PowerFLARM leeching comments

At 15:06 30 October 2012, wrote:
Don,

I fully agree that maintaining a good lookout at all times
is a good basis for see-and-avoid.

However, we believe that even the best pilot may occasionally fail to
detect traffic.
There are a number of human factors which affect perception
(distraction, selective attention, target merging into background, target
not
moving wrt. background, etc).

We have a presentation where on one slide we listed the situations where
FLARM
has potentially better and/or earlier chances to detect traffic than the
human eye.

These situations a
- Head-on and converging course (both gliders in cruise), especially in
the
presence of clouds, snow fields etc.
- One glider circling, another one approaching the same thermal.
- Two gliders circling in opposite directions (yes, we know this
shouldn't
happen...)

As you say, the fewer gliders in a thermal, the more helpful FLARM can
be.

FLARM does help in wave, but the indicated relative bearing to the threat
may be strongly biased by wind.

Needless to say, whenever a FLARM warning occurs, the pilot should
immediately
try to make visual contact with the threat.

In the Classic FLARM manual, we write:

"Under no circumstances should a pilot or crewmember adopt different
tactics or deviate from the normal principles of safe airmanship."

I think that summarizes it quite nicely.

Best
--Gerhard

Gerhard

I do not disagree with you, FLARM does help, with the emphasis on help, it
does not replace or indeed lessen the necessity for a good lookout. My
argument was contering the statement that, "The difference between midairs
and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you can
do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm." which I think you
will agree is a load of total ********. FLARM can assit the aware pilot, it
is NOT the answer to preventing mid air collisions.
In Europe we do have, or some of us do, the LX8000 which does give the
radar display, however it takes time to see all the other gliders, time
which would be beter spent looking out.

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:

I do not disagree with you, FLARM does help, with the emphasis on help, it

does not replace or indeed lessen the necessity for a good lookout. My

argument was contering the statement that, "The difference between midairs

and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you can

do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm." which I think you

will agree is a load of total ********. FLARM can assit the aware pilot, it

is NOT the answer to preventing mid air collisions.

Statically it is. Midairs, once the number 1 accident cause, are now almost nonexistent in Switzerland, since the introduction of Flarm.

You can also assume that no pilot wants a midair collision and maintains good look out. But there are limitations to the human senses, as stated by Gerhard.

We have to stop threating the glider pilot as a luminous all seeing perfect elite being. (paron the pun.) We make mistakes. Hundreds each flight. In fact its a human quality to err.

Here is where technology helps. It maintains its constant SA and fills in our human attention gaps.

- Folken

Bravo Falken. +1 again and again! I wish we had more folks like you over here. Bravo!

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:12:54 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Bravo Falken. +1 again and again! I wish we had more folks like you over here. Bravo!

I second that.

The problem with some folks is that they are clueless about the risks and as such are in a higher risk. They believe that the reason they did not have any midair yet is due to their good scanning technique, while in fact it is 99% luck due to the big sky theory.

For a good reading on the subject of see and avoid check
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/bca0107c.xml (this link is few years old and currently not working, hopefully temporary)

Also a list of youtube videos showing how much we can trust our eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
-note: let it buffer all the way first, without letting it run, then
watch it full screen and really count!

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/b...ion-25/1416088
-blind spot, eek...

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/b...sion-5/1400321
-relative shades

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/b...ion-14/1408013
-implied green

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/b...sion-3/1400187
-false center

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/b...ion-15/1408125
-false spiral

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/b...ion-22/1414565
-implied square

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/b...ion-19/1412692
-parallel lines

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/b...sion-6/1400351
-parallels

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/b...ion-18/1412564
-wiggling ovals

At 17:13 30 October 2012, folken wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:

I do not disagree with you, FLARM does help, with the emphasis on help,
it

does not replace or indeed lessen the necessity for a good lookout. My

argument was contering the statement that, "The difference between
midairs

and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you
can

do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm." which I think you

will agree is a load of total ********. FLARM can assit the aware
pilot,
it

is NOT the answer to preventing mid air collisions.

Statically it is. Midairs, once the number 1 accident cause, are now
almost
nonexistent in Switzerland, since the introduction of Flarm.

You can also assume that no pilot wants a midair collision and maintains
good look out. But there are limitations to the human senses, as stated
by
Gerhard.

We have to stop threating the glider pilot as a luminous all seeing
perfect
elite being. (paron the pun.) We make mistakes. Hundreds each flight. In
fact its a human quality to err.

Yes it helps, it does not provide the answer as the statement to which I
objected intimated it might. The only solution is better lookout and
bettter situational awareness however THAT can be achieved, not replacing
them with technology.

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
with such a small sample is futile. As I recall the only mid air I can
recall in Switzerland over recent year was between two FLARM equipped
gliders, go figure.

Here is where technology helps. It maintains its constant SA and fills in
our human attention gaps.

- Folken

OK. I will stop here and let the process go along. But I think competition concerns are GREATLY outweighed by SAFETY concerns.

Good luck with this. I dont have RADAR in my glider so its not really a concern.

Sean

Apparently Don have not seen the many demonstrations and articles proving that see and avoid does not work (except in thermals when eye contact can be maintained to some extent).
Don, other then when thermaling and in the traffic pattern (which is only 20-30% of typical flight) you may as well fly blind folded and your chances for mid air will remain about the same. The problem is that many pilots believe that they can see and avoid since they always see traffic which is not on collision course without realizing that they can not see the one which will hit them. Also it will be interesting if we could put a camera in the cockpit of those claiming that they always scan to find out how much scanning they actually do during a 5 hours XC flight... Looking for lift under the clouds ahead is not considerd scanning!

Ramy

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:25:20 PM UTC-7, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 17:13 30 October 2012, folken wrote:

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:



I do not disagree with you, FLARM does help, with the emphasis on help,

it



does not replace or indeed lessen the necessity for a good lookout. My



argument was contering the statement that, "The difference between

midairs



and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you

can



do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm." which I think you



will agree is a load of total ********. FLARM can assit the aware

pilot,

it



is NOT the answer to preventing mid air collisions.



Statically it is. Midairs, once the number 1 accident cause, are now

almost

nonexistent in Switzerland, since the introduction of Flarm.



You can also assume that no pilot wants a midair collision and maintains

good look out. But there are limitations to the human senses, as stated

by

Gerhard.



We have to stop threating the glider pilot as a luminous all seeing

perfect

elite being. (paron the pun.) We make mistakes. Hundreds each flight. In

fact its a human quality to err.



Yes it helps, it does not provide the answer as the statement to which I

objected intimated it might. The only solution is better lookout and

bettter situational awareness however THAT can be achieved, not replacing

them with technology.



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

with such a small sample is futile. As I recall the only mid air I can

recall in Switzerland over recent year was between two FLARM equipped

gliders, go figure.



Here is where technology helps. It maintains its constant SA and fills in

our human attention gaps.



- Folken



I hope no one takes Don comments seriously. It is evident he doesn't know what he is talking about with gems like: midairs are very very rare, see and avoid is the only solution to midairs, flarm was designed for wave etc. Please spare us.

Ramy

Ramy

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.