PowerFLARM leeching comments

Don,

I fully agree that maintaining a good lookout at all times
is a good basis for see-and-avoid.

However, we believe that even the best pilot may occasionally fail to detect traffic.
There are a number of human factors which affect perception
(distraction, selective attention, target merging into background, target not
moving wrt. background, etc).

We have a presentation where on one slide we listed the situations where FLARM
has potentially better and/or earlier chances to detect traffic than the human eye.

These situations a
- Head-on and converging course (both gliders in cruise), especially in the
presence of clouds, snow fields etc.
- One glider circling, another one approaching the same thermal.
- Two gliders circling in opposite directions (yes, we know this shouldn't happen...)

As you say, the fewer gliders in a thermal, the more helpful FLARM can be.

FLARM does help in wave, but the indicated relative bearing to the threat may be strongly biased by wind.

Needless to say, whenever a FLARM warning occurs, the pilot should immediately
try to make visual contact with the threat.

In the Classic FLARM manual, we write:

"Under no circumstances should a pilot or crewmember adopt different tactics or deviate from the normal principles of safe airmanship."

I think that summarizes it quite nicely.

Best
--Gerhard

Gerhard,
fully agree with you, but would like to add one situation where
FLARM is useful. When there is someone on your under or
above, in position where you cannot see the other plane, flying
into the same direction. Can be cloudstreet, competition or just
a friend of your's you fly with.
The LED based FLARM displays used in Europa can only show
one target. If there are several planes around you, this display
does not give you very good situation awareness. That caused
here a midair of two FLARM equipped gliders year ago.
The powerflarm has graphical display, that shows several
targets around you. It also has two receivers and antennas, so
the situation of the midair I mentioned should not occur again.
There was no FLARM warning - looks like the carbon fuselages
dampen the radio signal, and the gliders approached each
others from the dipole antenna's blind spots.
-kimmo

(English language summary on page VII)
http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/Satellite?
blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype= BlobSer
ver&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blob key=id&
blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=Tutkintaselost us%20B1_
2011L.pdf&SSURIsscontext=Satellite%20Server&blobwh ere=134
2016078074&blobheadername1=Content-
Disposition&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

At 15:06 30 October 2012, wrote:
Don,

I fully agree that maintaining a good lookout at all times
is a good basis for see-and-avoid.

However, we believe that even the best pilot may occasionally
fail to
detect traffic.
There are a number of human factors which affect perception
(distraction, selective attention, target merging into
background, target
not
moving wrt. background, etc).

We have a presentation where on one slide we listed the
situations where
FLARM
has potentially better and/or earlier chances to detect traffic
than the
human eye.

These situations a
- Head-on and converging course (both gliders in cruise),
especially in the
presence of clouds, snow fields etc.
- One glider circling, another one approaching the same
thermal.
- Two gliders circling in opposite directions (yes, we know this
shouldn't
happen...)

As you say, the fewer gliders in a thermal, the more helpful
FLARM can be.

FLARM does help in wave, but the indicated relative bearing to
the threat
may be strongly biased by wind.

Needless to say, whenever a FLARM warning occurs, the pilot
should
immediately
try to make visual contact with the threat.

In the Classic FLARM manual, we write:

"Under no circumstances should a pilot or crewmember adopt
different
tactics or deviate from the normal principles of safe
airmanship."

I think that summarizes it quite nicely.

Best
--Gerhard

At 15:06 30 October 2012, wrote:
Don,

I fully agree that maintaining a good lookout at all times
is a good basis for see-and-avoid.

However, we believe that even the best pilot may occasionally fail to
detect traffic.
There are a number of human factors which affect perception
(distraction, selective attention, target merging into background, target
not
moving wrt. background, etc).

We have a presentation where on one slide we listed the situations where
FLARM
has potentially better and/or earlier chances to detect traffic than the
human eye.

These situations a
- Head-on and converging course (both gliders in cruise), especially in
the
presence of clouds, snow fields etc.
- One glider circling, another one approaching the same thermal.
- Two gliders circling in opposite directions (yes, we know this
shouldn't
happen...)

As you say, the fewer gliders in a thermal, the more helpful FLARM can
be.

FLARM does help in wave, but the indicated relative bearing to the threat
may be strongly biased by wind.

Needless to say, whenever a FLARM warning occurs, the pilot should
immediately
try to make visual contact with the threat.

In the Classic FLARM manual, we write:

"Under no circumstances should a pilot or crewmember adopt different
tactics or deviate from the normal principles of safe airmanship."

I think that summarizes it quite nicely.

Best
--Gerhard

Gerhard

I do not disagree with you, FLARM does help, with the emphasis on help, it
does not replace or indeed lessen the necessity for a good lookout. My
argument was contering the statement that, "The difference between midairs
and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you can
do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm." which I think you
will agree is a load of total ********. FLARM can assit the aware pilot, it
is NOT the answer to preventing mid air collisions.
In Europe we do have, or some of us do, the LX8000 which does give the
radar display, however it takes time to see all the other gliders, time
which would be beter spent looking out.

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:

I do not disagree with you, FLARM does help, with the emphasis on help, it

does not replace or indeed lessen the necessity for a good lookout. My

argument was contering the statement that, "The difference between midairs

and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you can

do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm." which I think you

will agree is a load of total ********. FLARM can assit the aware pilot, it

is NOT the answer to preventing mid air collisions.

Statically it is. Midairs, once the number 1 accident cause, are now almost nonexistent in Switzerland, since the introduction of Flarm.

You can also assume that no pilot wants a midair collision and maintains good look out. But there are limitations to the human senses, as stated by Gerhard.

We have to stop threating the glider pilot as a luminous all seeing perfect elite being. (paron the pun.) We make mistakes. Hundreds each flight. In fact its a human quality to err.

Here is where technology helps. It maintains its constant SA and fills in our human attention gaps.

- Folken

So this is how we justify banning FLARM radar mode. We need to focus on takeoff and landing accidents? Two totally UNRELATED different problems.

This conversation has plunged into infantile. Its are to respect this kind of leadership. Sorry.

Ugg.

Bravo Falken. +1 again and again! I wish we had more folks like you over here. Bravo!

At 17:13 30 October 2012, folken wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:

I do not disagree with you, FLARM does help, with the emphasis on help,
it

does not replace or indeed lessen the necessity for a good lookout. My

argument was contering the statement that, "The difference between
midairs

and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you
can

do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm." which I think you

will agree is a load of total ********. FLARM can assit the aware
pilot,
it

is NOT the answer to preventing mid air collisions.

Statically it is. Midairs, once the number 1 accident cause, are now
almost
nonexistent in Switzerland, since the introduction of Flarm.

You can also assume that no pilot wants a midair collision and maintains
good look out. But there are limitations to the human senses, as stated
by
Gerhard.

We have to stop threating the glider pilot as a luminous all seeing
perfect
elite being. (paron the pun.) We make mistakes. Hundreds each flight. In
fact its a human quality to err.

Yes it helps, it does not provide the answer as the statement to which I
objected intimated it might. The only solution is better lookout and
bettter situational awareness however THAT can be achieved, not replacing
them with technology.

In answer to the assertion that mid-air collisions in Switzerland have been
eradicated, mid air collisions are very very rare and relying on statistics
with such a small sample is futile. As I recall the only mid air I can
recall in Switzerland over recent year was between two FLARM equipped
gliders, go figure.

Here is where technology helps. It maintains its constant SA and fills in
our human attention gaps.

- Folken

On Monday, October 29, 2012 5:32:44 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Wow! So much is assumed about the usefulness of PowerFLARM in so-called "radar mode." Its painful to read the assumption, marketing based arguments some are making loudly. FLARM itself strongly recommends not using STEALTH mode as it significantly reduces to capability of the system. Pretty clear to me. But some really want to go after this latest technology ban. Why? An apparent deathly fear of new technology. Almost a phobia. We have seen it many times before, yet it is all here! Radio's. Vario's. GPS. Eyeglasses. Again, I vote (and did so in the SSA Contest pilot poll weeks ago) for ABSOLUTELY NO restrictions, limitations or complications of any kind to the implementation and adoption of PowerFLARM until such time that: A) PowerFLARM adoption reaches a level of completeness that satisfies the initial goals (Mandatory in contests and strong growth in general US soaring) and B) it is OBJECTIVELY PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that so-called Flarm leeching is reasonably possible. To review: The goal of powerFLARM is improved safety generally in all environments (towing, clubs, contests) and a general reduction of collisions...such as the one that happened in the US a few months back at the World Championships. That's right. A nearly fatal collision just occurred in the USA where a glider was lost, a pilot was forced to bail out and was knocked unconscious on the parachute landing. Thankfully he was OK...but the truth is that collisions are STILL OCCURRING, statistically very often. Very little was said about this accident and the numerous other accidents at that event. Near misses are all to common in US contest soaring and in clubs. Collision safety is a huge concern worldwide. Regardless of these facts, some really want to ban important aspects of this impressive new innovation in soaring safety before it even gets started. Some seem more concerned about crushing any small almost impossibly unrealistic chance of improved "leeching" than achieving original goal of the system...SAFETY and prevention of needless fatal collision accidents of our friends. Safety needs to be doubled down on at all costs. It should be the policy of the US rules committee to error DEEPLY on the the side of SAFETY. I think this is true in most cases. But FLARM and collision risk is not the area to screw around with at this point. Most pilots in the US are still relying on "chance" to avoid collision. A collision occurs when both pilots do not see eachother. It is clear that visual scan's are not sufficient and never will be.. Without PowerFLARM or better technology, it's only a matter of time until you have your collision. We need to do better! When looking at those involved in these arguments, ask yourselves the following questions: 1) Who is concerned about general safety off the soaring community? 2) Who here is concerned about the slim potential for leeching harming THEM in a contest? What is the motivation? Expand safety without comprimise? Or personal concerns? Answer those questions and I think you will have some useful intelligence on this discussion. Is the PowerFLARM system worth working on a ban for the minuscule chance that someone could actually follow (LEECH) you at greater speed from outside visual range with the PowerFLARM and LX 8000? Give me a break!!!!!! Lets move on and focus on more productive things this winter. Sincerely, Sean F2

Your vote and your impassioned arguments are respectfully and duely noted.
That said, the conversation on the topic of the effect of Flarm on the sporting aspects of competition soaring are appropriate and should continue.
A number of very experienced pilots have commented here and in other forms that they has serious concerns about what "Flarm radar" will do to our sport.

OK. I will stop here and let the process go along. But I think competition concerns are GREATLY outweighed by SAFETY concerns.

Good luck with this. I dont have RADAR in my glider so its not really a concern.

Sean

Apparently Don have not seen the many demonstrations and articles proving that see and avoid does not work (except in thermals when eye contact can be maintained to some extent).
Don, other then when thermaling and in the traffic pattern (which is only 20-30% of typical flight) you may as well fly blind folded and your chances for mid air will remain about the same. The problem is that many pilots believe that they can see and avoid since they always see traffic which is not on collision course without realizing that they can not see the one which will hit them. Also it will be interesting if we could put a camera in the cockpit of those claiming that they always scan to find out how much scanning they actually do during a 5 hours XC flight... Looking for lift under the clouds ahead is not considerd scanning!

Ramy