US pilots concerned with collision avoidance, read the FLARM threads

It's not currently certified in the USA, but pay attention to this
thing called FLARM.
http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html
This device works from (FLARM equipped) aircraft to aircraft, draws
very little current (55ma), gives you rough relative direction, height
and distance of aircraft with conflicting course to you. It doesn't go
bonkers in a gaggle. And it's a backup GPS datalogger.
Sorry, it won't wash your wings and it isn't a satellite telephone,
but it's still a very good instrument.
I would be happy if FLARM was mandated on all aircraft, as opposed to
Mode C or even S and TCAS.
Perhaps, with sensible changes to laws regarding liability, this
excellent product will become available in the USA.
Jim

It's not a question of certification, JS, it's the fact that the FLARM
designers have specifically stated that they will not permit the use of
FLARM in the USA, due to litigation fears.

-John

JS wrote:
It's not currently certified in the USA, but pay attention to this
thing called FLARM.
http://www.flarm.com/index_en.html
This device works from (FLARM equipped) aircraft to aircraft, draws
very little current (55ma), gives you rough relative direction, height
and distance of aircraft with conflicting course to you. It doesn't go
bonkers in a gaggle. And it's a backup GPS datalogger.
Sorry, it won't wash your wings and it isn't a satellite telephone,
but it's still a very good instrument.
I would be happy if FLARM was mandated on all aircraft, as opposed to
Mode C or even S and TCAS.
Perhaps, with sensible changes to laws regarding liability, this
excellent product will become available in the USA.
Jim

At 11:48 10 October 2006, Jcarlyle wrote:
It's not a question of certification, JS, it's the
fact that the FLARM
designers have specifically stated that they will not
permit the use of
FLARM in the USA, due to litigation fears.

-John

Hmmm....

I can't find any reference to that either on the FLARM
website or in the forums.

Who do you work for...?

;o)

Hi,

I can't find any reference to that either on the FLARM
website or in the forums.

It's in the manual:

Until further notice FLARM may not be used in the USA
or Canada without written authority of FLARM Technology,
or in an aircraft that is registered and/or insured in
the USA or Canada. Likewise, operation of FLARM is
forbidden in aircraft in which one or more of the occupants
resides in or is a citizen of the USA or Canada. Likewise,
use of FLARM is forbidden if the aircraft concerned takes
off from, makes an intermediate or final landing in the
USA or Canada.

The phrasing makes it quite clear to me that fear of litigation is the reason
for it.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you
do something and the time you tell a woman what you did."

I work for a small company that uses acoustics to evaluate the
structual integrity of aircraft, bridges, cranes, pipelines and
pressure vessels. Does that help you better evaluate my post regarding
FLARM usage in the USA?

-John

Al Eddie wrote:
Hmmm....

I can't find any reference to that either on the FLARM
website or in the forums.

Who do you work for...?

;o)

My information was that the frequency range used is not available from
the FCC. If it were solely a liability issue, I do not understand the
inclusion of Canada. I tend to put more weight on the frequency issue.
Fred

On Oct 10, 8:12 am, "Fred" wrote:
My information was that the frequency range used is not available from
the FCC. If it were solely a liability issue, I do not understand the
inclusion of Canada. I tend to put more weight on the frequency issue.


To quote the manual quote:
Likewise, operation of FLARM is forbidden in aircraft in which one or
more of the occupants resides in or is a citizen of the USA or Canada.

So according to this, a US citizen, may not fly in the Alps, as most
sailplanes there do have FLARM installed.

Seems to me there have been a lot of people already ignoring this
"rule". I'm sure it is in there as "protection" against a liability
claim.

-Tom

Interesting thought, Fred, but I don't think so for at least 2 reasons:


(1) Let's say I go to Australia, where they use FLARM. According to the
paragraph in the manual that Marian Aldenhövel quoted above (it also
appears in the Australian FLARM manual), FLARM may not be used if I'm
riding in a FLARM equiped aircraft (I'm a US citizen). How can that be
a frequency issue?

(2) the Australians use a different frequency than the European FLARM
units, but it is still a licensed FLARM useage. Canada could do the
same thing if it was just a frequency issue, but the manual expressly
forbids FLARM in Canada.

-John


Fred wrote:
My information was that the frequency range used is not available from
the FCC. If it were solely a liability issue, I do not understand the
inclusion of Canada. I tend to put more weight on the frequency issue.
Fred

Trial lawyers are a powerful lobby in the US, and they would thwart any
attempt to limit liability. It has been attempted before on medical issues
and failed. The trial lawyer associations can outspend any group that
attempts, for the purpose of public policy and safety, to impose limits on
liability.

Sadly, congresssmen are controlled by that lobby and will not use reason and
common sense to pass a law that would protect general aviation - or any
other group. And, collectively, the trial lawyers have absolutely no
conscience.

I am a lawyer and embarassed by how the system has got out of hand.

Colin

COLIN LAMB wrote:
Trial lawyers are a powerful lobby in the US, and they would thwart any
attempt to limit liability. It has been attempted before on medical issues
and failed. The trial lawyer associations can outspend any group that
attempts, for the purpose of public policy and safety, to impose limits on
liability.

Sadly, congresssmen are controlled by that lobby and will not use reason and
common sense to pass a law that would protect general aviation - or any
other group. And, collectively, the trial lawyers have absolutely no
conscience.

Congress did pass a very important law limiting general aviation
liability several years ago. It limited the aircraft manufacturers
liability for aircraft more 18 years old (as best I can remember). This
liability limitation is credited with much/most of the resurgence in the
"low end" (say, under a million dollars) general aviation sector.

A trial lawyer friend of mine whose primary clients were aircraft
manufacturers said his business tanked after the law was enacted. He's
replaced those clients with a tire manufacturer or two, and other
businesses, so he's doing fine again. So, it is possible for congress to
do good things, and remember there is a trial lawyer on each side, which
you might say suggests that half of them have a conscience!

Regardless, none of this addresses the question of how the TPAS
manufacturers deal with the liability issue, or what the issue really is.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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