FLARM

On 7 Mar 2006 10:37:16 GMT, Don Johnstone
wrote:


If I thought for one moment that FLARM improved safety
I would be the first to support it. At best right now
it is ineffective at worst it distracts attention away
from a more practical way of solving the problem, an
irrelevance.

Hi Don,

your opinion is precisely the contrary of nearly all pilots who are
flying in really crowded airspace (the Alps).

I guess the sales numbers of FLARM speak for themselves - and so far I
have NEVER heard anyone who has seen it in action doubt its
effectivity. 100% positive user comments. Impressive.

A lot more impressive than your opinion which isn't based on any
direct experience with FLARM.







Bye
Andreas

OK I will concede that the unit is useful in certain
defined areas however I still contend that as a useful
safety device for gliding all over the world it has
a major and probably fatal weakness. Me fitting one
to my glider does not improve my safety one jot as
I have to rely on others fitting it to their gliders,
it is only then that the item is of use. Even then
it is only partially of use as it is only used by other
gliders according to the FLARM website.
Frankly if I felt the need to go down a gizzmo route
the tried and tested SSR technology is a far better
bet.

Just as a matter of interest by how much have mid-air
collisions reduced in areas where FLARM is in use?





At 04:24 08 March 2006, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On 7 Mar 2006 10:37:16 GMT, Don Johnstone
wrote:


If I thought for one moment that FLARM improved safety
I would be the first to support it. At best right now
it is ineffective at worst it distracts attention away
from a more practical way of solving the problem, an
irrelevance.

Hi Don,

your opinion is precisely the contrary of nearly all
pilots who are
flying in really crowded airspace (the Alps).

I guess the sales numbers of FLARM speak for themselves
- and so far I
have NEVER heard anyone who has seen it in action doubt
its
effectivity. 100% positive user comments. Impressive.

A lot more impressive than your opinion which isn't
based on any
direct experience with FLARM.







Bye
Andreas

Don Johnstone wrote:

it is ineffective at worst it distracts attention away
from a more practical way of solving the problem, an
irrelevance.

Obviously you've never even seen a FLARM device.

Proper pilot training has to be the way to reach the
majority.

I've always thought that my lookout was pretty good. FLARM really opened
my eyes. The problem are all those gliders you'll never know you haven't
seen.

Do you think that FLARM will ever be used
by the majority voluntarily?

It already is in certain European countries.

Frankly, at the beginning, I was not a FLARM enthusiast at all but
extremely sceptic about it. It took only one season to completely change
my mind.

Stefan

On top of that, it's hard to do statistics on events that don't happen.

I for myself have performed an evasive maneuvre twice last year when the
Flarm indicated a high level alert to head-on traffic. I've seen the
"target" only on turning right after the alarm. Once I just didn't see it
before, once we were both on the ridge but seperated from view by rocks.

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Don Johnstone wrote:

Just as a matter of interest by how much have mid-air
collisions reduced in areas where FLARM is in use?

Luckily, there are too few midairs to apply statistics.

Stefan

At 14:07 08 March 2006, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
Don is just a Luddite at heart (Luddite? see
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm
).

But even that does not explain why he cannot see the
advantages that
FLARM has in UK where cloud flying is legal. 'See and
be Seen' simply
does not apply in cloud.

Tim, attacking me personally does nothing for the argument.
I can see the theoretical benefit of FLARM properly
applied but in it's current state, as you have so eloquently
told us, it is useless in the UK. It cannot be used
in the USA at all. Is it likely then that it is the
answer to the problem it seeks to solve? All along
I have argued that it does not, not because I am against
it in principle but because it is never likely to be
of general practical use. Unless 100% of gliders have
it installed it cannot be effective,surely you can
see that.

The replies to my question re reduction in collisions
indicate that there is no evidence that FLARM has prevented
one confliction. I accept that it has given some glider
pilots peace of mind, but is this a false sense of
security. What about the glider not equipped with FLARM
that is not seen, you will never know. The anecdotal,
'I saw something that I would not have' is not evidence.

I am not a luddite, I am very much in favour of progress
I just don't see this approach to the problem as progress.

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.

If the sky is populated with aircraft all carrying
FLARM I can see the benefit. If there are significant
number not so equipped then FLARM is inefective at
best and at worst dangerous.

Tim Newport-Peace

'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'

Even the RAF are getting in on the act. RAF Linton
on Ouse have just developed and are installing a TCAS
system for collision avoidance in their Tucanos. It
is based on the USA company Goodrich Skywatch system.

The web site states:

'Tucanos equipped with TCAS will be able to spot other
aircraft within a 35-mile radius. The system displays
to pilots a detected aircraft's range, bearing, height
and closure rate, information that will allow crews
to decide if avoiding action is necessary. An aural
warning is added should a collision threat exits.'


The Goodrich site says the system is based on decoding
transponder signals from other aircraft.

The development was given great press coverage and
the inference was that our brylcream boys will be flying
round the skies believing that all aircraft have transponders
and therefore'can be seen'. There are 6 local gliding
club within that 35 mile radius and several others
who use the Vale or York for soaring and I suspect
few if any of the 100 or so gliders from those clubs
have transponders.

Until all gliders are transponder equipped it is a
dangerous precident. Legislation changes and the rapidly
closing UK airspace mean that in a few years time transponders
will be a must for any XC pilot. So like it or not
it is coming.

The FLARM system was introduced by the Swiss on safety
grounds. Is there any information on the success of
the system. (ie reduced accidents figures)

The basic Goodrich system is in the £5000 range.
The FLARM considerably cheaper may be about a tenth
the cost.

I can see the advantages but will the increased cost
just drive more away from the sport?

Dave Martin

At 23:36 08 March 2006, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 14:07 08 March 2006, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
Don is just a Luddite at heart (Luddite? see
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm
).

But even that does not explain why he cannot see the
advantages that
FLARM has in UK where cloud flying is legal. 'See and
be Seen' simply
does not apply in cloud.

Tim, attacking me personally does nothing for the argument.
I can see the theoretical benefit of FLARM properly
applied but in it's current state, as you have so eloquently
told us, it is useless in the UK. It cannot be used
in the USA at all. Is it likely then that it is the
answer to the problem it seeks to solve? All along
I have argued that it does not, not because I am against
it in principle but because it is never likely to be
of general practical use. Unless 100% of gliders have
it installed it cannot be effective,surely you can
see that.

The replies to my question re reduction in collisions
indicate that there is no evidence that FLARM has prevented
one confliction. I accept that it has given some glider
pilots peace of mind, but is this a false sense of
security. What about the glider not equipped with FLARM
that is not seen, you will never know. The anecdotal,
'I saw something that I would not have' is not evidence.

I am not a luddite, I am very much in favour of progress
I just don't see this approach to the problem as progress.

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.

If the sky is populated with aircraft all carrying
FLARM I can see the benefit. If there are significant
number not so equipped then FLARM is inefective at
best and at worst dangerous.

Tim Newport-Peace

'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'

IMHO, You guys from the UK and such who are singing
the virtues of the FLARM are just swimming upstream.
Transponders are the standard aircraft identification
system. Claims that FLARM is the most cost effective
manner to enhance awareness of other traffic is very
short sighted since it will never deal with power aircraft.
Most of you are also claiming that any collision avoidance
system that functions with transponders is WAY TOO
EXPENSIVE!

Take a look a Wings and Wheels website. They sell
several portable collision avoidance systems (PCAS).
One goes for 289 USD. Another for 499 USD. A fairly
sophisticated unit goes for 1700 USD. All work with
the transponder system. A couple function off AA batteries
so the concerns about power consumption are also handled.


Again, IMHO sailplanes are aircraft, not toys. Transponders
work and are not that expensive. There are many portable,
low cost, and self powered units that provide the same
'heads up' alert that FLARM does but work with a system
that will identify many more aircraft. And if sailplanes
are required to have transponders, most aircraft will
be detected. That still leaves the hang gliders, ultralights,
and paragliders out of the loop. So looking outside
the cockpit will still be required.



At 01:00 09 March 2006, Dave Martin wrote:
Even the RAF are getting in on the act. RAF Linton
on Ouse have just developed and are installing a TCAS
system for collision avoidance in their Tucanos. It
is based on the USA company Goodrich Skywatch system.

The web site states:

'Tucanos equipped with TCAS will be able to spot other
aircraft within a 35-mile radius. The system displays
to pilots a detected aircraft's range, bearing, height
and closure rate, information that will allow crews
to decide if avoiding action is necessary. An aural
warning is added should a collision threat exits.'


The Goodrich site says the system is based on decoding
transponder signals from other aircraft.

The development was given great press coverage and
the inference was that our brylcream boys will be flying
round the skies believing that all aircraft have transponders
and therefore'can be seen'. There are 6 local gliding
club within that 35 mile radius and several others
who use the Vale or York for soaring and I suspect
few if any of the 100 or so gliders from those clubs
have transponders.

Until all gliders are transponder equipped it is a
dangerous precident. Legislation changes and the rapidly
closing UK airspace mean that in a few years time transponders
will be a must for any XC pilot. So like it or not
it is coming.

The FLARM system was introduced by the Swiss on safety
grounds. Is there any information on the success of
the system. (ie reduced accidents figures)

The basic Goodrich system is in the £5000 range.
The FLARM considerably cheaper may be about a tenth
the cost.

I can see the advantages but will the increased cost
just drive more away from the sport?

Dave Martin

At 23:36 08 March 2006, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 14:07 08 March 2006, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
Don is just a Luddite at heart (Luddite? see
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm
).

But even that does not explain why he cannot see the
advantages that
FLARM has in UK where cloud flying is legal. 'See and
be Seen' simply
does not apply in cloud.

Tim, attacking me personally does nothing for the argument.
I can see the theoretical benefit of FLARM properly
applied but in it's current state, as you have so eloquently
told us, it is useless in the UK. It cannot be used
in the USA at all. Is it likely then that it is the
answer to the problem it seeks to solve? All along
I have argued that it does not, not because I am against
it in principle but because it is never likely to be
of general practical use. Unless 100% of gliders have
it installed it cannot be effective,surely you can
see that.

The replies to my question re reduction in collisions
indicate that there is no evidence that FLARM has prevented
one confliction. I accept that it has given some glider
pilots peace of mind, but is this a false sense of
security. What about the glider not equipped with FLARM
that is not seen, you will never know. The anecdotal,
'I saw something that I would not have' is not evidence.

I am not a luddite, I am very much in favour of progress
I just don't see this approach to the problem as progress.

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.

If the sky is populated with aircraft all carrying
FLARM I can see the benefit. If there are significant
number not so equipped then FLARM is inefective at
best and at worst dangerous.

Tim Newport-Peace

'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'

Guy Acheson wrote:

Take a look a Wings and Wheels website. They sell
several portable collision avoidance systems (PCAS).
One goes for 289 USD. Another for 499 USD. A fairly
sophisticated unit goes for 1700 USD. All work with
the transponder system. A couple function off AA batteries
so the concerns about power consumption are also handled.

Umm, for these PCAS systems to work, the threat aircraft have to have
transponders, which do draw considerable power. So if you want the PCAS
in the other glider to notice you, plan on a minimum 500 ma more current
drain from your 12 volt battery, not a couple of AA batteries.

Again, IMHO sailplanes are aircraft, not toys. Transponders
work and are not that expensive.

Looking at the Wings and Wheels website you mention, I see the cheapest
transponder with encoder and antenna is US$1900, and can easily be
$3000+ with installation by an aircraft mechanic. More, if you have to
install an additional battery and it's mounting and wiring. Expensive by
my standards.

Not that I'm against transponders: I do have one in my glider. My cost
was "only" $1850 because I was able to install it myself and I didn't
need more batteries. Where I fly, airliners and airplanes are the
principal collision hazard, not other gliders. FLARM was developed for
glider pilots whose main hazard is other glider pilots, and for them an
$US800 (installed!) FLARM is more effective and a lot cheaper than a
transponder.

FLARM was never intended to nor claimed to solve the all collision
problems everywhere in the world, yet it's detractors argue that because
it doesn't, it's worthless and doomed to failure. Each region, perhaps
each pilot, must determine the threat he faces and it's appropriate
response, such FLARM, transponders, looking out the canopy, or just
trusting to luck.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

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

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