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

At 16:35 31 October 2012, folken wrote:
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
=20
not in itself provide any protection at all. Both the above rely on the
=20
human beings being able to interpret what they see, a flashing light
and
=
or
=20
a sound, and take the necessary action.=20

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
in=
structed in FLARM usage does believe that.
=20
I particularly like the statement that people do not see the other
aircra=
ft
=20
before it hits them, of course they don't, if they saw it the collision
=20
would not take place.=20

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
thi=
ng of the past.

Of course FLARM can help, IF it is used as intended
and the human bit understands what he is bing told.=20

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
entitl=
es (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=20
old fashioned lookout.

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

=20
It is not unknown for two aircraft hitting each other when under radar
=20
control, it is not the technology that is the problem. Accidents happen
=20
because we are human, and sometimes fail to do what we should.
=20
My comment about FLARM aircraft being involved in collisions was not a
=20
critism of FLARM, more a comment that despite FLARM it can still, and
wil=
l
=20
happen.=20

Since flarm doesn't pilot the aircraft for you: of course it can. But a
cri=
tical situation is=20

1. far less likely to arise.=20
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

and 99% of people who enter a retirment home die there, does not mean that
retirement homes are dangerous places, just that the statistics are
meaningless. In the case you put forward the sample is far too small to
draw a meaningful conclusion. There could be other factors at work, like
less flying taking place, more conspicuous markings, better understanding
by pilots of the problem ad nausea.
Better lookout and situational awareness is they key, anyone who thinks
otherwise should stay at home in a locked room, they are far too dangerous
to be allowed out.

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:00:03 PM UTC-7, Don Johnstone wrote:

and 99% of people who enter a retirment home die there, does not mean that
retirement homes are dangerous places, just that the statistics are
meaningless. In the case you put forward the sample is far too small to
draw a meaningful conclusion. There could be other factors at work, like
less flying taking place, more conspicuous markings, better understanding
by pilots of the problem ad nausea.
Better lookout and situational awareness is they key, anyone who thinks
otherwise should stay at home in a locked room, they are far too dangerous
to be allowed out.

Ad nauseam is the right characterization - this comes across as continual nit-picking and nay-saying in denial of available facts and logic - and in contradiction of some of your own prior statements regarding admitted effectiveness of Flarm as an aid to situational awareness specific to traffic conflicts.

I've flown with it, I know it works - in my retirement home people live longer than in Don's so I'm moving there.

9B

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:00:03 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:
Better lookout and situational awareness is they key, anyone who thinks

otherwise should stay at home in a locked room, they are far too dangerous

to be allowed out.

You know whats far more dangerous? Pilots resistant to critique.

If three pilots tell you that what you are doing|thinking is wrong or dangerous: it probably is.

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

At 16:53 31 October 2012, Ramy wrote:
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
t=
hat 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
posti=
ng more BS.=20

Ramy

Yes Ramy I do understand that. FLARM was originally designed to alert
pilots flying in wave, where the relative movement of soaring gliders is
very small, and their direction of travel, (track) is often unrelated to
their heading (direction they are pointing) to an outside observer. FLARM
is very good at alerting us of that situation and quite often the rate of
closure is very small.
That is just one situation where FLARM is excellent however it does not
necessarily mean that it is good in other situations.

Don, can you back up your claim that Flarm was designed mainly for wave flying by providing some reference?
Also,can you share with us your actual experience flying with Flarm?

Ramy

At 02:05 01 November 2012, Ramy wrote:
Don, can you back up your claim that Flarm was designed mainly for wave
flying by providing some reference?
Also,can you share with us your actual experience flying with Flarm?

Ramy

The original FLARM was conceived to assist pilots in detecting difficult to
see gliders, particulary in wave where the relative movement is small, the
closure rate is slow and the track of another glider cannot easily be
detected by observing the way it is pointing.
I fly a Discus fitted with FLARM and an LX8000. The LX8000 linked to the
FLARM provides a "radar" display on the moving map. I have found the system
to be useful when flying in wave, I have found it to be less useful, if not
distracting in thermals. On a short 3 mile ridge with 20 or 30 gliders it
is positively lethal.
I do not use the LX8000 display at all when flying a ridge or in thermals.
I have used it when flying in wave, however I still feel the time spent
looking at the LX display and trying to make sense of it would be better
spent looking out.
The most scary thing, even using just the clock lights on the basic system,
is that it is misleading when flying a ridge in higher wind speeds. The
light bears no relation to the direction of the threat so I hear the bleep
and look all round. I have to say that there have been very few occasions
when the alert has sounded and I have not seen the glider causing it before
the alert sounded, lucky maybe?