PowerFLARM leeching comments

I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of the"stealth" mode.

Mike

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:05:38 PM UTC-4, 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

I recall hearing that Flarm was developed to attempt to address the issue of mid air collisions and collisions with obstacles in the Alps. There is a big issue with coming around the corner of a rock and there is another glider. They also have a huge number of wires and such that you can't see.
Maybe the Flarm folks can clarify this bit of history. I'm sure we all would like to know.
UH

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 05:50:48 -0700, unclhank wrote:

I recall hearing that Flarm was developed to attempt to address the
issue of mid air collisions and collisions with obstacles in the Alps.
There is a big issue with coming around the corner of a rock and there
is another glider. They also have a huge number of wires and such that
you can't see.

I heard that too - especially the point about flying round a corner in a
mountain face and meeting traffic coming the other way. I think that also
explains the built-in obstacle database.


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

I recall hearing that Flarm was developed to attempt to address the issue of mid air collisions and collisions with obstacles in the Alps. There is a big issue with coming around the corner of a rock and there is another glider. They also have a huge number of wires and such that you can't see.

Maybe the Flarm folks can clarify this bit of history. I'm sure we all would like to know.

FLARM has been designed and deployed since the beginning for gliders and light aviation.
It has *not* been designed specifically for wave flight, but rather to cover a wide range
of situations where the human eye can fail. (Wave flight accounts only for a very
small percentage of flight time at least here in the Alps, so the benefit would've been minimal).

The FLARM algorithm is general enough to support any type of aircraft and maneuvers,
with the exception perhaps of aerobatics.

Initially, most installations were in gliders, but tow planes and other GA aircraft
soon followed.

The collision algorithm does work in wave, however with the caveat that the relative
bearing may be off because of the wind influence. This is covered in the manual.
(BTW, the relative bearing will also be off if you fly inverted!

I hope this clarifies a few questions!

Best
--Gerhard

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)