FLARM

Don, you really don't know what you are talking about. IGC rules explicitely
allow Flarm since July.
I agree that in areas where the main collision risk is powered aircraft, the
best way to go is a transponder with TCAS (and non-directional warnings
don't learn me anything new, I *know* that there is traffic outside).
In other regions (and that is the Alps in Europe, Germany, France ist
starting as well) there are 3000+ sailplane pilots who happily fly with
Flarm, and one could by now well claim that it is tested.

You calling it "a half baked Mickey Mouse idea" without having any precise
idea what you are talking about is just pathetic.

"Don Johnstone" wrote in message
...
The question of usage within the UK is now a bit of
a moot point. The latest competition rules forbid the
use of data transmission (FLARM) in competitions and
rightly so. Given the data they transmit they could
provide a big advantage to a competitor with the knowledge
and resources to decode the information.

My position is clear, if we are going to have to install
something let it be something that works not some half
baked Mickey Mouse idea that for a multitude of reasons
will never be universally accepted.

At 08:30 09 March 2006, Pb wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:

Unless 100% of gliders have it installed it cannot
be effective,surely you can
see that.

Not really Don, if any percentage of gliders is equipped
with Flarm, the
risk of collision is reduced, surely you can see that.

Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the
UK
to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
about the same chance as winning the national lottery.

Well, I do not know about UK, but I do know that at
my club, DDSC in
Queensland Australia we have achieved a nearly 100
% compliance within
few weeks. Upon request by the club committee, enough
money was donated
by members to equip all club gliders and tugs. Almost
all private
gliders were also fitted with Flarm.
In a recent competition 60 or so gliders were equipped
with Flarm. A
questionnaire and interviews after the comp showed
that all pilots were
very positive about the Flarm.
So, I am not so sure that it will be so difficult to
get a high level of
voluntary compliance.
The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European
version) will be
able to receive communication from transponders and
thus give
information on the power aircraft.
I find your position quite interesting Don. Clearly
you have no
experience with Flarm, yet you dismiss it. Likewise
you seem to able to
speak on behalf of a vast majority of UK pilots - no
mean feat.
Clearly Flarm is not a device that will solve all the
problems. Lookout
is important and will remain so. However it has failed
many time, I
guess in some cases because it was not particularly
good, but in other
cases it could have been due to physiological limitation
of pilots.
Equally you cannot see in your blind spot, Flarm can.
Personally I have only flown with Flarm 2 or 3 times.
I have found that
it showed me gliders I did not see, once dead ahead
but well bellow, so
I have changed course slightly and spotted it. One
other time at my 10
o'clock a long way away. Overall I have found that
it has improved my
situational awareness as the Australian Flarm actually
shows you where
the gliders are (well +- 22.5 deg).
Finally we all spend money on chutes (about 3x as much)
and yet their
potential to save one is quite limited.

regards

paul

Don Johnstone wrote:
Unless 100% of gliders have
it installed it cannot be effective

If 99% of gliders had it installed, and there were 100 other gliders
flying in the area, the risk of not being aware of one would be
decreased by 99%. If 50%, risk decreased by 50%.

Not as effective as if 100% had FLARM installed, but surely not
completely ineffective?

I'm not (yet at any rate) planning to install FLARM for flying in the
UK, but would if I flew in the Alps. I can use a 50%+ improvement in my
chances of spotting other aircraft.

What your all forgetting is that dear old Don applies two basic rules to
flying.
1st Always fly in the middle of the air. The extremities can be very
dangerous, there you will find Land, Tree's, Mountains, Water, Space and
Other Aircraft
2nd If you hear a loud bang you know you've hit something.

Therefore he doesn't need FLARM

Phil :-)


Chris Reed wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:
Unless 100% of gliders have
it installed it cannot be effective

If 99% of gliders had it installed, and there were 100 other gliders
flying in the area, the risk of not being aware of one would be
decreased by 99%. If 50%, risk decreased by 50%.

Not as effective as if 100% had FLARM installed, but surely not
completely ineffective?

I'm not (yet at any rate) planning to install FLARM for flying in the
UK, but would if I flew in the Alps. I can use a 50%+ improvement in my
chances of spotting other aircraft.

Just a reflection rather than a comment, really:

I think it's good that we have this discussion and that it is conducted
that enthusiastically. I even want to thank Don for being the punching
bag here, because he manages to provoke responses with lots of insight.
This threads should be saved as an FAQ list for later reference.

As for myself: having been slightly interested in FLARM from the
beginning, I am getting increasingly convinced that I should buy one,
even though it is not sold in Sweden, which probably also implies that
the number of installed devices it insignificant at the moment...

Seems to be the "Catch-22" like same problem as with the fax machine,
that has been invented decades before its break-through just because
others need to have it in order for it being useful to yourself... All
you can hope for are the "Early adopters".

At 09:48 09 March 2006, Bert Willing wrote:
Don, you really don't know what you are talking about.
IGC rules explicitely
allow Flarm since July.

One assumes that the heigh information is based on
GPS information, a measurement which the IGC have
previously ruled is not accurate or suitable. Have
they changed their minds? Will they now accept loggers
and files from GPS units that use GPS height information
as they have accepted that it is accurate enough for
this purpose, a much more critical purpose I might
add.

I agree that in areas where the main collision risk
is powered aircraft, the
best way to go is a transponder with TCAS (and non-directional
warnings
don't learn me anything new, I *know* that there is
traffic outside).
In other regions (and that is the Alps in Europe, Germany,
France ist
starting as well) there are 3000+ sailplane pilots
who happily fly with
Flarm, and one could by now well claim that it is tested.

And what happens if many more units are all transmitting
at the same time? What is the limit? There has to be
a limit on the number of transmissions does there not?

You calling it 'a half baked Mickey Mouse idea' without
having any precise
idea what you are talking about is just pathetic.

Is it now, is the information transmitted securely
encoded so that it cannot be intercepted and used by
competitors in a competition to their advantage.
I think my description is very apt. If it is such a
good idea then why is it not fitted into every aircraft
now flying?

I accept I misread the BGA rules. Data transmission
for safety purposes and collision avoidance is excepted.

'Don Johnstone' wrote in message
...
The question of usage within the UK is now a bit of
a moot point. The latest competition rules forbid
the
use of data transmission (FLARM) in competitions and
rightly so. Given the data they transmit they could
provide a big advantage to a competitor with the knowledge
and resources to decode the information.

My position is clear, if we are going to have to install
something let it be something that works not some
half
baked Mickey Mouse idea that for a multitude of reasons
will never be universally accepted.

At 08:30 09 March 2006, Pb wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:

Unless 100% of gliders have it installed it cannot
be effective,surely you can
see that.

Not really Don, if any percentage of gliders is equipped
with Flarm, the
risk of collision is reduced, surely you can see that.

Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the
UK
to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
about the same chance as winning the national lottery.

Well, I do not know about UK, but I do know that at
my club, DDSC in
Queensland Australia we have achieved a nearly 100
% compliance within
few weeks. Upon request by the club committee, enough
money was donated
by members to equip all club gliders and tugs. Almost
all private
gliders were also fitted with Flarm.
In a recent competition 60 or so gliders were equipped
with Flarm. A
questionnaire and interviews after the comp showed
that all pilots were
very positive about the Flarm.
So, I am not so sure that it will be so difficult to
get a high level of
voluntary compliance.
The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European
version) will be
able to receive communication from transponders and
thus give
information on the power aircraft.
I find your position quite interesting Don. Clearly
you have no
experience with Flarm, yet you dismiss it. Likewise
you seem to able to
speak on behalf of a vast majority of UK pilots - no
mean feat.
Clearly Flarm is not a device that will solve all the
problems. Lookout
is important and will remain so. However it has failed
many time, I
guess in some cases because it was not particularly
good, but in other
cases it could have been due to physiological limitation
of pilots.
Equally you cannot see in your blind spot, Flarm can.
Personally I have only flown with Flarm 2 or 3 times.
I have found that
it showed me gliders I did not see, once dead ahead
but well bellow, so
I have changed course slightly and spotted it. One
other time at my 10
o'clock a long way away. Overall I have found that
it has improved my
situational awareness as the Australian Flarm actually
shows you where
the gliders are (well +- 22.5 deg).
Finally we all spend money on chutes (about 3x as much)
and yet their
potential to save one is quite limited.

regards

paul

"Don Johnstone" wrote in message
...
One assumes that the heigh information is based on
GPS information, a measurement which the IGC have
previously ruled is not accurate or suitable. Have
they changed their minds? Will they now accept loggers
and files from GPS units that use GPS height information
as they have accepted that it is accurate enough for
this purpose, a much more critical purpose I might
add.

No, that's not what I meant. It is a logger (but not a secure logger). But
the IGC explicitely allowed to operate it during competitions. But you will
still need an IGC logger for scoring.

And what happens if many more units are all transmitting
at the same time? What is the limit? There has to be
a limit on the number of transmissions does there not?

I have been in pre-start goggles of 50+ gliders with their Flarms working,
but at that point I don't care if there is a limitation.

The most dangerous situations occur if you THINK you're alone.
However, you can never rely on Flarm for collision avoidance - it does tell
you if there is a glider (equally equipped), and it does that amazingly
well, but you mustn't think that it tells you that there is no other glider.
And even if it does show you a glider, that doesn't mean that there is not
another glider on a collision - it just shows you the first one you probably
will hit.

Is it now, is the information transmitted securely
encoded so that it cannot be intercepted and used by
competitors in a competition to their advantage.

No need for that. The transmission range is 1.5 -2 km, and even IGC thinks
that's not an issue. So what?

I think my description is very apt. If it is such a
good idea then why is it not fitted into every aircraft
now flying?

More than 3000 units sold 2 years after introduction without any regulatory
means - show me ANY device in soaring that has achieved this.

...If it is such a
good idea then why is it not fitted into every aircraft
now flying?

Because of people like you, perhaps?

Marcel Duenner, Switzerland, in a 95% FLARM-equipped area and very glad
it's that way.

I'd sure like to see the personal attacks and innuendo left out of this
discussion.

FLARM, TPAS, ADS-B, etc, etc, . . . none of it is bad. All of it is pointing
towards some admittedly imperfect solutions to a very real problem.

What bothers me is that the technology is out there to all but solve the
threat of mid-air collisions. Not just between gliders in those "FLARM"
areas where glider density makes other gliders the primary threat, but also
in other areas where power planes pose an equal or greater risk. In fact,
one system could do-it-all.

The problem is getting an international standard established, implementing
just one "FLARM like device" for all aircraft, glider and powered. This
device would ideally be available as a portable unit or panel mounted. It
would consist of a low-power transceiver, GPS, and moving map w/alert
mechanism - - much like the existing ADS-B (which I haven't seen or used),
but cheaper and less power hungry.

No, I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen and will continue
to use my transponder and TPAS in the interim.

bumper
Minden, NV

"MaD" wrote in message
oups.com...
...If it is such a
good idea then why is it not fitted into every aircraft
now flying?

Because of people like you, perhaps?

Marcel Duenner, Switzerland, in a 95% FLARM-equipped area and very glad
it's that way.

PB wrote:

The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European version) will be
able to receive communication from transponders and thus give
information on the power aircraft.

Can you point to a website that discusses this? If it's true, it's very
interesting, because the transponder detectors available aren't much
cheaper than FLARM, and can't supply a GPS signal to navigation
computers, or make a flight log. It would make FLARM a good value even
if no other glider had one.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

bumper wrote:
I'd sure like to see the personal attacks and innuendo left out of this
discussion.

FLARM, TPAS, ADS-B, etc, etc, . . . none of it is bad. All of it is pointing
towards some admittedly imperfect solutions to a very real problem.

What bothers me is that the technology is out there to all but solve the
threat of mid-air collisions. Not just between gliders in those "FLARM"
areas where glider density makes other gliders the primary threat, but also
in other areas where power planes pose an equal or greater risk. In fact,
one system could do-it-all.

Its a nice thought, but one-size-fits-all would most likely attract all
the glider pilot bitching about power consumption, size and price that's
currently directed at transponders and ADS-B.

There's one simple reason for this: a universal solution would also need
to be applicable to faster aircraft and would have to radiate
proportionately more power. A system that would give the same avoidance
time against a 250 kt airliner as for a 100 kt glider would need 2.5
times the range and hence must radiate 6.25 times as much power.
Suddenly your 100 mA FALARM equivalent is eating 625 mA.

In practice a universal device would burn a LOT more power than I just
calculated because:
- the worst case warning range for two 250 kt aircraft is 42% more than
I calculated above, so the transmission power is doubled.
- airlines would want a longer avoidance period than we need.
- the range requirement at least doubles again (and transmission power
quadruples) when you consider jet transports at full cruising speed
above 10,000 ft or fast jets at any altitude?

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |