FLARM.....for good, or evil??

On Oct 26, 7:38*pm, kd6veb wrote:
On Oct 26, 5:37*pm, Ramy wrote:



On Oct 26, 10:46*am, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
* Surely flying in a thermal with a gaggle of other gliders is
suicidal period. And what use is a Flarm in those conditions? I have a
Phoenix on order and am anticipating putting a PowerFlarm in it. Why?
Because the PowerFlarm has a PCAS function in addition to the Flarm
function and the PowerFlarm costs only a little more than a Zaon PCAS..
I do think the mandatory use of Flarm is a good idea for comps
especially if one can inexpensively rent a Flarm. But outside of comps
with the flying I do having a transponder is by far the most important
piece of safety equipment I have on board. A PCAS is also worth
having. Having a Flarm? It is a useless device until the use of Flarm
by the gliding community reaches critical mass (usage). That is
unlikely to happen here in the US for several years at best. And then
*Ramy wrote:

Dave, are you no longer flying to the Whites? Cause otherwise I am
sure you'll agree that in the area you are flying, other than near
Reno, the biggest risk of mid air collision is with another glider
running the White Mountains. On a good day, there can be over 20
gliders dolphine flying at 100 knots (200 knots closing speed) in a
1000 feet altitude band and within half a mile lateral, in both
directions.

Ramy
* I fly the Whites with the transponder on like almost all responsible
glider pilots do. I also have PCAS on so if there is another pilot
near me with a transponder on I know that. Flarm is technically better
but why would we from the Reno area buy one having a transponder and
PCAS? I think you are missing the point of this discussion. Another
device that will only respond to other glider pilots having a Flarm?
This will not make sense to a large number of pilots who also want
protection from GA. I have said this many times but for us the
transponder is the most important safety device with PCAS a useful add
on. Flarm is a distant ( let me repeat that - A DISTANT THIRD) - on
the safety list of devices. I am not saying it is useless but until
about 50% of the glider pilots in the region you fly use one its
affect is marginal at best. That said I am purchasing one as I don't
see much downside for me but if I really had to tbe serious about
expenditures it would be a distant third on my list of safety devices
- transponder (90%), PCAS (8%) and guess where Flarm would be.
Dave

PS1 How are we going to persuade our FOBs at Minden to make the major
modification to Flarm when the installation of PowerFlarm in their
existing gliders may be difficult to say the least. The conversion to
transponders has been difficult enough for them and for Minden
transponders are clearly superior to Flarm. Hitting a commercial jet
with 200 passengers is not an option!

PS2 I wish risk management was taught in schools in the US.



what about GA? What good is Flarm for GA? They are never going to use
it in the US. The FAA has another system in store for GA and
commercial aircraft.
Dave

Dave, are you no longer flying to the Whites? Cause otherwise I am
sure you'll agree that in the area you are flying, other than near
Reno, the biggest risk of mid air collision is with another glider
running the White Mountains. On a good day, there can be over 20
gliders dolphine flying at 100 knots (200 knots closing speed) in a
1000 feet altitude band and within half a mile lateral, in both
directions.

Ramy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee Dave, looks like you are mixing between PCAS and TCAS!
Having flown with PCAS in the last 8 years (yes, even before MRX) I
can say that PCAS, until now, where the best and only colision
avoidance system available for gliders, and I would not fly without
one. But having said that, all the PCAS I flew with, including the
MRX, are unreliable, often do not alert you at all, or alert you way
too late (how many times it alerted me of other gliders AFTER they
passed me!), the audio alert often comes too late, the display alert
is hardly noticable unless you looking at it instead of outside, the
distance is very inacurate, the altitude difference is often
completely wrong, it will not alert you at all if there is no
interrogation, and even when everything works as designed, all you
know is that there is another aircraft nearby, but not WHERE. So the
best outcome of PCAS is that it encourages you to scan at the right
moment. That's it. And in case you suspect I have a faulty unit, mine
was at the factory nearly 5 times in the last 5 years, and got
completely replaced twice (great customer service though, they never
charged a dime).
Also Dave, I suggest reading a little more about PowerFlarm. Why do
you think a portbale device will be complicated to install?

Ramy

On Oct 26, 7:38*pm, kd6veb wrote:
On Oct 26, 5:37*pm, Ramy wrote:

On Oct 26, 10:46*am, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
* Surely flying in a thermal with a gaggle of other gliders is
suicidal period. And what use is a Flarm in those conditions? I have a
Phoenix on order and am anticipating putting a PowerFlarm in it. Why?
Because the PowerFlarm has a PCAS function in addition to the Flarm
function and the PowerFlarm costs only a little more than a Zaon PCAS..
I do think the mandatory use of Flarm is a good idea for comps
especially if one can inexpensively rent a Flarm. But outside of comps
with the flying I do having a transponder is by far the most important
piece of safety equipment I have on board. A PCAS is also worth
having. Having a Flarm? It is a useless device until the use of Flarm
by the gliding community reaches critical mass (usage). That is
unlikely to happen here in the US for several years at best. And then
*Ramy wrote:

Dave, are you no longer flying to the Whites? Cause otherwise I am
sure you'll agree that in the area you are flying, other than near
Reno, the biggest risk of mid air collision is with another glider
running the White Mountains. On a good day, there can be over 20
gliders dolphine flying at 100 knots (200 knots closing speed) in a
1000 feet altitude band and within half a mile lateral, in both
directions.

Ramy
* I fly the Whites with the transponder on like almost all responsible
glider pilots do. I also have PCAS on so if there is another pilot
near me with a transponder on I know that. Flarm is technically better
but why would we from the Reno area buy one having a transponder and
PCAS? I think you are missing the point of this discussion. Another
device that will only respond to other glider pilots having a Flarm?
This will not make sense to a large number of pilots who also want
protection from GA. I have said this many times but for us the
transponder is the most important safety device with PCAS a useful add
on. Flarm is a distant ( let me repeat that - A DISTANT THIRD) - on
the safety list of devices. I am not saying it is useless but until
about 50% of the glider pilots in the region you fly use one its
affect is marginal at best. That said I am purchasing one as I don't
see much downside for me but if I really had to tbe serious about
expenditures it would be a distant third on my list of safety devices
- transponder (90%), PCAS (8%) and guess where Flarm would be.
Dave

PS1 How are we going to persuade our FOBs at Minden to make the major
modification to Flarm when the installation of PowerFlarm in their
existing gliders may be difficult to say the least. The conversion to
transponders has been difficult enough for them and for Minden
transponders are clearly superior to Flarm. Hitting a commercial jet
with 200 passengers is not an option!

PS2 I wish risk management was taught in schools in the US.

what about GA? What good is Flarm for GA? They are never going to use
it in the US. The FAA has another system in store for GA and
commercial aircraft.
Dave

Dave, are you no longer flying to the Whites? Cause otherwise I am
sure you'll agree that in the area you are flying, other than near
Reno, the biggest risk of mid air collision is with another glider
running the White Mountains. On a good day, there can be over 20
gliders dolphine flying at 100 knots (200 knots closing speed) in a
1000 feet altitude band and within half a mile lateral, in both
directions.

Ramy



It has been a few years since I've been on the Whites, but I've done
that enough times with a transponder and PCAS and with enough other
gliders all with different levels of transponder and PCAS equipage
that I can say its a helpful warning at times but also scary how
poorly it works as well when running at high speed close to the rocks
with lots of other gliders around. It's out little part of the
European Alps glider traffic problem relocated to sunny California.
You can be getting PCAS alerts from gliders behind you and miss the
one coming head on at you until too late. The lack of directional
clues have you sweating if that new alert at exactly your altitude is
ahead or behind you - since as Ramy points out everybody often ends up
on the same race track . There are also locations where you round an
obstruction and then are surprised by a glider coming the other way
but you never say its transponder because you did not have line of
sight. Flarm will have a similar issue with only line of sight
coverage but the huge difference is that as soon as you get line of
sight you get immediate (~ 1 sec) information including direction to
any threat and the threat assessment is much more sophisticated. It
should be no surprise that PCAS has problems in this type scenario, it
is just not really intended for this - something Flarm is used for
widely in Europe.

Dave I assume you are trolling here a bit for fun since you've tried
to stir up similar discussions on other forums and then made clear you
already have decided to buy a PowerFLARM. You guys should be working
on a bulk-buy for PowerFLARM out of Minden and see how much real
interest there is there. A significant number of the SF Bay Area
pilots who do serous XC out of the Reno/Miden/Truckee area have
committed to purchase PowerFLARM arleady and its early days yet -- so
far I count around 15 committed purchases from SF Bay Area/Central
Valley pilots who fly serious XC out of the Reno/Minden/Truckee area
during summer - and almost every one to a man has a transponder
already (I am aware of one who does not -- and he knows who he is and
he plans to fix that as well :-)). I don't have a feel for local
Minden/Truckee pilot purchase plans -- but I hope to see enough of you
guys at this Saturday's PASCO saftey seminar that we can talk about it
live.

Regards


Darryl

On Oct 26, 8:29*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Oct 26, 4:38*pm, "





wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:47*pm, "

wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:08*am, John Cochrane
wrote:

On Oct 26, 6:53*am, "

wrote:
From Sept 2010 "Soaring"...article on FLARM...

..."we were flying in big undiciplined gaggles"...

..."I received indications about one idiot who pulled in behind and
then passed 10 feet over me."...

..."I received many beeps from gliders following 20 feet behind and
just outside..."

Holy close call Batman! *..Undisciplined??!! .. * Idiot??!! * .. 10
feet over??!!.. * 20 feet??!!

*Are you thinking what I'm thinking???

Cookie

Well, I'm thinking I'm glad to be alive. I'm thinking that I like the
trend in US contest rules that take us away from mass gaggle flying,
and wish the worlds would take a stab in that direction as well. I'm
thinking flarm is a pretty darn good idea. What are you thinking?

John Cochrane

John,

I do not disagree with anything you say above. *I am glad you are
still alive. *I see the problem with big gaggles. *I think FLARM is a
useful tool in avoiding glider to glider collisions.

Well, I was thinking that maybe FLARM is creating false sense of
security? *Could contest pilots actually be tempted *to fly
dangerously, taking extra risks, assuming that if everybody has a
FLARM there is no problem??

How could two flarm equipped gliders possibly get within 10 feet of
each other? *I mean, at some earlier point in time they we
considerably further apart, so at what point does one or both pilots
take evasive action?

Or does FLARM somehow allow safe flight within 20 feet or 10 feet or
even closer?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Guys........

I think you are missing my point / question here............In my
original post, I did not intend to simply re-open the FALRM pro or con
arguement...Note I changed the heading.

My point / question is in regard to John C's article in soaring, in
which his accounts left me with a very uneasy feeling.

Not about the FLARM, but about what a perceive as possible misuse of
FLARM, or false confidence, or increased risk taking, knowing every
glider is FLARM equipped *(that's the "evil" *part in my heading).

I am referring to the parts in the article about "idiot" and
"undisciplined".....and what a perceive as some close, near
collisions........

Are the pilots "idiots" and "undisciplined" because of the FALRM? *Or
are they "idiots" and "undisciplined" in spite of the FLARM?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The answer to your question is the same as the answer to the following
question: Are you flying less carefully because you are wearing a
parachute? I don't think so.

Ramy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ramy,

I disagree ..........With a parachute I do take more risk......and you
probably do to.

Here are three examples of more risky flying WITH a parachute that I
do / have done:

1) Flight testing homebuilt aircraft
2) Aerobatic flying
3) Glider competition

Regualtion and / or common sense dictates a parachute for the above
scenarios.

Cookie

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:29:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



So, are you suggesting that two gliders can come within 10 feet of
each other and neither receive a FLARM alarm?

Seems to me the simple fact that they were previously some distance
apart, then, later, only 10 feet apart, seems like converging flight
paths to me.


Yes, you can get very close to a glider without Flarm to warn you (in
alarm mode). It's a matter of speeds and heading. You can fly long
distances, on a ridge for examples, leeching or side by side; you only
get occasional warnings when the paths change.

in "awareness mode", of course a led will indicate where the closer
glider is, but still alarms will only be triggered when a deviation
makes the collision a real possibility.


aldo cernezzi

On 10/27/2010 12:29 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:14 pm, Mike
wrote:
On 10/26/2010 10:22 PM, 5Z wrote:

On Oct 26, 10:46 am, wrote:
what about GA? What good is Flarm for GA? They are never going to use
it in the US. The FAA has another system in store for GA and
commercial aircraft.

Seems to like cheap insurance for helicopters in metro areas as well
as airports with heavy training operations, as well as places such as
the Grand Canyon with heavy sightseeing operations. All of these
situations could easily get buy-in with a little bit of peer pressure
and local politics. Don't get the FAA involved, instead local pilot
groups and FBOs / commercial operators could make the case for
PowerFlarm as a useful tool for high density VFR operations. As
mentioned in other threads, ADS/B and ATC are just not designed for
these operations.

I recall that after the helicopter midair near Phoenix a few years
ago, there was a local news story of someone working on a $50K (fifty
thousand) solution to prevent these accidents.

Just my $0.02

-Tom

What would make you think that ADS-B was not designed for high density
VFR operations???? That's exactly what it was designed for, before the
FAA focused everyone's attention on using the technology to decrease
separations between IFR aircraft.

--
Mike Schumann

Do you have reference to any ADS-B work on close quarters flying, like
links you can give to research, design, testing etc. related to close
flying like say where you have helicopters orbiting a crime scene or
accident and which vendors make those systems? That scenario may be
like thermalling in gliders, if I operated news helicopters or similar
I'd be interested in checking a PowerFLARM (since they are such low
cost and don't involve any reglatory hassle) and seeing how it worked.
I'd also probalby want to look at ADS-B if I could would work out an
affordable/approved install to test with.

The big work in helicopters with ADS-B was the Gulf of Mexico trial
where the core there was really solving in-flight separation and
moving out of the "one in the slot" sequencing where they had no radar
offshore radar. By all accounts the GOMEX trial was pretty positive.

All the helicopter operators in any area would also need to get
together and agree on what ADS=B link-layer they will operate on
because where/how helicopters fly they are quite likely to be outside
GBT coverage and won't have any ADS-R service at times. But hopefully
that's a short meeting to get agreement on.

There is significant experience gained from GOMEX (Gulf of Mexico)
helicopter 1090ES operation. Again thanks to the FAA STC installation
are required for each helicopter type and ADS-B data-out equipment.
Some of the work was done for the GOMEX trial could probalby be
updated to meet a new STC. The issue there likely will be justifying
this STC development for some of the lighter helicopters that won't
have any work from GOMEX to piggy back on -- and Garmin's GTX-330ES
(probably the natural choice for light-medium helicopter avionics
given Gamin's push there recently) is not quite ready with DO-260B rev
yet so I don't see the FAA allowing a TSO until it is. I'm guessing
equipped price per light-medium helicopter for ADS-B data-out and -in
and display is likely to start in the $10k range (depends if the
helicopter has an existing TSO'ed WAAS GPS or an existing display
capability (I suspect a PDA is not going to cut it to a busy
helicopter crew)). Its unclear to me if the GPS used is specific in
the ADS-B data-out STC, if so that's may be another hurdle. There may
be question about display systems suitable for a no-hands helicopter
pilot.

The obstacle database in Flarm might also be interesting esp. for the
very light helicopters vs. existing relatively expensive GA TAWS
systems. But there is a question of getting the obstacle database in
Flarm format.

Darryl


There's a difference between flying in high density VFR environments and
close quarters flying. Flying in the pattern at a very busy GA airport
is not nearly as challenging as flying in a gaggle with numerous other
gliders.

Neither ADS-B nor FLARM can provide foolproof collision protection
between gliders sharing a thermal. Urs, Rob Strain and I had a
discussion about this at the SSA convention in Albuquerque a number of
years ago. This is a fundamental problem of GPS accuracy limits,
coupled with how far a glider can move in an unexpected direction
between the 1 sec position updates.

That's not to say that FLARM or ADS-B can't be helpful in notifying you
of new aircraft (gliders or GA) approaching a gaggle, so you can keep an
eye out, or in letting you see how many gliders are in a gaggle and
their relative orientation when you are approaching.

--
Mike Schumann

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:06:31 -0400, Mike Schumann
wrote:


Neither ADS-B nor FLARM can provide foolproof collision protection
between gliders sharing a thermal.
....
That's not to say that FLARM or ADS-B can't be helpful in notifying you
of new aircraft (gliders or GA) approaching a gaggle, so you can keep an
eye out, or in letting you see how many gliders are in a gaggle and
their relative orientation when you are approaching.

I agree. In facts, I think we don't NEED any "foolproof collision
protection". I also believe that we don't need Flarm to be infallible.
If it will warn me from relatively distant gliders I have already
seen, and which don't seem to be a threat, I'll say "thanks pal, I
already knew about him".

The accidents that have happened are the proof that, however, we NEED
a device to turn our attention on, when it might momentarily,
unvoluntarily and unawarely be off.

I recall an old, dramatic report which appeared in Soaring magazine.
It was written by the survivor of a glider-glider collision. They had
been flying together since taking off, so they both were well aware of
the traffic. Not a lot of VFR traffic, not a huge gaggle, not a
densely participated competition. Just two gliders.
Nevertheless, while searching for lift, they collided.

Would Flarm have been available at the time, and installed in both
gliders, it most probably would have turned into a non-event, less
than an incident.
We just wouldn't think about it today, and the gliding community would
have one more member and less sorrow. I see no reason to wait longer
before takeing advantage of this technology. We've been using it for
many years now, in Europe.

Aldo Cernezzi

On Oct 27, 7:28*am, cernauta wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:29:23 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

So, are you suggesting that two gliders can come within 10 feet of
each other and neither receive a FLARM alarm?

Seems to me the simple fact that they were previously some distance
apart, then, later, only 10 feet apart, seems like converging flight
paths to me.

Yes, you can get very close to a glider without Flarm to warn you (in
alarm mode). It's a matter of speeds and heading. You can fly long
distances, on a ridge for examples, leeching or side by side; you only
get occasional warnings when the paths change.

in "awareness mode", of course a led will indicate where the closer
glider is, but still alarms will only be triggered when a deviation
makes the collision a real possibility.

aldo cernezzi

Since the GPS accuracy is probably much poorer than 10 feet, when a
glider comes within 10 feet, I figure the FLARM should consider that a
collision, no?

Cookie

wrote:
Since the GPS accuracy is probably much poorer than 10 feet, when a
glider comes within 10 feet, I figure the FLARM should consider that a
collision, no?

I don't know about yours, but my glider's span is more than 10 feet...

On Oct 27, 4:15*am, "
wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:29*pm, Ramy wrote:





On Oct 26, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:47*pm, "

wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:08*am, John Cochrane
wrote:

On Oct 26, 6:53*am, "

wrote:
From Sept 2010 "Soaring"...article on FLARM...

..."we were flying in big undiciplined gaggles"...

..."I received indications about one idiot who pulled in behind and
then passed 10 feet over me."...

..."I received many beeps from gliders following 20 feet behind and
just outside..."

Holy close call Batman! *..Undisciplined??!! .. * Idiot??!! * .. 10
feet over??!!.. * 20 feet??!!

*Are you thinking what I'm thinking???

Cookie

Well, I'm thinking I'm glad to be alive. I'm thinking that I like the
trend in US contest rules that take us away from mass gaggle flying,
and wish the worlds would take a stab in that direction as well. I'm
thinking flarm is a pretty darn good idea. What are you thinking?

John Cochrane

John,

I do not disagree with anything you say above. *I am glad you are
still alive. *I see the problem with big gaggles. *I think FLARM is a
useful tool in avoiding glider to glider collisions.

Well, I was thinking that maybe FLARM is creating false sense of
security? *Could contest pilots actually be tempted *to fly
dangerously, taking extra risks, assuming that if everybody has a
FLARM there is no problem??

How could two flarm equipped gliders possibly get within 10 feet of
each other? *I mean, at some earlier point in time they we
considerably further apart, so at what point does one or both pilots
take evasive action?

Or does FLARM somehow allow safe flight within 20 feet or 10 feet or
even closer?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Guys........

I think you are missing my point / question here............In my
original post, I did not intend to simply re-open the FALRM pro or con
arguement...Note I changed the heading.

My point / question is in regard to John C's article in soaring, in
which his accounts left me with a very uneasy feeling.

Not about the FLARM, but about what a perceive as possible misuse of
FLARM, or false confidence, or increased risk taking, knowing every
glider is FLARM equipped *(that's the "evil" *part in my heading)..

I am referring to the parts in the article about "idiot" and
"undisciplined".....and what a perceive as some close, near
collisions........

Are the pilots "idiots" and "undisciplined" because of the FALRM? *Or
are they "idiots" and "undisciplined" in spite of the FLARM?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The answer to your question is the same as the answer to the following
question: Are you flying less carefully because you are wearing a
parachute? I don't think so.

Ramy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ramy,

I disagree ..........With a parachute I do take more risk......and you
probably do to.

Here are three examples of more risky flying WITH a parachute that I
do / have done:

1) Flight testing homebuilt aircraft
2) Aerobatic flying
3) Glider competition

Regualtion and / or common sense dictates a parachute for the above
scenarios.

Cookie

You are confusing cause and effect. Your CHOICE to take more risk
CAUSES you to wear a parachute. Your CHOICE to fly in competition
will CAUSE (force) you to use a FLARM. You made choices independent
of equipment. The equipment didnt cause you to take more risk.

2C

wrote:
Here are three examples of more risky flying WITH a parachute that I
do / have done:

2) Aerobatic flying
3) Glider competition

Off topic, but it makes me always wonder. To me, simple plain cross
country flying is by far the most dangerous way to operate a glider. At
least as risky as competition and certainly far more risky than
aerobatics. But as I said, off topic.