No FLARM log equals Unsafe Operation? (USA)

On Oct 10, 9:41*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:09*pm, Andy wrote:









On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell wrote:

The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.

Yes Paul that's clear. *What is not clear is the consequence of not
being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.

Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed to produce a log?

Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed?

No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
event outside his control.

Andy

I am strongly in favor of mandatory use of flarms in contests -
ultimately (and soon). *And I am a strong believer that a pool of
rental units will speed the adoption.
That said, the devil (as usual) is in the details of how to get there
safely.

I don't think we can say "the only valid log for a contest flight is a
Flarm log" which is what the suggested rule effectively does. Even
though Flarm is a proven technology, the PowerFlarm is a new box and
needs a track record. I also don't want to see the workload of the
scorer increased by having to process two logs per flight. While
organizers can require impact activated ELTs, there is no requirement
for contestants to prove they are working correctly and I don't see
the clear necessity for this WRT Flarm.

There are also a couple of (to me) worrisome safety details to work
out related to the introduction of rental/loaner/borrowed units:

1. *The position of the transmitting antenna is important, especially
so in carbon ships. *If you don't get this right, you effectively
don't have the device on board making it useless to both you and
others. There will need to be a knowledge base of what works and what
doesn't developed (and adopted from European experience).

2. *I am not comfortable with the idea of pilot having a new piece of
equipment on the first contest day that they have never seen before
and are trying to learn and that is making noises/visual cues at
them. *This problem goes away over time, but it is a serious concern
to me in seeing the technology introduced without unintended negative
safety consequences. Any you can't just say "turn down the volume and
put it in the back out of sight because that creates the problem of
(1).

Keep the discussion going.
John Godfrey (QT)
US Rules Committee

I suspect the proposed requirement for mandatory inspection of all
FLARM logs after each contest day will be modified somewhat, maybe to
make it a bit like the current U.S. practice of random (or maybe not
so random if there are other independent indications of a potential
infraction) weighing on the grid to discourage over-ballasting.

I ask everyone to keep in mind that we have a very difficult chicken-
and-egg problem to overcome with FLARM that is completely different
than other types of equipment. FLARM won't work adequately well
unless all pilots have a FLARM and use it in flight, despite any fears
about loss of competitive edges, etc. If only 10% or so of the
community buys and uses FLARM, then it won't work at all.

I think what we are seeing is a groundswell of sentiment for making
the hard decisions and implementing what we all know is a proven
safety multiplier when there are lots of gliders in the same general
area (i.e. contests). We have had way too many preventable mid-air
collisions, and at least one too many deaths here in the U.S. in the
last few years, and it is just plain time to do something about it.
Rather than quibbling forever about the details, lets get something
going, and iron out the rough spots as they appear. Better that than
to lose another pilot (especially when it might be me!)

Regards,

TA

On Oct 10, 10:03*pm, Frank wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:41*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:



On Oct 10, 9:09*pm, Andy wrote:

On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell wrote:

The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.

Yes Paul that's clear. *What is not clear is the consequence of not
being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.

Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed to produce a log?

Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed?

No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
event outside his control.

Andy

I am strongly in favor of mandatory use of flarms in contests -
ultimately (and soon). *And I am a strong believer that a pool of
rental units will speed the adoption.
That said, the devil (as usual) is in the details of how to get there
safely.

I don't think we can say "the only valid log for a contest flight is a
Flarm log" which is what the suggested rule effectively does. Even
though Flarm is a proven technology, the PowerFlarm is a new box and
needs a track record. I also don't want to see the workload of the
scorer increased by having to process two logs per flight. While
organizers can require impact activated ELTs, there is no requirement
for contestants to prove they are working correctly and I don't see
the clear necessity for this WRT Flarm.

There are also a couple of (to me) worrisome safety details to work
out related to the introduction of rental/loaner/borrowed units:

1. *The position of the transmitting antenna is important, especially
so in carbon ships. *If you don't get this right, you effectively
don't have the device on board making it useless to both you and
others. There will need to be a knowledge base of what works and what
doesn't developed (and adopted from European experience).

2. *I am not comfortable with the idea of pilot having a new piece of
equipment on the first contest day that they have never seen before
and are trying to learn and that is making noises/visual cues at
them. *This problem goes away over time, but it is a serious concern
to me in seeing the technology introduced without unintended negative
safety consequences. Any you can't just say "turn down the volume and
put it in the back out of sight because that creates the problem of
(1).

Keep the discussion going.
John Godfrey (QT)
US Rules Committee

I suspect the proposed requirement for mandatory inspection of all
FLARM logs after each contest day will be modified somewhat, maybe to
make it a bit like the current U.S. practice of random (or maybe not
so random if there are other independent indications of a potential
infraction) weighing on the grid to discourage over-ballasting.

I ask everyone to keep in mind that we have a very difficult chicken-
and-egg problem to overcome with FLARM that is completely different
than other types of equipment. *FLARM won't work adequately well
unless all pilots have a FLARM and use it in flight, despite any fears
about loss of competitive edges, etc. *If only 10% or so of the
community buys and uses FLARM, then it won't work at all.

I think what we are seeing is a groundswell of sentiment for making
the hard decisions and implementing what we all know is a proven
safety multiplier when there are lots of gliders in the same general
area (i.e. contests). *We have had way too many preventable mid-air
collisions, and at least one too many deaths here in the U.S. in the
last few years, and it is just plain time to do something about it.
Rather than quibbling forever about the details, lets get something
going, and iron out the rough spots as they appear. *Better that than
to lose another pilot (especially when it might be me!)

Regards,

TA

OK, I'd like to see this proposed rule. I've flown contests recently
(although not this year). I'm all enthusiastic about installing a
PowerFLARM soon, but I'm not at a point to do it for next season.

-- Matt

On Oct 10, 7:16*pm, mattm wrote:

OK, I'd like to see this proposed rule. *I've flown contests recently
(although not this year). *I'm all enthusiastic about installing a
PowerFLARM soon, but I'm not at a point to do it for next season.


Proposed Rule 6.5.3 - When announced by contest organizers prior to
the Preferential Entry Deadline, a FLARM collision avoidance
instrument is mandatory in every sailplane if there are a sufficient
number of rental FLARM units available for a contest rental fee of
fifty dollars or less per unit. At all times when this rule is in
effect, FLARM flight logs must be handed in daily that confirm that
the FLARM was operating correctly. Failure to comply should generally
result in unsafe operations penalties (Rule 12.2.5.1).

On Oct 10, 8:36*pm, Andy wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:16*pm, mattm wrote:

OK, I'd like to see this proposed rule. *I've flown contests recently
(although not this year). *I'm all enthusiastic about installing a
PowerFLARM soon, but I'm not at a point to do it for next season.

Proposed Rule 6.5.3 - When announced by contest organizers prior to
the Preferential Entry Deadline, a FLARM collision avoidance
instrument is mandatory in every sailplane if there are a sufficient
number of rental FLARM units available for a contest rental fee of
fifty dollars or less per unit. *At all times when this rule is in
effect, FLARM flight logs must be handed in daily that confirm that
the FLARM was operating correctly. *Failure to comply should generally
result in unsafe operations penalties (Rule 12.2.5.1).

What exactly does a rental FLARM unit look like? How will it be
safely installed in my cockpit? How will the antenna be routed/
mounted? If it has a visual indicator, where will it be mounted so I
can see it? Does it need to interface with any of my other equipment,
like power, gps, etc? It's a transmitter. Is there any chance it
will interfere with PCAS, radios, bluetooth, or other equipment in my
cockpit? Is the installation of the FLARM to avoid collision, or
figure out who is at fault in the event of a close call or collision?
Will these logs be made available to the FAA in the event of a
reportable incident or accident? Will any information in the log be
used to determine an unsafe operations penalty, or is the requirement
just to have a valid log file, regardless of the content?

FLARM sounds like a good idea for dense glider activities like
contests, but lets think the details through before jumping to a rule
like this.

What if the rule read; "For contests of more than 10 gliders, gliders
must be equipped with a functional FLARM unit that is in operation
during contest flight."

On Oct 10, 10:29*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
On Oct 10, 8:36*pm, Andy wrote:

What exactly does a rental FLARM unit look like?
*http://www.butterfly.aero/powerflarm/fly/

How will it be safely installed in my cockpit?
Velcro on the glareshield most likely, though there will be other
options I think.

How will the antenna be routed/mounted? *
I think you can attach it directly to the back of the unit.

If it has a visual indicator, *where will it be mounted so I
can see it? *
They claim it's sunlight readable and on the glareshield it should be
easy to find.

Does it need to interface with any of my other equipment,
like power, gps, etc? *
Not if you don't want it to - it can run on internal batteries all
day. It's possible to do a more permanent installation and use
PowerFlarm as a GPS source for other instruments, but it would
impractical for a rental.

It's a transmitter. *Is there any chance it
will interfere with PCAS, radios, bluetooth, or other equipment in my
cockpit? *
IDK - I have not heard of issues in Europe.

Is the installation of the FLARM to avoid collision, or
figure out who is at fault in the event of a close call or collision?
The former - any IGC log can be used for the latter.

Will these logs be made available to the FAA in the event of a
reportable incident or accident? *
I think the same as for IGC logs today.

Will any information in the log be
used to determine an unsafe operations penalty, or is the requirement
just to have a valid log file, regardless of the content?
This is still being debated - one option is to penalize pilots for
deliberately operating in a mode that would permit spying on other
gliders' locations. I have heard that Flarms record the presence of
other gliders as part of the flight log but I have not confirmed this.



FLARM sounds like a good idea for dense glider activities like
contests, but lets think the details through before jumping to a rule
like this.

What if the rule read; *"For contests of more than 10 gliders, gliders
must be equipped with a functional FLARM unit that is in operation
during contest flight."
I some ways it's easier to administer in smaller groups. Contests are
mostly spread out enough that you can accommodate most or all with a
limited number of rental units - assuming that the SSA continues to
make it so as few contests as possible overlap.

9B

On 10/10/2010 11:59 PM, Andy wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:29 pm, "Matt Herron wrote:


It's a transmitter. Is there any chance it
will interfere with PCAS, radios, bluetooth, or other equipment in my
cockpit?

IDK - I have not heard of issues in Europe.

To clarify: PowerFlarm contains a PCAS (transponder detector), so you
don't need to have another one on board; in any case, the transmitter is
a much different frequency (~900MHz) than used by the PCAS (1090 MHz) or
your radio.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Martin Gregorie wrote: “Can you put numbers on the required
separation?” [snip]


Martin, hi.

My answer is a bit digital, unfortunately. Keeping the Flarm GPS
aerial on top of the instrument panel coaming kept it within about 1
foot, or 30 cm, of the Volkslogger, which seemed to be too close.

Other than sticking it on the canopy, which I did not think a good
idea, the only other place was on the headrest which I suppose is 2 or
3 feet from the Volkslogger, and everything works okay when it is
there.

500mm might be far enough, I suppose, if Redbox is that similar to the
Swiss Flarm – which I don’t know. I also don’t know how
representative was my experience.


Hope that helps, but I guess not much!

Regards - Chris

On Oct 10, 8:36*pm, Andy wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:16*pm, mattm wrote:

OK, I'd like to see this proposed rule. *I've flown contests recently
(although not this year). *I'm all enthusiastic about installing a
PowerFLARM soon, but I'm not at a point to do it for next season.

Proposed Rule 6.5.3 - When announced by contest organizers prior to
the Preferential Entry Deadline, a FLARM collision avoidance
instrument is mandatory in every sailplane if there are a sufficient
number of rental FLARM units available for a contest rental fee of
fifty dollars or less per unit. *At all times when this rule is in
effect, FLARM flight logs must be handed in daily that confirm that
the FLARM was operating correctly. *Failure to comply should generally
result in unsafe operations penalties (Rule 12.2.5.1).

Good discussion.

I think the first thing the RC should do is make PowerFlarm legal in
contests. It's debatable whether requiring PowerFlarm, or a Flarm
log, is necessary - you could potentially allow Flarms to be used in
any mode tha pilot wanys, which would simplify things by a lot.

9B

Andy wrote in reply to; [snip] " It's a transmitter. Is there any
chance it
will interfere with PCAS, radios, bluetooth, or other equipment in my cockpit?

"IDK - I have not heard of issues in Europe." [end snip]

Then I suggest you read my post, above. The GPS aerial did seem to
suffer interference, when next to my Volkslogger. When Flarm is
switched on, it goes through a boot-up routine, after which if all is
well it has 3 green led’s, one of which shows it has a GPS signal good
enough to do its stuff. Mine would not show that consistently until
the GPS aerial was well away from the other one on the Volkslogger.

I know somebody else who was investigating a similar issue,
inconclusively AFAIK.

I have not heard of any problem of interference arising from the other
aerial, the Flarm-Flarm radio transmit/receive – only the partial
masking by carbon fibre that I mentioned. But these are very weak
signals – I expect it would not take much to disturb them.

Chris N.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:11:09 -0700, Chris Nicholas wrote:

I have not heard of any problem of interference arising from the other
aerial, the Flarm-Flarm radio transmit/receive – only the partial
masking by carbon fibre that I mentioned. But these are very weak
signals – I expect it would not take much to disturb them.

Chris,

Can you put numbers on the required separation?

I assume that if I put a FLARM in my panel it would not be upset by the
Garmin GPS II+ mounted on my battery box to feed my EW Model D, but what
about the following scenario:

Install a Redbox IGC on the equipment tray of my Libelle panel with the
antennae in a bridge over the well toward the forward end of the tray. I
have a Binatone satnav running LK8000 on a fleximount about 100 mm away
from the panel, so it would be around 500mm from the Redbox antennae. Is
that likely to be enough separation to avoid interference?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |