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

On 10/27/2010 12:29 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:14 pm, Mike
wrote:
On 10/26/2010 10:22 PM, 5Z wrote:

On Oct 26, 10:46 am, wrote:
what about GA? What good is Flarm for GA? They are never going to use
it in the US. The FAA has another system in store for GA and
commercial aircraft.

Seems to like cheap insurance for helicopters in metro areas as well
as airports with heavy training operations, as well as places such as
the Grand Canyon with heavy sightseeing operations. All of these
situations could easily get buy-in with a little bit of peer pressure
and local politics. Don't get the FAA involved, instead local pilot
groups and FBOs / commercial operators could make the case for
PowerFlarm as a useful tool for high density VFR operations. As
mentioned in other threads, ADS/B and ATC are just not designed for
these operations.

I recall that after the helicopter midair near Phoenix a few years
ago, there was a local news story of someone working on a $50K (fifty
thousand) solution to prevent these accidents.

Just my $0.02

-Tom

What would make you think that ADS-B was not designed for high density
VFR operations???? That's exactly what it was designed for, before the
FAA focused everyone's attention on using the technology to decrease
separations between IFR aircraft.

--
Mike Schumann

Do you have reference to any ADS-B work on close quarters flying, like
links you can give to research, design, testing etc. related to close
flying like say where you have helicopters orbiting a crime scene or
accident and which vendors make those systems? That scenario may be
like thermalling in gliders, if I operated news helicopters or similar
I'd be interested in checking a PowerFLARM (since they are such low
cost and don't involve any reglatory hassle) and seeing how it worked.
I'd also probalby want to look at ADS-B if I could would work out an
affordable/approved install to test with.

The big work in helicopters with ADS-B was the Gulf of Mexico trial
where the core there was really solving in-flight separation and
moving out of the "one in the slot" sequencing where they had no radar
offshore radar. By all accounts the GOMEX trial was pretty positive.

All the helicopter operators in any area would also need to get
together and agree on what ADS=B link-layer they will operate on
because where/how helicopters fly they are quite likely to be outside
GBT coverage and won't have any ADS-R service at times. But hopefully
that's a short meeting to get agreement on.

There is significant experience gained from GOMEX (Gulf of Mexico)
helicopter 1090ES operation. Again thanks to the FAA STC installation
are required for each helicopter type and ADS-B data-out equipment.
Some of the work was done for the GOMEX trial could probalby be
updated to meet a new STC. The issue there likely will be justifying
this STC development for some of the lighter helicopters that won't
have any work from GOMEX to piggy back on -- and Garmin's GTX-330ES
(probably the natural choice for light-medium helicopter avionics
given Gamin's push there recently) is not quite ready with DO-260B rev
yet so I don't see the FAA allowing a TSO until it is. I'm guessing
equipped price per light-medium helicopter for ADS-B data-out and -in
and display is likely to start in the $10k range (depends if the
helicopter has an existing TSO'ed WAAS GPS or an existing display
capability (I suspect a PDA is not going to cut it to a busy
helicopter crew)). Its unclear to me if the GPS used is specific in
the ADS-B data-out STC, if so that's may be another hurdle. There may
be question about display systems suitable for a no-hands helicopter
pilot.

The obstacle database in Flarm might also be interesting esp. for the
very light helicopters vs. existing relatively expensive GA TAWS
systems. But there is a question of getting the obstacle database in
Flarm format.

Darryl


There's a difference between flying in high density VFR environments and
close quarters flying. Flying in the pattern at a very busy GA airport
is not nearly as challenging as flying in a gaggle with numerous other
gliders.

Neither ADS-B nor FLARM can provide foolproof collision protection
between gliders sharing a thermal. Urs, Rob Strain and I had a
discussion about this at the SSA convention in Albuquerque a number of
years ago. This is a fundamental problem of GPS accuracy limits,
coupled with how far a glider can move in an unexpected direction
between the 1 sec position updates.

That's not to say that FLARM or ADS-B can't be helpful in notifying you
of new aircraft (gliders or GA) approaching a gaggle, so you can keep an
eye out, or in letting you see how many gliders are in a gaggle and
their relative orientation when you are approaching.

--
Mike Schumann

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:06:31 -0400, Mike Schumann
wrote:


Neither ADS-B nor FLARM can provide foolproof collision protection
between gliders sharing a thermal.
....
That's not to say that FLARM or ADS-B can't be helpful in notifying you
of new aircraft (gliders or GA) approaching a gaggle, so you can keep an
eye out, or in letting you see how many gliders are in a gaggle and
their relative orientation when you are approaching.

I agree. In facts, I think we don't NEED any "foolproof collision
protection". I also believe that we don't need Flarm to be infallible.
If it will warn me from relatively distant gliders I have already
seen, and which don't seem to be a threat, I'll say "thanks pal, I
already knew about him".

The accidents that have happened are the proof that, however, we NEED
a device to turn our attention on, when it might momentarily,
unvoluntarily and unawarely be off.

I recall an old, dramatic report which appeared in Soaring magazine.
It was written by the survivor of a glider-glider collision. They had
been flying together since taking off, so they both were well aware of
the traffic. Not a lot of VFR traffic, not a huge gaggle, not a
densely participated competition. Just two gliders.
Nevertheless, while searching for lift, they collided.

Would Flarm have been available at the time, and installed in both
gliders, it most probably would have turned into a non-event, less
than an incident.
We just wouldn't think about it today, and the gliding community would
have one more member and less sorrow. I see no reason to wait longer
before takeing advantage of this technology. We've been using it for
many years now, in Europe.

Aldo Cernezzi

On 10/27/2010 6:06 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:

There's a difference between flying in high density VFR environments
and close quarters flying. Flying in the pattern at a very busy GA
airport is not nearly as challenging as flying in a gaggle with
numerous other gliders.
It's hard to put numbers on this, because the particular situation can
be important in determining the risk, but I'm comfortable stating this:

"That's not true for me, as I am much more accustomed to gaggle flying
than flying at or near very busy GA airports, and I'm more comfortable
in the gaggle with numerous other gliders."


--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz