FLARM

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.'

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

PB wrote:

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.

Can you point to a website that discusses this? If it's true, it's very
interesting, because the transponder detectors available aren't much
cheaper than FLARM, and can't supply a GPS signal to navigation
computers, or make a flight log. It would make FLARM a good value even
if no other glider had one.


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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepits...sidy_NSWGA.doc

If interested reed the last page titled Why Flarm

also

http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html

cheers

paul


Eric Greenwell wrote:
PB wrote:

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.


Can you point to a website that discusses this? If it's true, it's very
interesting, because the transponder detectors available aren't much
cheaper than FLARM, and can't supply a GPS signal to navigation
computers, or make a flight log. It would make FLARM a good value even
if no other glider had one.

PB wrote:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepits...sidy_NSWGA.doc


If interested reed the last page titled Why Flarm

That is intriguing: it says FLARM will be able to sense ADSB units, but
not transponders. Where are the modules mentioned available or
discussed? I can't find mention of them on the FLARM site or the RF Dev
elopements site. Not that there is any hurry, given the limited
deployment of ADSB.


also

http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html

This states their unit can not sense transponders, a disappointment, but
I'm not surprised. It's an different technology on a different frequency
band.

--
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

If 99% of gliders had it installed, and there were 100 other gliders
flying in the area, the risk of not being aware of one would be
decreased by 99%. If 50%, risk decreased by 50%.

Not as effective as if 100% had FLARM installed, but surely not
completely ineffective?

I'm not (yet at any rate) planning to install FLARM for flying in the
UK, but would if I flew in the Alps. I can use a 50%+ improvement in my
chances of spotting other aircraft.

What your all forgetting is that dear old Don applies two basic rules to
flying.
1st Always fly in the middle of the air. The extremities can be very
dangerous, there you will find Land, Tree's, Mountains, Water, Space and
Other Aircraft
2nd If you hear a loud bang you know you've hit something.

Therefore he doesn't need FLARM

Phil :-)


Chris Reed wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:
Unless 100% of gliders have
it installed it cannot be effective

If 99% of gliders had it installed, and there were 100 other gliders
flying in the area, the risk of not being aware of one would be
decreased by 99%. If 50%, risk decreased by 50%.

Not as effective as if 100% had FLARM installed, but surely not
completely ineffective?

I'm not (yet at any rate) planning to install FLARM for flying in the
UK, but would if I flew in the Alps. I can use a 50%+ improvement in my
chances of spotting other aircraft.