On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 2:13:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Kirk

I don't think the New Scientist is a hoax website. There are many scientific studies as to why pilots ignore audio warnings:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25029890/

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...arning-systems

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ts_in_Aviation

https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&so...s7pE11AB 94Gy

I don't think any of these links can be accused as being hoxes - and yet all indicate that audio alarms and warnings are often ineffective.

I love gadgets - and will happily fill my glider with stuff. But I find the more sources of information I have - the less I focus on each one. And I am often happiest in a simple Bergfalke or Ka8 when there is the simplest instruments.
I then get to spend the time I was looking at all my fancy instruments rather looking at the incredible views and enjoying the simple pleasures of just staying up. And surprising - it's on those flights that I actually see more GA traffic.

Clinton.

Nice articles but in a glider you don't have a smoke in the lavatory alarm, etc., to contend with. Other than Flarm, what other alarms are there in a glider? And the Flarm warning changes as the threat gets more severe. I can't imagine anyone ignoring the max threat level warning it puts out (ask me how I know). Further, there is no head down time required to assess and respond to the threat, the audio is all you need. Evan and Kirk are right on here, IMO.