Another mid-air (UK)

Before we can try to draw any conclusion we need more data of course. It shouldn't be too dificult to confirm if the other gliders had flarm. If only one glider has flarm it is as good as no flarm. The pilot in the pics mentioned that the other glider came out of nowhere. This should not happen with working flarms.
BTW I believe PowerFlarm has big advantage over the classic flarm who only gives you few seconds of collision alert while PowerFlarm gives you a better display providing situational awareness so you have plenty of warning that someone is nearby and how many gliders are nearby in the gaggle.

Ramy

On Monday, August 4, 2014 2:21:37 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
Before we can try to draw any conclusion we need more data of course.

Um, alternate approach. Let's not get "more data" because "more data" means more inflight crunching of gliders with the associated risk to the pilots.

:-)

Now, to get back to work installing power cords in all my gliders to be able to use my PF Portable in all of them...

Steve

It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause
complacency but no study has found evidence of that. I would
be interested to hear from pilots who who have found that FLARM
use has made them complacent about look out.

John Galloway

On Monday, August 4, 2014 12:08:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:


I also believe that anything (NAV displays, FLARM, visual "Thermal Maximizers") that causes you to focus significant amounts of time inside the cockpit, are a serious detriment to safety and probably X-C performance. Somebody famous once said "90% of what you need to know is outside the cockpit" That is still true, in my opinion.

Since in-cockpit electronic displays are here to stay, this puts a premium on the user interface for those systems so as to make them less distracting to use. Sadly, many of them are a disaster of man-machine interface, rooted in 20th century teletype technology. Surely the vendors of this stuff can do better (and some do).

On Monday, August 4, 2014 4:35:58 PM UTC-4, John Galloway wrote:
It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause
complacency but no study has found evidence of that.

There's evidence that the introduction of bicycle helmets has not reduce injuries. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1013.html This is probably because helmets have changed behavior. Human nature is common to cycling and soaring.

That said, two careful pilots with Powerflarm are safer than the same two pilots without Powerflarm.

On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:35:58 PM UTC-7, John Galloway wrote:
It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause

complacency but no study has found evidence of that. I would

be interested to hear from pilots who who have found that FLARM

use has made them complacent about look out.



John Galloway

Since I started flying with powerflarm I find myself searching for every traffic that it displays, which results in more searching and scanning than before. The problem with scanning for traffic is not that we dont scan because our head is in the cockpit, but it is because we forget to scan and we tend to fixate at the horizon, or above the horizon usually at the clouds ahead. Powerflarm reminds me to keep looking for traffic.

Ramy

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 1:32:47 AM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 4:35:58 PM UTC-4, John Galloway wrote:

It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause

complacency but no study has found evidence of that.



There's evidence that the introduction of bicycle helmets has not reduce injuries. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1013.html This is probably because helmets have changed behavior. Human nature is common to cycling and soaring..



That said, two careful pilots with Powerflarm are safer than the same two pilots without Powerflarm.



The cycling helmets (or car seatbelts/airbags) and human nature experiences are often raised in discussions about the supposed risk of complacency gliding with FLARM. There are two ways in which these are invalid comparisons:

The first difference is that on the roads it is very unlikely that "near miss" accidents will previously have gone unnoticed before the introduction of the safety gear whereas when gliding with FLARM most comment that they are amazed at the number of near misses that they have been alerted to that they must have been missing pre-FLARM. Similar to what Ramy is reporting, the aspect of human nature that seems to kick in with most glider pilots using FLARM is the bit that says "This is a lot more risky than I had realised - I had better improve my look-out"

There also is another huge conceptual difference - unlike passive safety measures on the road, FLARM is an active communication system. It pretty soon dawns on pilots that FLARM use results not only in alarms one receives but also alarms one gives to others. If I am getting a lot of alerts it means that I am giving alerts to a lot of others. Any pilot with half a brain then starts to think "not only should I look out better, I should also change how I fly with respect to avoiding giving FLARM alerts to other pilots" i.e. FLARM etiquette. (This is is often reinforced by WTF! radio calls).


John Galloway

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:37:55 AM UTC-4, wrote:

The cycling helmets (or car seatbelts/airbags) and human nature experiences are often raised in discussions about the supposed risk of complacency gliding with FLARM. There are two ways in which these are invalid comparisons:

The first difference is that on the roads it is very unlikely that "near miss" accidents will previously have gone unnoticed before the introduction of the safety gear whereas when gliding with FLARM most comment that they are amazed at the number of near misses that they have been alerted to that they must have been missing pre-FLARM. Similar to what Ramy is reporting, the aspect of human nature that seems to kick in with most glider pilots using FLARM is the bit that says "This is a lot more risky than I had realised - I had better improve my look-out"

There also is another huge conceptual difference - unlike passive safety measures on the road, FLARM is an active communication system. It pretty soon dawns on pilots that FLARM use results not only in alarms one receives but also alarms one gives to others. If I am getting a lot of alerts it means that I am giving alerts to a lot of others. Any pilot with half a brain then starts to think "not only should I look out better, I should also change how I fly with respect to avoiding giving FLARM alerts to other pilots" i.e. FLARM etiquette. (This is is often reinforced by WTF! radio calls).


Adding to your list of why PFLARM and Helmets are different:
Helmets are intended to mitigate the effect of spills and collisions, whereas PFLARM is intended to prevent mid-airs. There are many accident profiles where the helmet does not do enough to mitigate injury, but a mid-air averted is a mid-air averted.

Just as motorists are more careful around cyclists that are not wearing helmets (and less careful near those wearing helmets), the question is whether the change in pilot behavior with PFLARM is, looking at the whole picture, more or less safe. The answer to that is going to be clearer in situations where all pilots have PFLARM, and less clear where only some pilots have PFLARM.

In the context where only some pilots have PFLARM, I'd fly as if no pilots had PFLARM.

In a galaxy far far away where all pilots have PFLARM, pilots are going to be less vigilant when they expect that they are far far away from other gliders (same as PFLARMless pilots are sometime less vigilant here on Earth). In that case, having PFLARM is not going to make pilots even less vigilant, but it will reduce the risk of a midair where and when one is least expected.

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:26:11 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

Just as motorists are more careful around cyclists that are not wearing helmets (and less careful near those wearing helmets), the question is whether the change in pilot behavior with PFLARM is, looking at the whole picture, more or less safe. The answer to that is going to be clearer in situations where all pilots have PFLARM, and less clear where only some pilots have PFLARM.

Do you have a cite for your statement that motorists are more careful around cyclist that are not wearing helmets and less near those without? That sounds like an urban myth/total BS to me! Most motorist HATE cyclist and by the time they can even see whether there is a helmet or not it's too late.

In the context where only some pilots have PFLARM, I'd fly as if no pilots had PFLARM.

So how do you fly now? Do YOU have FLARM?

In a galaxy far far away where all pilots have PFLARM, pilots are going to be less vigilant when they expect that they are far far away from other gliders (same as PFLARMless pilots are sometime less vigilant here on Earth).. In that case, having PFLARM is not going to make pilots even less vigilant, but it will reduce the risk of a midair where and when one is least expected.

Well, in that galaxy, they speak French.

Anyone who thinks See and Avoid (unaided by technology) works is a fool. The Big Sky Theory works better. Most of the time. I personally don't like those odds.

Technology (PFlarm, transponders, ADS-B, PCAS, TCAS, etc) is a necessary evil.

Kirk
66

I can't imagine anyone is going to admit to that or even realise it applies
to them, at least until they have a mid-air or a very near miss.

At 20:35 04 August 2014, John Galloway wrote:
It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause
complacency but no study has found evidence of that. I would
be interested to hear from pilots who who have found that FLARM
use has made them complacent about look out.

John Galloway