PowerFLARM leeching comments

Don,

In answer to the assertion that mid-air collisions in Switzerland have been

eradicated, mid air collisions are very very rare and relying on statistics

Switzerland is a small country. I have an incomplete list here
with midairs between 2006 and 2007 in Central Europe. The list implies
a lower bound of:
14 mid-airs
24 fatalities.

I'm not aware of a centralised European accident database, so statistics
is a bit tricky indeed, but it can theoretically be done by wading through
a few 1000s of reports from various national authorities.

recall in Switzerland over recent year was between two FLARM equipped
gliders, go figure.

http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/2012.pdf

Mid-air between an ASH 25 and a Stemme near Samedan, April 2007:

1.3 Information concerning the aircraft

Motorglider HB-2XXX was fitted with a traffic and collision warning
system FLARM F4 which was not operational because its UHF antenna was
not mounted.

[ the ASH had an operational FLARM ].

The only mid-air events I'm personally aware of where both involved aircraft
had an operational FLARM on board was Finland 2011 and Uvalde 2012.

FLARM helps, but it doesn't provide 100% protection.

Best
--Gerhard

At 10:57 31 October 2012, wrote:
Don,

In answer to the assertion that mid-air collisions in Switzerland have
been

eradicated, mid air collisions are very very rare and relying on
statistics

Switzerland is a small country. I have an incomplete list here
with midairs between 2006 and 2007 in Central Europe. The list implies
a lower bound of:
14 mid-airs
24 fatalities.

I'm not aware of a centralised European accident database, so statistics
is a bit tricky indeed, but it can theoretically be done by wading
through
a few 1000s of reports from various national authorities.

recall in Switzerland over recent year was between two FLARM equipped
gliders, go figure.

http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/2012.pdf

Mid-air between an ASH 25 and a Stemme near Samedan, April 2007:

1.3 Information concerning the aircraft

Motorglider HB-2XXX was fitted with a traffic and collision warning
system FLARM F4 which was not operational because its UHF antenna was
not mounted.

[ the ASH had an operational FLARM ].

The only mid-air events I'm personally aware of where both involved
aircraft
had an operational FLARM on board was Finland 2011 and Uvalde 2012.

FLARM helps, but it doesn't provide 100% protection.

Best
--Gerhard

FLARM is like the flashing blue light and sirens on a police car, it does
not in itself provide any protection at all. Both the above rely on the
human beings being able to interpret what they see, a flashing light and or
a sound, and take the necessary action. There are those who believe that
there is a technology solution which makes looking out less of a priority.
I particularly like the statement that people do not see the other aircraft
before it hits them, of course they don't, if they saw it the collision
would not take place. Of course FLARM can help, IF it is used as intended
and the human bit understands what he is bing told. It still relies on good
old fashioned lookout.
It is not unknown for two aircraft hitting each other when under radar
control, it is not the technology that is the problem. Accidents happen
because we are human, and sometimes fail to do what we should.
My comment about FLARM aircraft being involved in collisions was not a
critism of FLARM, more a comment that despite FLARM it can still, and will
happen.

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:

FLARM is like the flashing blue light and sirens on a police car, it does

not in itself provide any protection at all. Both the above rely on the

human beings being able to interpret what they see, a flashing light and or

a sound, and take the necessary action.

There are those who believe that
there is a technology solution which makes looking out less of a priority..

Nobody, right in their head actually believes that. Nobody that has been instructed in FLARM usage does believe that.

I particularly like the statement that people do not see the other aircraft

before it hits them, of course they don't, if they saw it the collision

would not take place.

Which is exactly the situation where FLARM comes in and tells you the pilot to pay attention and prevent the collision. So these stories will be a thing of the past.

Of course FLARM can help, IF it is used as intended
and the human bit understands what he is bing told.

If you fly in an aircraft where you do not understand what each instrument on your panel does, and are unfamiliar with the procedures that this entitles (for example pulling out right with a imminent head on collision) You do _not_ belong into this aircraft. These are the very basics.

It still relies on good
old fashioned lookout.

Flarm does not replace the pilot or good airmanship. It augments the pilot's senses.


It is not unknown for two aircraft hitting each other when under radar

control, it is not the technology that is the problem. Accidents happen

because we are human, and sometimes fail to do what we should.

My comment about FLARM aircraft being involved in collisions was not a

critism of FLARM, more a comment that despite FLARM it can still, and will

happen.

Since flarm doesn't pilot the aircraft for you: of course it can. But a critical situation is

1. far less likely to arise.
2. The outcome of a critical situation far less likely to cause an accident..

Statistics from .ch: Note the dip from 2004 onwards.
http://www.segelflug.ch/d/6safety/pd...atistik_CH.pdf

And i checked the accidents reports from 2007 onwards: There hasn't been a midair since the introduction of FLARM in Switzerland. (Flarm equipped and _in working order_ aircraft.)

- Folken

Don, the statement said " can not see the one which will hit them" not the one which hit them! You misunderstood again. What the statement means is that your eye can barely detect non moving target, and the non moving target is the one which will hit you. I suggest you do some research before posting more BS.

Ramy

On 10/31/2012 6:46 AM, Don Johnstone wrote:
Of course FLARM can help, IF it is used as intended
and the human bit understands what he is bing told. It still relies on good
old fashioned lookout.

If Flarm alerts you, it's probably because your "good old fashioned
lookout" has not alerted you. Flarm does depend on you finding the other
glider that caused the alert, but finding a threat after it's position
is given to you is not part of "good old fashioned lookout".

The pilot should continue to use his "[not really so] good old fashioned
lookout" after he has installed a Flarm unit, because there are still
aircraft that don't have Flarm or a transponder, and because Flarm isn't
perfect.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)