Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA

On 27 Oct, 17:08, pascal wrote:

It's always a shock when you pass a glider coming from
the front without having the warning (because it is not equipped with
flarm); and despite looking out you surprise yourself not having
noticed that particular glider.

I wonder how well you look (ie one looks) out when a little part of
the brain assumes that flarm would have reacted to anything that
mattered?

Ian

There are ca 9 000 FLARM units in use in Europe, and all who use them
seems to be in favour of it. There seems to be no FLARMs in the US, but
a lot of people who is against it.

When I bought my ASW 28-18E last winter it was already equipped with a
FLARM. I used to be against FLARM for all the reasons listed in this
thread, now that I have flown with it I am in favour of it.

Robert Danewid
ASW 28-18E RD

I don't think that people in the US are against FLARM or a similar type of
device. I think that the risk environment in the US is different than in
Europe due to the much larger amount of power VFR traffic, which poses at
least as much of a threat to gliders as other gliders. My concern is with
introducing another technology that doesn't address the entire problem,
which then diverts everyone from implementing the technology (ADS-B) which
really could solve this for everyone.

The only negatives that I can see with an ADS-B based approach is the cost,
and the very slow FAA rollout schedule. I don't understand why inherently
ADS-B technology needs to be more expensive than FLARM. If it's a
certification issue, I would suspect that the FAA would be willing to be
flexible if the options are certified units that are unaffordable, vs. cheap
units that are self certified (like Light Sport Aircraft) which would be
widely deployed by gliders, ultralights, LSAs and UAVs which otherwise
couldn't afford the technology.

The FAA rollout schedule is also not necessarily a show stopper. Without
FAA ground stations, ADS-B equipped gliders won't be visible to air traffic
control or TCAS equipped planes. However, ADS-B equipped aircraft are fully
visible to each other, just like FLARM equipped planes are in Europe. The
bonus, once the FAA catches up with everybody else, is that ADS-B users will
then be fully integrated into the air traffic control system (plus be able
to receive Nexrad weather, etc.).

Mike Schumann

"Robert Danewid" wrote in message
...
There are ca 9 000 FLARM units in use in Europe, and all who use them
seems to be in favour of it. There seems to be no FLARMs in the US, but a
lot of people who is against it.

When I bought my ASW 28-18E last winter it was already equipped with a
FLARM. I used to be against FLARM for all the reasons listed in this
thread, now that I have flown with it I am in favour of it.

Robert Danewid
ASW 28-18E RD




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 28 Oct, 15:07, Robert Danewid
wrote:
There are ca 9 000 FLARM units in use in Europe, and all who use them
seems to be in favour of it.

"In favour of" will soon be irrelevant, if it isn't already. With that
number around, the accident statistics should soon make the balance
between genuine information and distraction clear ... if it hasn't
already done so.

Ian

Ian wrote:
On 27 Oct, 17:08, pascal wrote:

It's always a shock when you pass a glider coming from
the front without having the warning (because it is not equipped with
flarm); and despite looking out you surprise yourself not having
noticed that particular glider.

I wonder how well you look (ie one looks) out when a little part of
the brain assumes that flarm would have reacted to anything that
mattered?

There is always the problem of adverse compensation when a safety device
is introduced. Monitoring of the situation should continue after the
introduction to ensure the desired increase in safety occurrs. I believe
this is the case with FLARM.

What puzzles me is how skeptical you are about a widely accepted device
you have not used. FLARM has sold 9000 units. 9000! When 9000 pilots
voluntarily equip their aircraft with an $800 device, I am inclined to
think there may be something quite useful there and to look forward to
an opportunity to use one.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:9S1Vi.131$MW.53@trndny05...
Ian wrote:
On 27 Oct, 17:08, pascal wrote:

It's always a shock when you pass a glider coming from
the front without having the warning (because it is not equipped with
flarm); and despite looking out you surprise yourself not having
noticed that particular glider.

I wonder how well you look (ie one looks) out when a little part of
the brain assumes that flarm would have reacted to anything that
mattered?

There is always the problem of adverse compensation when a safety device
is introduced. Monitoring of the situation should continue after the
introduction to ensure the desired increase in safety occurrs. I believe
this is the case with FLARM.

What puzzles me is how skeptical you are about a widely accepted device
you have not used. FLARM has sold 9000 units. 9000! When 9000 pilots
voluntarily equip their aircraft with an $800 device, I am inclined to
think there may be something quite useful there and to look forward to an
opportunity to use one.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

It's just human nature. It's called the "Negative Expert" syndrome. Every
technological advance in soaring has met the same negative initial response.
Later, when everybody is using the technology, the same people will defend
it against the NEXT advance.

The basic concept of real-time position exchange and conflict determination
is an outstanding idea. It's one that, properly implemented, will increase
safety and reduce cockpit workload. The only real thing to discuss is how
to best implement it. All indications are that FLARM is extremely well
executed.

It's true that glider traffic densities are far higher in Europe than in the
US which is why FLARM was developed there first. However, there are some
locations in the US where glider traffic is dense enough to justify FLARM.
There are also benefits beyond mid-air avoidance. For example, knowing
where your soaring buddy is without jamming 123.3.

Absent some wholley unexpected blooming of FAA technological leadership,
ADS-B is far enough in the future for several development cycles of FLARM to
pass before we can afford ADS-B. If FLARM can be adopted to the US legal
and regulatory environment today, I say "bring it on".

Bill Daniels