Saturday practice at Hobbs NM

Am 22.06.2011 20:44, johngalloway wrote:
The diagram on page 12 of this Powerpoint presentation on the Flarm
website shows very clearly the situations in which Flarm is most or
least useful:

http://www.flarm.com/files/basic_presentation_en.ppt

In busy contest thermal gaggles with lots of Flarmed gliders there are
so many alarms that you often can't tell or see which other glider is
Flarming you and have to regard it as a serious ongoing prompt to
vigorous Seeing and Avoiding - in the knowledge that the other pilot/
will also be getting an alarm and will hopefully be doing the same.
That is very useful in its own way but it is a very different type of
situational awareness from the use of Flarm in the cruise or
approaching a thermal gaggle.

I think that even if a magical Flarm were able to produce positional
and conflict information with zero error it would be impossible to do
much better for the case of busy similarly centered gaggles because
the gliders are continually making unpredictable centering and
avoidance corrections.

John Galloway

I had the pleasure of flying in a contest recently where all planes
were equipped with FLARM. Having several years of experience with flying
FLARM equipped gliders both in X/C and contest gaggle situations, I have
the impression that especially in gaggle situations the FLARM algorithm
has improved a lot with the current software version 5.xx. I had almost
no false alarms, and a few positive alarms in situations where an alarm
was appropriate.

I encountered one situation where I had no alarm, although the situation
might have developed into a close approach. This was a situation where I
was flying vertically underneath of another glider, with the vertical
distance becoming smaller. This is one of the "weak spots" because of
the usual position of the FLARM aerial the view below the aircraft is
obstructed. As the other glider was clearly visible, there was no real
danger though.

In the course of that contest, I had one situation en route where FLARM
provided important additional information. I already had spotted one
glider that was approching me on the same height in my 12 o'clock
position, and made a slight movement to the right. At that moment, the
FLARM was going off, showing me that there actually were two targets
approaching me. Scanning the horizon again I spotted the second plane,
and we all were able to pass each other in safe distances with very
little corrections of our course.

FLARM has its limitations, but it certainly can help to avoid dangerous
situations by giving the pilot additional informations on top of the
close lookout.
--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Does anyone know the name of the Ventus pilot?

At 16:32 23 June 2011, Peter Scholz wrote:
Am 22.06.2011 20:44, johngalloway wrote:
The diagram on page 12 of this Powerpoint presentation on the Flarm
website shows very clearly the situations in which Flarm is most or
least useful:

http://www.flarm.com/files/basic_presentation_en.ppt

In busy contest thermal gaggles with lots of Flarmed gliders there are
so many alarms that you often can't tell or see which other glider is
Flarming you and have to regard it as a serious ongoing prompt to
vigorous Seeing and Avoiding - in the knowledge that the other pilot/
will also be getting an alarm and will hopefully be doing the same.
That is very useful in its own way but it is a very different type of
situational awareness from the use of Flarm in the cruise or
approaching a thermal gaggle.

I think that even if a magical Flarm were able to produce positional
and conflict information with zero error it would be impossible to do
much better for the case of busy similarly centered gaggles because
the gliders are continually making unpredictable centering and
avoidance corrections.

John Galloway

I had the pleasure of flying in a contest recently where all planes
were equipped with FLARM. Having several years of experience with flying

FLARM equipped gliders both in X/C and contest gaggle situations, I have

the impression that especially in gaggle situations the FLARM algorithm
has improved a lot with the current software version 5.xx. I had almost
no false alarms, and a few positive alarms in situations where an alarm
was appropriate.

I encountered one situation where I had no alarm, although the situation

might have developed into a close approach. This was a situation where I

was flying vertically underneath of another glider, with the vertical
distance becoming smaller. This is one of the "weak spots" because of
the usual position of the FLARM aerial the view below the aircraft is
obstructed. As the other glider was clearly visible, there was no real
danger though.

In the course of that contest, I had one situation en route where FLARM
provided important additional information. I already had spotted one
glider that was approching me on the same height in my 12 o'clock
position, and made a slight movement to the right. At that moment, the
FLARM was going off, showing me that there actually were two targets
approaching me. Scanning the horizon again I spotted the second plane,
and we all were able to pass each other in safe distances with very
little corrections of our course.

FLARM has its limitations, but it certainly can help to avoid dangerous
situations by giving the pilot additional informations on top of the
close lookout.
--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Am 24.06.2011 22:37, Nyal Williams wrote:
Does anyone know the name of the Ventus pilot?


cited from previous entry:

Jock Proudfoot;775316 Wrote:
12-JUN-2011 15:58 LT
Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2a
Registration: OH-920
Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 1
Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location: Renkajärvi, Hattula - Finland
Phase: En route
The second glider involved in the midair collision during the Finnish
National gliding competition in 15 meters class. The pilot was found
dead
after a long search.
The pilot of the other glider (ASG 29E) was able to escape with the
parachute. Both gliders crashed to the ground and were destroyed.
A collision-warning system (FLARM) was compulsory during the
competition.

Aalto Matti Ventus 2a
Teronen Olli ASG-29e

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Thanks, I missed this.

I had feared that it might have been a friend I haven't heard from in
quite a while. Not so; sad news nontheless.

At 06:01 25 June 2011, Peter Scholz wrote:
Am 24.06.2011 22:37, Nyal Williams wrote:
Does anyone know the name of the Ventus pilot?


cited from previous entry:

Jock Proudfoot;775316 Wrote:
12-JUN-2011 15:58 LT
Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2a
Registration: OH-920
Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 1
Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location: Renkajärvi, Hattula - Finland
Phase: En route
The second glider involved in the midair collision during the
Finnish
National gliding competition in 15 meters class. The pilot was
found
dead
after a long search.
The pilot of the other glider (ASG 29E) was able to escape with the
parachute. Both gliders crashed to the ground and were destroyed.
A collision-warning system (FLARM) was compulsory during the
competition.

Aalto Matti Ventus 2a
Teronen Olli ASG-29e

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

What we know:

Two gliders taking part in a competition collided
It was mandatory for all gliders flying in the competition to have FLARM
fitted.
One pilot survived and sadly, one died.

What we do not know:
What the flight profile was at the time of the accident, thermalling,
straight glide or final glide. (There has been much discussion of the
abilities of FLARM in a thermal but no evidence that the aircraft that
collided were thermalling)
The status of the FLARM devices, were they fully operational or in
Competition or Stealth mode or indeed working at all.
We do not know what warnings may or may not have been given to the pilots
and suggestions that competition pilots may ignore warnings in a
generalisation that I would find insulting if I were a competition pilot.
I am a competition director and I can say that most of the competition
pilots I have met are responsible and safety concious. Many things can
spoil your competition chances, having a mid air certainly will, so to
suggest that a pilot may ignore warnings is illogical.
What I would be interested to know is whether or not the status of the
FLARM units had any significance in this accident. I have expressed grave
doubts about degrading the performance of FLARM, even by a very small
amount, and the consequences of such action. I suspect that it may be some
time before the information is available.
A final thought, gliding is not dangerous in the same way that driving is
not dangerous per se. What a minority of pilots do can be dangerous and it
is up to all of us to ensure that if a pilot is dangerous he/she does not
get the opportunity to continue to be a danger to thers.