Another mid-air (UK)

Chris,

I agree. This becomes a very subjective debate however I have
heard testimonial evidence that people don't fly their aircraft when their
FLARM is U/S.

Does this suggest that they consider that they have become complacent in
look-out following habitual use? or that they consider the risk of mid-air
is significantly higher without an early alert system or perhaps they don't
want to experience any more 'WTF was that' moments in their enjoyment of
the sport.

I still standby my comments, until I am provided with evidence, that the
risk of mid-air is not significantly reduced with FLARM introduction but it
does reduce the number of 'WTF was that' moments.

So I accept that as an aid it may make the flight more enjoyable but in
this thread I won't comment on the additional threats that alert systems
might be adding to comprimising flight safety by incorrect use and
distraction.

Neil


At 13:01 05 August 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:
I can't imagine anyone is going to admit to that or even realise it
applie
to them, at least until they have a mid-air or a very near miss.

At 20:35 04 August 2014, John Galloway wrote:
It has often been hypothesised that FLARM might cause
complacency but no study has found evidence of that. I would
be interested to hear from pilots who who have found that FLARM
use has made them complacent about look out.

John Galloway

On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 16:13:43 UTC+1, Neil Goudie wrote:
Chris,



I agree. This becomes a very subjective debate however I have

heard testimonial evidence that people don't fly their aircraft when their

FLARM is U/S.



Does this suggest that they consider that they have become complacent in

look-out following habitual use? or that they consider the risk of mid-air

is significantly higher without an early alert system or perhaps they don't

want to experience any more 'WTF was that' moments in their enjoyment of

the sport.



I still standby my comments, until I am provided with evidence, that the

risk of mid-air is not significantly reduced with FLARM introduction but it

does reduce the number of 'WTF was that' moments.



So I accept that as an aid it may make the flight more enjoyable but in

this thread I won't comment on the additional threats that alert systems

might be adding to comprimising flight safety by incorrect use and

distraction.



Neil


Neil, I agree that we don't yet know for sure the extent to which FLARM has affected mid-air collision statistics. What we can say for sure IMHO, and with the greatest respect what I think is missing from you comments, is that FLARM has the potential to have significant benefit if its use and limitations are taught and understood properly and, especially, if pilots learn from their experiences of the additional situational awareness information to improve their flying (so as to avoid getting into high risk situations) and also to improve their look out and see and avoid behaviour.

It also has the potential to be pretty pointless if pilots just stick it in their glider and expect it to "work" without them having thought through how to interact with it or to learn from it.

So - what has resulted so far from FLARM use is much less important than what we could make happen with it in the future.

Regrettably structured instruction on FLARM use has not found its way into ab initio training in the UK.

John Galloway

I believe the most recent UK mid-air, the one of which we have been seeing the dramatic photos of the wing parting, happened in a competition thermal gaggle. I find Flarm of little relevance in that situation.

Who would care to suggest a training syllabus for Flarm?

At 16:17 05 August 2014, waremark wrote:
I believe the most recent UK mid-air, the one of which we have
been seeing
the dramatic photos of the wing parting, happened in a
competition thermal
gaggle. I find Flarm of little relevance in that situation.


..and another happened in a thermal with two gliders alone.

So we conclude FLARM isn't any use in a gaggle, and isn't any use
not in a gaggle.
So in the context that most mid-airs happen in thermals, when is it
useful? Or is it the Emperor's New Clothes?

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 9:55:00 AM UTC-7, Stats Watcher wrote:
At 16:17 05 August 2014, waremark wrote:

I believe the most recent UK mid-air, the one of which we have

been seeing

the dramatic photos of the wing parting, happened in a

competition thermal

gaggle. I find Flarm of little relevance in that situation.





.and another happened in a thermal with two gliders alone.



So we conclude FLARM isn't any use in a gaggle, and isn't any use

not in a gaggle.

So in the context that most mid-airs happen in thermals, when is it

useful? Or is it the Emperor's New Clothes?

I've flown with PowerFLARM for the last 3 seasons and regularly fly in close gaggles. I find it invaluable both in gaggle and cruise situations and wouldn't want to go back to the old ways. Frankly I'm mystified by the resistance to this.

Cheers,
Craig

Craig; I think I understand Flarm denial syndrome. When a glider pilot says " it's not the money its the principal of the thing, then you can be pretty sure it is the money.
I now have both a Flarm and Mode S transponder. I look outside much more now than before than I did before.

Dale Bush

At 18:42 05 August 2014, Craig Funston wrote:
I've flown with PowerFLARM for the last 3 seasons and
regularly fly in
close gaggles. I find it invaluable both in gaggle and cruise
situations
and wouldn't want to go back to the old ways. Frankly I'm
mystified by the
resistance to this.

Cheers,
Craig



A strange reply, you appear to prove the point... Firstly, by
flying in 'close gaggles' you are choosing to raise your personal
risk of collision. (As an aside, I don't understand why as the
gaggle always moves slower than you can achieve by doing
your own thing so why increase your risk for no gain?).
However you must feel you are then lowering this risk by
carrying FLARM, classic piece of risk compensation! which we
hinted at earlier... Unless carrying FLARM can reduced you risk
back to the original level, even by carrying FLARM you are
actually flying a higher risk approach. However.... even the
manufacturer says FLARM is not a close quarters collision
avoidance system, simply a mid range situational awareness
tool, so your risk mitigation strategy appears to be fallacy.

So you prove the point. You are flying a high risk approach,
which your erroneously believe is mitigated. However it is not,
so overall your personal risk, by carrying FLARM, is higher that a
pilot who does not....

Craig: I think I know the cause of "Flarm resistance syndrome". When a glider pilot says "It's not the money it's the principal of the thing" then you can be pretty sure that it's the money.
I now fly with both Flarm and Mode S. I look outside for traffic lots more than I did before. Of course that's just me.

Dale Bush

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:16:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Craig: I think I know the cause of "Flarm resistance syndrome". When a glider pilot says "It's not the money it's the principal of the thing" then you can be pretty sure that it's the money.

I now fly with both Flarm and Mode S. I look outside for traffic lots more than I did before. Of course that's just me.



Dale Bush

I think there is a natural resistance on the part of many folks to things they think are being over sold. The drift of this thread is an example. Every mid air is an excuse to bang the drum again.
Flarm was over sold and under delivered and many have not forgotten that.
As delivered, it had a useless unreadable display and a beep that told you to look inside at a hard to read display just when you needed to be looking outside.
For me it became a useful device when ClearNav introduced a simple display integrated with an audible message such as "traffic twelve o'clock high".
There is a perceptible trend on the part of some pilots to depend on this device and I think that is a hazard.
It also is heavily flawed in application because, except in a very few rare cases, installations don't have the second antenna needed to provide the coverage where it is really needed which is below and behind where we can't see.
So I think it is not just about the money.
UH

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 9:55:00 AM UTC-7, Stats Watcher wrote:
At 16:17 05 August 2014, waremark wrote:

I believe the most recent UK mid-air, the one of which we have

been seeing

the dramatic photos of the wing parting, happened in a

competition thermal

gaggle. I find Flarm of little relevance in that situation.





.and another happened in a thermal with two gliders alone.



So we conclude FLARM isn't any use in a gaggle, and isn't any use

not in a gaggle.

So in the context that most mid-airs happen in thermals, when is it

useful? Or is it the Emperor's New Clothes?

Like all flight instruments, it adds data to your decision making. And like all flight instruments, to the extent you believe in it, it reduces the burden of keeping watch on that function. The only reason you have any instrument at all is to add data, or to present already available data in a way requiring less thought (pilot workload). So Flarm, like any instrument, tempts one to pay less attention to watch keeping (and more to something else) to the extent that you allow. At the same time, it adds a great deal of situational awareness, i.e., what to watch for. I think most pilots flying with it begin to depend on it in this way, consciously or not. If the implementation allows voice warnings (such as the Butterfly Vario) then there is no additional attention *required* at all.

I disagree that it is not useful in tight gaggles. With a good presentation (the best is probably on the old Winpilot software) your situational awareness is greatly improved, and the voice warnings I get from the Vario are almost always relevant. I can't imagine anyone closing their eyes in a gaggle and waiting for Flarm to tell them what to do. But when flying in the clear there is a temptation to pay less attention to empty space until a target is picked up by Flarm, then pay a lot more attention to trying to get eyes on them. Whether that is a net plus I don't know.

However, Flarm is worth the cost for its entertainment value alone.