Another mid-air (UK)

I have used US Powerflarm in every flight I have made since it was released in the USA at Uvalde 2011. This includes around 10 contests. For me, FLARM solves one key problem and one key problem only. Anything else that it provides is a bonus.

THE ONE KEY PROBLEM FLARM SOLVES IS:

Powerflarm (if properly installed) MAY alert me to gliders that I MIGHT otherwise not be aware of (PERIOD).

This potential knowledge is a highly valuable thing to have. In my opinion glider collisions where one pilot (or both) sees the other are quite rare. Glider collisions are usually a result of BOTH PILOTS NOT being aware of the other. FLARM gives both pilots a fighting chance to avoid being unaware of each other and the chance to visually acquire each other before a surprise collision can occur. Period.

Situations in which 2 gliders may be dangerously unaware of each other may include: gliders flying the same course (behind, below, above or to the side), head on collisions, entering a thermal from different directions, entering the pattern, in the pattern, the chaos of the starting cylinder (gliders coming from any direction, little organization), or (most importantly) THE CHAOS OF A GLIDER GLUB OR COMMERCIAL OPERATION WITH MANY GLIDERS LOITERING NEAR THE AIRPORT.

Flarm (IMO) is also very good at managing up to 3 gliders at the same altitude in the same thermal.

What I DO NOT expect Flarm to do well for me is to manage MANY gliders (5+) in the same thermal ALTHOUGH PowerFlarm is usually very good at only providing relevant collision warnings even in crowded thermals. The problem I have is when more than 3 gliders in a thermal I have absolutely no time to look at the FLARM display and need 100% focus outside the glider on the other sailplanes nearby. The Flarms audible collision warnings are still useful to me however. I can usually easily/immediately correlate an audible warning to a change in turn radius by a nearby glider that could result in a collision. That audible warning "makes sense" even though I am no longer referring to the FLARM display to confirm it.

The scary part is when you get an audible alert in a very crowded thermal and nothing that you see visually from the other gliders around you seems to warrant that FLARM audible warning!

In regards to the (ch^%p) pilots who don't have FLARM, won't buy it or argue that it doesn't work or provide safety value. I have one simple statement for them:

Darwin was absolutely spot on.

http://youtu.be/iKz01UB8QrY

Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from
flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of
the flight path? I flew at Nephi last week (in a Flarm-equipped ship)
and saw and heard *nothing*. Does that mean there were no other gliders
nearby?

Those making the most stringent arguments for Flarm seem only to
denigrate the intelligence of those who choose not to use it while, on
other threads, complain about such things as antennae placement, blind
spots (below and behind), software, displays, false alerts, no alerts,
etc. I'll bet they also drive hybrid cars and lobby for wind energy and
against nuclear energy.

And as to buying unfinished technology - who actually believes he can
beat Kawa by buying an ASG-29 or a JS-1?

Dan Marotta

On 8/5/2014 10:46 PM, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
Op woensdag 6 augustus 2014 06:03:21 UTC+2 schreef Ramy:
As for statistics, I believe there is enough statistics that showing that the number of mid airs were reduced drastically since Flarm was introduced. The Flarm folks have the statistics and keep track of midairs. Wish they would chime in.

Last time I checked the numbers for the busy Alps it came to about a factor of 8 less deaths due to mid-airs and flight into wires.

8 TIMES, not percent. That's dozens of lives over the last decade...

Until you fly with (Power)flarm you're simply not aware how much traffic you do not see.

IMHO, those arguing against FLARM suffer from the same cognitive dissonance we see in people arguing against seat belts or medicines that can save lives...

At 14:26 06 August 2014, Dan Marotta wrote:
Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from
flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of
the flight path?

http://www.flarm.com:

"obstacle database covers Italian, Swiss, Austrian, French and German
obstacles, with updates (functionality at cost)"

That is why helicopters carry Flarm in the Alps.

Mike

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 6:58:12 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
So, Mark, are you trying to say that
the last time you almost ran over me you would have seen me had I
had a PF installed?� Why didn't your PF provide you with an alert
on my Mode S transponder?� Oh, yeah, that inconvenient co-altitude
thing.



After some 30+ years as a systems engineer, I know how to develop
requirements for systems way more complex than PF and I also know
how to choose existing systems which deliver what they claim.�
Reading all of the PF comments on here by the believers still
leads me to different conclusions.� Please note also that I only
state negative opinions when someone makes a ridiculous statement
first.



Should you want to discuss this further, I'll be towing today and
tomorrow.� Drop by.

Dan Marotta
On 8/5/2014 8:45 PM, Mark628CA wrote:



I fly with Dan Marotta on a regular basis from Moriarty. He constantly denigrates Power Flarm to any and all, and refuses to consider it as anything but something to bitch about.

Many of us at Moriarty use Power Flarm and find it to be a welcome addition to the cockpit environment. I see an indication of possible PF traffic and immediately try to get a visual contact. I see a Transponder ring and altitude and immediately try to scan to find the object.

My eyes are out of the cockpit much more than previously, when I thought I was all by my lonesome in the Big Blue Sky. I am informed of relative traffic on many occasions when I would have been blissfully unaware of their presence.

Dan is entitled to his opinion, but he should be aware that he is in the minority, and his insistence on only a transponder makes US aware of HIM, but he is not taking advantage of a valuable tool that might make his flying safer for HIM (and US!)

And his assertion that he has "a whole brain" is a subject of regular debate amongst other Moriarty pilots. You might want to get a second opinion, Dan.

Just kidding :-)

PowerFlarm does not have a Mode S co-altitude problem. Mode S response is unique to the transponder and effectively filtered. Mode C, yes. Mode S will only warn if it is simultaneously being queried by third party radar, and will warn only altitude, not position or vector. It carries far less information than a Flarm based warning.

Flarm has an obstacle data base warning of wires and towers. Not available for the US yet (and far less of a problem here).

Your criticism of Flarm might carry more weight if you knew more about it. It isn't perfect but pretty much does what the brochure says.

Sean: Audible warnings come in two flavors: a beep warning you to look at the display (just when you would rather not), vs. a voice saying "GLIDER, 12 O'CLOCK HIGH" which requires only evasive action. I prefer the latter. Eyes on the panel are not needed to decode.

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:26:53 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from

flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of

the flight path? I flew at Nephi last week (in a Flarm-equipped ship)

and saw and heard *nothing*. Does that mean there were no other gliders

nearby?

Dan, if you actually knew something about FLARM you would realize what a stupid statement that is. Obstacle avoidance (for Europe/Alps) is one of the big features of FLARM. As far as not seeing other gliders? Did YOU see any other gliders? So yes, probably any other gliders were either not FLARM equipped, out of range, or just NOT THERE!


Those making the most stringent arguments for Flarm seem only to

denigrate the intelligence of those who choose not to use it while, on

other threads, complain about such things as antennae placement, blind

spots (below and behind), software, displays, false alerts, no alerts,

etc. I'll bet they also drive hybrid cars and lobby for wind energy and

against nuclear energy.

No, I drive an old Jeep Cherokee, and have had NO problem with my PFLARM installation since day one. Have all three antennas, see Mode A/C/S transponders (that would be you), other FLARMs, and ADS-B airliners all the time. Where I fly locally there is one other PF and when we fly together, I get warnings of towplane activity, VFR traffic along I-70, airliners going into STL, and when he is near, NR on the PF - with an occasional collision warning when we get frisky during thermalling. No false alerts that I can tell. By your logic, fighters should not be using RADAR because it still does not detect everything from all aspects at all altitudes in all directions! FLARM is a SENSOR that does something humans are very poor at - detecting small airplanes in a big sky. And to me, the argument that pilots will look out less because of a PF and are therefore more dangerous is absurd - most of the time most pilots aren't scanning correctly and don't see traffic that a PF will detect easily - it's that Big Sky at work again!

And as to buying unfinished technology - who actually believes he can

beat Kawa by buying an ASG-29 or a JS-1?

ALL TECHNOLOGY IS UNFINISHED. And isn't Kawa flying a Diana 2, which is no-**** an unfinished glider!

Hey, if you like flying around blissfully unaware of who is around you, go ahead; at least PF will see your Mode S and give a warning. Me, I enjoy knowing who is sharing my airspace.

And what was it they said about most pilots shot down during WW1 & 2? Oh - yeah - they never saw the plane that shot them down. So much for See and Avoid!

Cheers!

Kirk
66

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:00:03 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
Glider collisions are usually a result of BOTH PILOTS NOT being aware of the other. FLARM gives both pilots a fighting chance to avoid being unaware of each other and the chance to visually acquire each other before a surprise collision can occur.

That's an excellent summary. It reads better on its own, don't you think :-)?

My $0.02: The flarm boosters and the flarm critics are both right. I have a foot in each camp.

The technology works pretty well, given a decent installation, configuration and cockpit interface. Sadly, I have seen plenty of crappy installations, mis-configurations and horrid cockpit displays... bad in enough in many cases to render the device somewhere between handicapped and completely non-functional. It does seem like the product and support could be improved.....

Evan Ludeman / T8

Dan's comments display what I was talking about. Don't bother flaming him. It doesn't work. He knows everything.

Thanks. Mocho told me that today at the airport. Despite how we rail
at each other on this forum, we actually get along pretty well.

Considering the accuracy of GPS, I would assume that the database which
alerts users of obstacles is more for awareness than specific avoidance.

I really appreciate a straight answer!

Dan Marotta

On 8/6/2014 8:52 AM, Mike Clarke wrote:
At 14:26 06 August 2014, Dan Marotta wrote:
Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from
flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of
the flight path?
http://www.flarm.com:

"obstacle database covers Italian, Swiss, Austrian, French and German
obstacles, with updates (functionality at cost)"

That is why helicopters carry Flarm in the Alps.

Mike

Gee... All this meanness. If I agree with you will you stop calling names?

Look, bottom line is this: I'm not convinced that the technology has
matured enough yet and I only pipe up on these threads when some kool
aide drinker starts calling us non users names. Be assured - I'm not
the only one, I'm simply the one who's not afraid to call the emperor
naked. Please try to deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with
you; that doesn't mean we're any more or less intelligent, only of
different backgrounds and experiences.

I will now bow out. Flame away.

Dan Marotta

On 8/6/2014 11:29 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:26:53 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from

flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of

the flight path? I flew at Nephi last week (in a Flarm-equipped ship)

and saw and heard *nothing*. Does that mean there were no other gliders

nearby?
Dan, if you actually knew something about FLARM you would realize what a stupid statement that is. Obstacle avoidance (for Europe/Alps) is one of the big features of FLARM. As far as not seeing other gliders? Did YOU see any other gliders? So yes, probably any other gliders were either not FLARM equipped, out of range, or just NOT THERE!


Those making the most stringent arguments for Flarm seem only to

denigrate the intelligence of those who choose not to use it while, on

other threads, complain about such things as antennae placement, blind

spots (below and behind), software, displays, false alerts, no alerts,

etc. I'll bet they also drive hybrid cars and lobby for wind energy and

against nuclear energy.
No, I drive an old Jeep Cherokee, and have had NO problem with my PFLARM installation since day one. Have all three antennas, see Mode A/C/S transponders (that would be you), other FLARMs, and ADS-B airliners all the time. Where I fly locally there is one other PF and when we fly together, I get warnings of towplane activity, VFR traffic along I-70, airliners going into STL, and when he is near, NR on the PF - with an occasional collision warning when we get frisky during thermalling. No false alerts that I can tell. By your logic, fighters should not be using RADAR because it still does not detect everything from all aspects at all altitudes in all directions! FLARM is a SENSOR that does something humans are very poor at - detecting small airplanes in a big sky. And to me, the argument that pilots will look out less because of a PF and are therefore more dangerous is absurd - most of the time most pilots aren't scanning correctly and don't see traffic that a PF will detect easily - it's that Big Sky at work again!

And as to buying unfinished technology - who actually believes he can

beat Kawa by buying an ASG-29 or a JS-1?
ALL TECHNOLOGY IS UNFINISHED. And isn't Kawa flying a Diana 2, which is no-**** an unfinished glider!

Hey, if you like flying around blissfully unaware of who is around you, go ahead; at least PF will see your Mode S and give a warning. Me, I enjoy knowing who is sharing my airspace.

And what was it they said about most pilots shot down during WW1 & 2? Oh - yeah - they never saw the plane that shot them down. So much for See and Avoid!

Cheers!

Kirk
66

Dan, you kidding about the accuracy of GPS, right? Or maybe trolling? I realize you may have never used a GPS in gliders, but I am sure you've seen GPS in cars which can pin point in which Lane you are traveling. OK, I am not going to fall into this trap.

Ramy