Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA

On 25 Oct, 18:32, "Paul Remde" wrote:

FLARM has become extremely popular in several regions of the world (Europe,
and Australia, and ...?), but it has not been "allowed" in the USA so far.
However, there are several gliders flying with FLARM here in the USA. It is
a great technology solution and safety enhancer. But technical and
liability hurdles exist here in the USA. Everyone that I've talked to that
uses FLARM in their glider loves it - especially in contests or at crowded
soaring sites, or along crowded ridges.

I have never used it myself [1] but I was chatting about it just a few
days ago with an instructor at a busy ridge site here. His view was
that it's a menace: it generates far too many false alarms, and pilots
who try to evade non-existent hazards may thereby cause significant
danger. What are you supposed to do, he asked, if you get a six-second-
t-death warning about a glider which is supposedly dead ahead but
which you can't see? He reckoned the main problem was that the system
only believes in "cruising" and "thermalling" and gets hopelessly
confused by the turn at the end of a beat on the ridge.

Ian

[1] and have no intention of doing so: I'm profoundly sceptical about
a further increase in the number of things to fiddle with and focus on
inside the glider. Why not just look out?

On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian wrote:
SNIP
[1] and have no intention of doing so: I'm profoundly sceptical about
a further increase in the number of things to fiddle with and focus on
inside the glider. Why not just look out?

Because your human eyes can't detect most threats on time to avoid it,
especially gliders and especially if they are comming from behind or
the side. The only exception is during thermaling and maybe traffic
pattern where you know when and where to look.
See http://dwp.bigplanet.com/fosterflight/scottsrants/

Ramy

On 26 Oct, 18:18, Ramy wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian wrote:
SNIP

[1] and have no intention of doing so: I'm profoundly sceptical about
a further increase in the number of things to fiddle with and focus on
inside the glider. Why not just look out?

Because your human eyes can't detect most threats on time to avoid it,
especially gliders and especially if they are comming from behind or
the side.

The pilots of these gliders should be able to see me - if they are not
busy concentrating on yet another electronic gadget in the cockpit.
Anyway, my human eyes have successfully detected /all/ threats in time
to avoid them so far. How common are midair glider collisions?


Ian

On Oct 27, 11:40 pm, Ian wrote:
On 26 Oct, 18:18, Ramy wrote:

On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian wrote:
SNIP

Anyway, my human eyes have successfully detected /all/ threats in time
to avoid them so far. How common are midair glider collisions?

Ian

How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time. What
margin of safety is that down to? How do you know other aircraft (and/
or ATC) did not take action to avoid you and you were never aware of
them? I personally do not use logic like "my past landing attempt did
not kill me so my landings are great" but I look at what you are
saying as "I've not run into anything sofar therefore my visual
lookouts are perfectly adequate" - it is not a high threshold for
fidelity in this discussion, especially when you appreciate how much
the big sky is actually part of being responsible for you still being
alive. Do you routinely do clearing turns while cruising along to
clear all those large blind spots we have? How clear of clouds do you
really stay? How do you see fast traffic about to come out the cloud?
Have you ever seen how really hard it is to see a white glider closing
at over 100 knots head on against snow laden white mountainous
background?

Go fly in an aircraft with a TCAS or PCAS or similar and see how much
general traffic you don't spot until the system warns you to really
look or (carefully) turn the aircraft so you can see traffic. Flying
with a PCAS in my gliders has warned me a few times to start looking
intensely for traffic (much more than you would be able to do
continuously as a part of standard traffic scanning). The few closest
ones have been power traffic, in uncontrolled but high density traffic
areas some close and very oblivious to my glider being there at all.
From what I've seen the adoption of PCAS units like the Zaon MRX are
very viral. Lots of non believers until one or two glider pilots start
using them and then start reporting they really work, especially all
the traffic they otherwise would not notice...

Oh yes I've deliberately not stuck to Flarm, and I think Flarm would
be a very bad move for the USA. We need gliders in high traffic areas
with Transponders and PCAS today and ADS-B in future. Too many of us
fly in very high traffic areas, we need to be visible to and
communicating with power traffic and ATC as well as worrying about
glider-glider conflicts. Politically I am much more worried about a
glider taking out a passenger jet than I am about glider-glider
collisions. The last person who wanted to argue with me strongly that
mid-air collisions do not happen was flying with me in a Duo Discus
near Minden when not far away the ASG-29 met with a Hawker. Hell of a
way to win an argument.

Darryl

On 28 Oct, 07:18, "
wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:40 pm, Ian wrote:

On 26 Oct, 18:18, Ramy wrote:

On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian wrote:
SNIP
Anyway, my human eyes have successfully detected /all/ threats in time
to avoid them so far. How common are midair glider collisions?

How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time.

Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots
have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully.

What
margin of safety is that down to?

Can you define "margin of safety" in this case, please?

How do you know other aircraft (and/
or ATC) did not take action to avoid you and you were never aware of
them?

It doesn't really matter to me whether I successfully avoided them or
they successfully avoided me (that will almost certainly have happened
a lot, as I fly wood) - but I can say that "looking out" has always
worked for me. That's not to get complacent, of course, but I would
feel a lot happier if I knew that other pilots were not, to some
inevitable extent, relying on a magic gadget to lookout for them.

I personally do not use logic like "my past landing attempt did
not kill me so my landings are great" but I look at what you are
saying as "I've not run into anything sofar therefore my visual
lookouts are perfectly adequate"

How about "unless you buy a radio altimeter you will never be able to
plan an outlanding properly?"

Lots of non believers until one or two glider pilots start
using them and then start reporting they really work, especially all
the traffic they otherwise would not notice...

This is where I am sceptical. Yes, I am sure these things will give
lots of extra alerts - they'd hardly be worth buying if they didn't.
But we are not exactly plagued, world wide, by glider-glider
collisions, are we? So what this means is that pilots will spend a lot
more time reacting to false alarms (they must be false, because if
they weren't they'd end in a collision without the magic gadgets).

Do pilots have time available to do that? What are they not going to
do instead?

I can see a far stronger argument for using these things in areas
where other aircraft will not be looking out - Class A airspace, say,
or cloud flying, or scud running. But for normal flying ... colour me
unconvinced. That's only unconvinced yet, though. I'm not a complete
luddite. GPS sets are great - they may distract pilots' attention from
more important stuff, but not nearly as much as maps do. If flarm and
the like lead to a statistically significant reduction in the number
of midair collisions I'll be all for 'em.

Ian

Hi,

So what this means is that pilots will spend a lot more time reacting to
false alarms (they must be false, because if they weren't they'd end in a
collision without the magic gadgets).

I have been flying FLARM-equipped aircraft from my first introductory flight.

My reaction to a FLARM-alarm is simple: Check the direction (a quick glance at
the display mounted on the top of the glare shield) and map the target to
what I know is out there. In many more cases than I'd like to admit I find
an aircraft on a conflicting course that I simply had not seen before.

I MIGHT have found it myself once it got closer or manoevered, most propably
still in time to avoid a collision (If I did not believe that, I would not
be flying at all) but FLARM notified me earlier and so I reactions typically
are more relaxed. I do not consider FLARM firing in that situation a false
alarm, it is exactly what the gadget is intended for.

I also do not mind alarms when thermalling. When sharing a thermal with
well-matched aircraft and well-behaved pilots FLARM generally stays
quiet. If there is a repeated alarm from my six I tend to leave as this
means someone is flying behind me in a way that bothers the device and
that in turn bothers me. Never mind wether the threat is real or not.

The same is true in other alarm-situations. I have never had to mute the
thing because of an annoying repeated alarm from some target I knew about.
I simply avoid them by a wide enough margin. Not just to silence the alarm,
it feels like the right thing to do anyway and the FLARM-software seems to
think the same and shuts up.

There is no fiddling with FLARM as with other gadgets. It turns on when the
battery is connected and that's it. Sure you can toggle different modes, mute
it etc.. I never do. And if you do there just the single button to press.

The only thing I really don't like about it is when I'm down on the ground
and stopped and get a shrieking "impending death"-alarm because someone else
comes in over to land further down the field :-). Yes, if there were to
be a collision in that situation I might get out and dive for cover or
something :-), but still that is the one thing I would change about the
softwa Do not go off after the aircraft has come to a complete stop.

If flarm and the like lead to a statistically significant reduction in
the number of midair collisions I'll be all for 'em.

I firmly believe it does. I would prefer a solution that would also target
power traffic both commercial and recreational more than FLARM does (our
tow-plane has one of course :-)), but that does not mean I am not going to use
what's there.

I have not ever felt distracted by FLARM and think if there is any influence
on my lookout then it actually improves 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."

Ian wrote:
On 28 Oct, 07:18, "
wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:40 pm, Ian wrote:

On 26 Oct, 18:18, Ramy wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian wrote:
SNIP
Anyway, my human eyes have successfully detected /all/ threats in time
to avoid them so far. How common are midair glider collisions?

How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time.

Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots
have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully.



What
margin of safety is that down to?

Can you define "margin of safety" in this case, please?

How do you know other aircraft (and/
or ATC) did not take action to avoid you and you were never aware of
them?

It doesn't really matter to me whether I successfully avoided them or
they successfully avoided me (that will almost certainly have happened
a lot, as I fly wood) - but I can say that "looking out" has always
worked for me. That's not to get complacent, of course, but I would
feel a lot happier if I knew that other pilots were not, to some
inevitable extent, relying on a magic gadget to lookout for them.

I personally do not use logic like "my past landing attempt did
not kill me so my landings are great" but I look at what you are
saying as "I've not run into anything sofar therefore my visual
lookouts are perfectly adequate"

How about "unless you buy a radio altimeter you will never be able to
plan an outlanding properly?"

Lots of non believers until one or two glider pilots start
using them and then start reporting they really work, especially all
the traffic they otherwise would not notice...

This is where I am sceptical. Yes, I am sure these things will give
lots of extra alerts - they'd hardly be worth buying if they didn't.
But we are not exactly plagued, world wide, by glider-glider
collisions, are we? So what this means is that pilots will spend a lot
more time reacting to false alarms (they must be false, because if
they weren't they'd end in a collision without the magic gadgets).

Don't let the fact that you have not had or realised that you have had a near
miss to date blind you to the risks. Even when everyone is being careful things
can, and do, go wrong. It is generally not the aircraft we saw that represent
the highest risk we have encountered. It is the ones we failed to observe.

In at least one situation I avoided a collision more by luck than judgement.

Regional contest - lots (20)of different performance gliders in the same
thermal. Me being the novice slowly getting the last out of the top of the
thermal - waiting for the gate to open. Fortunately someone on the other side of
the thermal saw an ASW20 flying perfectly synchronised, directly below me
getting way too close.

The ASW20 pilot did not see me around the brim of his hat. I could not see him,
even after the call. ('xxx' above you!) When he saw what he was doing he dived
away and left the thermal. I only realised it was me they were talking about
later - When we looked at the traces afterwards it was less than 5m vertical
separation...

If we had Flarm we would not have been in the situation of not knowing about
each other.

Do pilots have time available to do that? What are they not going to
do instead?

I can see a far stronger argument for using these things in areas
where other aircraft will not be looking out - Class A airspace, say,
or cloud flying, or scud running. But for normal flying ... colour me
unconvinced. That's only unconvinced yet, though. I'm not a complete
luddite. GPS sets are great - they may distract pilots' attention from
more important stuff, but not nearly as much as maps do. If flarm and
the like lead to a statistically significant reduction in the number
of midair collisions I'll be all for 'em.

Ian

Flarm is a tool - like all tools it is only as useful as the person using it
makes it. I have met at least one pilot who's over dependence on it makes him
dangerous - Most reasonable people will use it for what it is designed to be. An
aid to optimising their lookout. It is becoming steadily more common in South
African gliders and for that reason is becoming worth having.

On 28 Oct, 13:55, Bruce wrote:
Ian wrote:
On 28 Oct, 07:18, "
wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:40 pm, Ian wrote:

On 26 Oct, 18:18, Ramy wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian wrote:
SNIP
Anyway, my human eyes have successfully detected /all/ threats in time
to avoid them so far. How common are midair glider collisions?

How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time.

Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots
have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully.

What
margin of safety is that down to?

Can you define "margin of safety" in this case, please?

How do you know other aircraft (and/
or ATC) did not take action to avoid you and you were never aware of
them?

It doesn't really matter to me whether I successfully avoided them or
they successfully avoided me (that will almost certainly have happened
a lot, as I fly wood) - but I can say that "looking out" has always
worked for me. That's not to get complacent, of course, but I would
feel a lot happier if I knew that other pilots were not, to some
inevitable extent, relying on a magic gadget to lookout for them.

I personally do not use logic like "my past landing attempt did
not kill me so my landings are great" but I look at what you are
saying as "I've not run into anything sofar therefore my visual
lookouts are perfectly adequate"

How about "unless you buy a radio altimeter you will never be able to
plan an outlanding properly?"

Lots of non believers until one or two glider pilots start
using them and then start reporting they really work, especially all
the traffic they otherwise would not notice...

This is where I am sceptical. Yes, I am sure these things will give
lots of extra alerts - they'd hardly be worth buying if they didn't.
But we are not exactly plagued, world wide, by glider-glider
collisions, are we? So what this means is that pilots will spend a lot
more time reacting to false alarms (they must be false, because if
they weren't they'd end in a collision without the magic gadgets).

Don't let the fact that you have not had or realised that you have had a near
miss to date blind you to the risks. Even when everyone is being careful things
can, and do, go wrong. It is generally not the aircraft we saw that represent
the highest risk we have encountered. It is the ones we failed to observe.

I agree with everything you say. I only have three concerns:

1) flarm (and the like) alarms must divert the pilot's attention from
something else.

2) pilots will inevitably, and with the best will in the world, start
relying on flarm to tell them when something's approaching - "I'll
just reprogramme the GPS with a better turning point - the magic
machine will keep me safe"

3) the laws of the air very carefully specify who has right of way and
whose duty is to make to change to their course. Information on
impending conflict only, without right-of-way/stand-on responsibility,
will potentially be very difficult to interpret.

I can see some places where it could be very useful.

Ian

How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time.

Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots
have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully.

/ALL/ the pilots who died here in Europe so far have always successfully
detected and dealt with threats.

Except the last one.

touche!

Bert Willing wrote:
How do you know what you have detected *all* threats in time.
Because nobody has ever hit me. Therefore I and/or the other pilots
have /always/ managed to detect and deal with threats successfully.

/ALL/ the pilots who died here in Europe so far have always successfully
detected and dealt with threats.

Except the last one.