If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA
touche!
Bert Willing wrote: How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time. Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully. /ALL/ the pilots who died here in Europe so far have always successfully detected and dealt with threats. Except the last one. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA
Dan G wrote: On Oct 26, 4:07 pm, Ian wrote: I have never used it myself [1] but I was chatting about it just a few days ago with an instructor at a busy ridge site here. His view was that it's a menace: it generates far too many false alarms, and pilots who try to evade non-existent hazards may thereby cause significant danger. What are you supposed to do, he asked, if you get a six-second- t-death warning about a glider which is supposedly dead ahead but which you can't see? He reckoned the main problem was that the system only believes in "cruising" and "thermalling" and gets hopelessly confused by the turn at the end of a beat on the ridge. Sounds like you're talking about the SGU trial at Portmoak (or at least, that's the same as the opinion of one vocal instructor there - whether or not those are the conclusions the SGU arrive at themselves remains to be seen). They fly a rather short ridge (only a few km) which is not representative of normal glider operations - not sure that their findings, when published, can be extrapolated beyond their own circumstances. Lasham, by contrast, did find that Flarm met their needs (no doubt partly motivated by the fatal collision there in 2004). They're a flat- land thermal site - probably the busiest in the UK. I think the fact that their entire fleet (some thirty gliders and tugs) has been fitted with Flarm, and that many more units are being fitted to the private fleet there, is a strong endorsement. Only flown there once and the weather was lousy, but I would hardly call those things thermals ;-) Dan |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA
On Oct 28, 5:39 am, Ian wrote:
Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully. Gee, Ian, do you really believe in that or just trolling? You have about the same chance to get hit whether you look outside or fly blind folded! What saves you is the big sky and nothing else. And all the "threats" you think you detect are most likely non threats, the ones which catch your eyes as moving targets close by. The real threats are those which do not move and turned from a dot to full size in less than 10 seconds. There are very few pilots who can honestly say they had detected and avoided one of those thanks to just looking outside. This is where I am sceptical. Yes, I am sure these things will give lots of extra alerts - they'd hardly be worth buying if they didn't. But we are not exactly plagued, world wide, by glider-glider collisions, are we? So what this means is that pilots will spend a lot more time reacting to false alarms (they must be false, because if they weren't they'd end in a collision without the magic gadgets). And what you think the reaction to those false alarm is? Looking outside and scanning for the threat! Do you see a problem with this? Ramy |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA
On Oct 29, 1:14 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
If gliders everywhere were assigned a separate code, like the 0440 in Minden, it might be a much easier task. Nearby gliders would not generate alerts, for example, while airplanes using the 1200 code would be. The Zaon MRX does not do anything with the squawk code except to report the host aircraft code. Target tracking and reporting is based only on signal strength which is interpreted as target distance. Based on the the designers response to intelligent muting I have no doubt that intelligent muting based on squawk code would be a non- starter. Andy |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA
On Oct 29, 3:55 pm, Robert Danewid
Buy a Colibri FLARM and you have it! I don't think so! Are you saying the Colibri has integrated PCAS and reports transponder targets? Andy |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA
Andy wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:14 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote: If gliders everywhere were assigned a separate code, like the 0440 in Minden, it might be a much easier task. Nearby gliders would not generate alerts, for example, while airplanes using the 1200 code would be. The Zaon MRX does not do anything with the squawk code except to report the host aircraft code. Target tracking and reporting is based only on signal strength which is interpreted as target distance. Based on the the designers response to intelligent muting I have no doubt that intelligent muting based on squawk code would be a non- starter. It was a general observation that applies to transponder detectors. I think it would require less processing power and provide better muting if the unit could determine which threat was a glider and which was an airplane. I would like to hear from MRX-equipped (or similar units) pilots that fly with other gliders equipped with transponders. I've done a limited amount of it, and with only a few gliders at a time. By setting the altitude warning band tighter and ocasionally using the mute button on the MRX (though I'd like the mute to automatically reset after 5 or 10 minutes), I wasn't bothered by excessive alerts. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4 * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA
I've been flying with a Proxalert R-5 for over 5 years. It displays the
squawk code of the threat aircraft so I can tell, at least near Minden, if it's a glider (0440) or someone not talking to ATC (1200), or if the other aircraft *is* talking to ATC (discreet code) and thus likely has been told about me. The R5's ability to display squawk appears to be not enough of an advantage to overcome its more expensive price tag and larger form factor as compared to the diminutive and more popular ZAON I wonder if enough people asked them to add squawk code display, ZAON would add that to there next model. I'd buy one. bumper "Eric Greenwell" wrote in message news:Z2UVi.4372$pT.572@trndny07... Andy wrote: On Oct 29, 1:14 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote: If gliders everywhere were assigned a separate code, like the 0440 in Minden, it might be a much easier task. Nearby gliders would not generate alerts, for example, while airplanes using the 1200 code would be. The Zaon MRX does not do anything with the squawk code except to report the host aircraft code. Target tracking and reporting is based only on signal strength which is interpreted as target distance. Based on the the designers response to intelligent muting I have no doubt that intelligent muting based on squawk code would be a non- starter. It was a general observation that applies to transponder detectors. I think it would require less processing power and provide better muting if the unit could determine which threat was a glider and which was an airplane. I would like to hear from MRX-equipped (or similar units) pilots that fly with other gliders equipped with transponders. I've done a limited amount of it, and with only a few gliders at a time. By setting the altitude warning band tighter and ocasionally using the mute button on the MRX (though I'd like the mute to automatically reset after 5 or 10 minutes), I wasn't bothered by excessive alerts. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4 * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA
On Oct 30, 10:06 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
I would like to hear from MRX-equipped (or similar units) pilots that fly with other gliders equipped with transponders. I've done a limited amount of it, and with only a few gliders at a time. By setting the altitude warning band tighter and ocasionally using the mute button on the MRX (though I'd like the mute to automatically reset after 5 or 10 minutes), I wasn't bothered by excessive alerts. I have the MRX and have flown at meets where there was at least one transponder equipped glider. It was not a problem. For the case where I was nearly mown down by a King Air, the MRX would have given no protection if one of the other gliders with me had been transponder equipped and I had muted the MRX. Intelligent muting requires that the unit will unmute if a new threat is detected. It could perhaps be made more intelligent if unmute was not activated by a new glider target but that's debatable. I think there is great potential for integrating FLARM or ADS-B (with CDTI) with PCAS devices. I hope that will be discussed at the meeting. Andy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Janis Karpinski/Karen Kwiatkowski discuss war for Israel in Iraq and beyond... | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 23rd 06 11:44 AM |
FLARM | Robert Hart | Soaring | 50 | March 16th 06 11:20 PM |
Flarm | Mal | Soaring | 4 | October 19th 05 08:44 AM |
FLARM | John Galloway | Soaring | 9 | November 27th 04 07:16 AM |
Roadable aircraft group please join and discuss with us in our forum | Strafi | Home Built | 0 | October 22nd 03 01:37 AM |