FLARM

Don, you really don't know what you are talking about. IGC rules explicitely
allow Flarm since July.
I agree that in areas where the main collision risk is powered aircraft, the
best way to go is a transponder with TCAS (and non-directional warnings
don't learn me anything new, I *know* that there is traffic outside).
In other regions (and that is the Alps in Europe, Germany, France ist
starting as well) there are 3000+ sailplane pilots who happily fly with
Flarm, and one could by now well claim that it is tested.

You calling it "a half baked Mickey Mouse idea" without having any precise
idea what you are talking about is just pathetic.

"Don Johnstone" wrote in message
...
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