as the answer to the following
question: Are you flying less carefully because you are wearing a
parachute? I don't think so.

Ramy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ramy,

I disagree ..........With a parachute I do take more risk......and you
probably do to.

Here are three examples of more risky flying WITH a parachute that I
do / have done:

1) Flight testing homebuilt aircraft
2) Aerobatic flying
3) Glider competition

Regualtion and / or common sense dictates a parachute for the above
scenarios.

Cookie

Are the pilots "idiots" and "undisciplined" because of the FALRM? *Or
are they "idiots" and "undisciplined" in spite of the FLARM?

Cookie

My sense is that pilots at the worlds were flying the way they always
do. We were treated to daily briefings by Brian Spreckley with traces
and horror stories of near misses and collisions from all over Europe,
in contests with majority Flarm usage.

"Idiot" is perhaps a bit strong, and I may have been hasty in applying
it to a fellow pilot. On the other hand, he did pass 10-20 feet over
the top of my glider in a large gaggle. Perhaps he never saw me as
well. "Undisciplined" does stick. Really, when you know there are
20-30 gliders cruising together, one guy turning to the left and the
other of the pair turning to the right sets up 30 gliders turning in
both directions. Lots of people ignored all standard thermal
etiquette.

I think Flarm has a greater potential to seduce contest organizers
than pilots. Do you launch dozens of gliders into a low cloudbase; do
you set up multiple start areas or everyone start in one place; do you
set an assigned task which leads to more gaggling or an area task that
spreads people out more; do you worry about separating classes or
keep them on the same task; do you avoid out and return task legs, or
area tasks that set up flying up and down the same cloudstreet? Each
of these choices raises the chance of collisions, but are often
convenient for other reasons. Organizes and CDs may be tempted to
think, "well, they've all got Flarm, we can get away with it." I
hope we can fight this temptation.

John Cochrane

On Oct 26, 9:03*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:

I think Flarm has a greater potential to seduce contest organizers
than pilots. [...]

Organizes and CDs may be tempted to
think, "well, they've all got Flarm, we can get away with it." * I
hope we can fight this temptation.

John Cochrane

Well... maybe I'm just picking good contests... but I don't think
there's a chance in hell that *any* of the contest organizers I've
encountered in the last decade would take that attitude, consciously
or not.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Oct 26, 9:03*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
Are the pilots "idiots" and "undisciplined" because of the FALRM? *Or
are they "idiots" and "undisciplined" in spite of the FLARM?

Cookie

My sense is that pilots at the worlds were flying the way they always
do. We were treated to daily briefings by Brian Spreckley with traces
and horror stories of near misses and collisions from all over Europe,
in contests with majority Flarm usage.

"Idiot" is perhaps a bit strong, and I may have been hasty in applying
it to a fellow pilot. On the other hand, he did pass 10-20 feet over
the top of my glider in a large gaggle. Perhaps he never saw me as
well. "Undisciplined" does stick. Really, when you know there are
20-30 gliders cruising together, one guy turning to the left and the
other of the pair turning to the right sets up 30 gliders turning in
both directions. Lots of people ignored all standard thermal
etiquette.

I think Flarm has a greater potential to seduce contest organizers
than pilots. Do you launch dozens of gliders into a low cloudbase; do
you set up multiple start areas or everyone start in one place; do you
set an assigned task which leads to more gaggling or an area task that
spreads people out *more; do you worry about separating classes or
keep them on the same task; do you avoid out and return task legs, or
area tasks that set up flying up and down the same cloudstreet? Each
of these choices raises the chance of collisions, but are often
convenient for other reasons. Organizes and CDs may be tempted to
think, "well, they've all got Flarm, we can get away with it." * I
hope we can fight this temptation.

John Cochrane

John,

Thanks for the follow up..........I think we have two different
concerns brought up by your article.
1)Flarm,
2) bad, risky, dangerous flying

Again from your account, I figure FLARM is the way to
go............you wouldn't want to be in that environment without a
FLARM.........

But...........

I thought the bigger topic is safety, and collision
avoidence..................

The pilots in that contest seemed to have no concern for that.
"Idiot" is not too strong of a word.....No technology is going to work
if the pilots don't let it work!

Cookie