At 16:35 31 October 2012, folken wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:

FLARM is like the flashing blue light and sirens on a police car, it
does
=20
not in itself provide any protection at all. Both the above rely on the
=20
human beings being able to interpret what they see, a flashing light
and
=
or
=20
a sound, and take the necessary action.=20

There are those who believe that
there is a technology solution which makes looking out less of a
priority=
..

Nobody, right in their head actually believes that. Nobody that has been
in=
structed in FLARM usage does believe that.
=20
I particularly like the statement that people do not see the other
aircra=
ft
=20
before it hits them, of course they don't, if they saw it the collision
=20
would not take place.=20

Which is exactly the situation where FLARM comes in and tells you the
pilot=
to pay attention and prevent the collision. So these stories will be a
thi=
ng of the past.

Of course FLARM can help, IF it is used as intended
and the human bit understands what he is bing told.=20

If you fly in an aircraft where you do not understand what each
instrument
=
on your panel does, and are unfamiliar with the procedures that this
entitl=
es (for example pulling out right with a imminent head on collision) You
do=
_not_ belong into this aircraft. These are the very basics.

It still relies on good=20
old fashioned lookout.

Flarm does not replace the pilot or good airmanship. It augments the
pilot'=
s senses.

=20
It is not unknown for two aircraft hitting each other when under radar
=20
control, it is not the technology that is the problem. Accidents happen
=20
because we are human, and sometimes fail to do what we should.
=20
My comment about FLARM aircraft being involved in collisions was not a
=20
critism of FLARM, more a comment that despite FLARM it can still, and
wil=
l
=20
happen.=20

Since flarm doesn't pilot the aircraft for you: of course it can. But a
cri=
tical situation is=20

1. far less likely to arise.=20
2. The outcome of a critical situation far less likely to cause an
accident=
..

Statistics from .ch: Note the dip from 2004 onwards.
http://www.segelflug.ch/d/6safety/pd...atistik_CH.pdf

And i checked the accidents reports from 2007 onwards: There hasn't been
a
=
midair since the introduction of FLARM in Switzerland. (Flarm equipped
and
=
_in working order_ aircraft.)

- Folken

and 99% of people who enter a retirment home die there, does not mean that
retirement homes are dangerous places, just that the statistics are
meaningless. In the case you put forward the sample is far too small to
draw a meaningful conclusion. There could be other factors at work, like
less flying taking place, more conspicuous markings, better understanding
by pilots of the problem ad nausea.
Better lookout and situational awareness is they key, anyone who thinks
otherwise should stay at home in a locked room, they are far too dangerous
to be allowed out.