Another mid-air (UK)

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.

I agree with the oversold and under performed part.

Earlier someone said, "Any pilot with half a brain will have Flarm".
Well, I have a whole brain and my analysis says, "Not yet".

Dan Marotta

On 8/5/2014 2:09 PM, wrote:
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

Ah, there are plenty of unfinished products in soaring. Many have bought new gliders that were not up to the performance of the one they just sold for significantly less.
UH and others do well finishing up gliders that left the factory allegedly performing like the advertised polar.
How about this series of photos? Amazing what a telephoto lens will do.
http://www.mkweb.co.uk/News/GALLERY-...0805200000.htm
Jim

I fly with Dan Marotta on a regular basis from Moriarty. He constantly denigrates Power Flarm to any and all, and refuses to consider it as anything but something to bitch about.

Many of us at Moriarty use Power Flarm and find it to be a welcome addition to the cockpit environment. I see an indication of possible PF traffic and immediately try to get a visual contact. I see a Transponder ring and altitude and immediately try to scan to find the object.

My eyes are out of the cockpit much more than previously, when I thought I was all by my lonesome in the Big Blue Sky. I am informed of relative traffic on many occasions when I would have been blissfully unaware of their presence.

Dan is entitled to his opinion, but he should be aware that he is in the minority, and his insistence on only a transponder makes US aware of HIM, but he is not taking advantage of a valuable tool that might make his flying safer for HIM (and US!)

And his assertion that he has "a whole brain" is a subject of regular debate amongst other Moriarty pilots. You might want to get a second opinion, Dan.

I find it amusing (and pitty) that most of the negative comments come from those who don't know what they are talking about since they never fly with powerflarm.
As for statistics, I believe there is enough statistics that showing that the number of mid airs were reduced drastically since Flarm was introduced. The Flarm folks have the statistics and keep track of midairs. Wish they would chime in.

Ramy

Op woensdag 6 augustus 2014 06:03:21 UTC+2 schreef Ramy:
As for statistics, I believe there is enough statistics that showing that the number of mid airs were reduced drastically since Flarm was introduced. The Flarm folks have the statistics and keep track of midairs. Wish they would chime in.


Last time I checked the numbers for the busy Alps it came to about a factor of 8 less deaths due to mid-airs and flight into wires.

8 TIMES, not percent. That's dozens of lives over the last decade...

Until you fly with (Power)flarm you're simply not aware how much traffic you do not see.

IMHO, those arguing against FLARM suffer from the same cognitive dissonance we see in people arguing against seat belts or medicines that can save lives...

A right of reply is called for here now you have offended my intelligence.

We are agreed on a few points here.

1. Alert systems are a good thing if used correctly.

2. The effectiveness of alert systems needs a longer timeframe to make a
statistical inference.

3. Poor habitual response to alerts may be leading to reduced flight
safety.

4. Training and monitoring of use of alert system is key to ensuring they
are
adding to flight safety nor comprising it


Neil


04:46 06 August 2014, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
Op woensdag 6 augustus 2014 06:03:21 UTC+2 schreef Ramy:
As for statistics, I believe there is enough statistics that showing
that
the number of mid airs were reduced drastically since Flarm was
introduced.
The Flarm folks have the statistics and keep track of midairs. Wish they
would chime in.


Last time I checked the numbers for the busy Alps it came to about a
factor
of 8 less deaths due to mid-airs and flight into wires.

8 TIMES, not percent. That's dozens of lives over the last decade...

Until you fly with (Power)flarm you're simply not aware how much traffic
you do not see.

IMHO, those arguing against FLARM suffer from the same cognitive
dissonance
we see in people arguing against seat belts or medicines that can save
lives...

At this point I'd say 'let it go'.

A neighbor of mine did some research about how hard it is to change a person's beliefs with rational discussion and evidence.

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...ackfire-effect

So, Mark, are you trying to say that the last time you almost ran over
me you would have seen me had I had a PF installed? Why didn't your PF
provide you with an alert on my Mode S transponder? Oh, yeah, that
inconvenient co-altitude thing.

After some 30+ years as a systems engineer, I know how to develop
requirements for systems way more complex than PF and I also know how to
choose existing systems which deliver what they claim. Reading all of
the PF comments on here by the believers still leads me to different
conclusions. Please note also that I only state negative opinions when
someone makes a ridiculous statement first.

Should you want to discuss this further, I'll be towing today and
tomorrow. Drop by.

Dan Marotta

On 8/5/2014 8:45 PM, Mark628CA wrote:
I fly with Dan Marotta on a regular basis from Moriarty. He constantly denigrates Power Flarm to any and all, and refuses to consider it as anything but something to bitch about.

Many of us at Moriarty use Power Flarm and find it to be a welcome addition to the cockpit environment. I see an indication of possible PF traffic and immediately try to get a visual contact. I see a Transponder ring and altitude and immediately try to scan to find the object.

My eyes are out of the cockpit much more than previously, when I thought I was all by my lonesome in the Big Blue Sky. I am informed of relative traffic on many occasions when I would have been blissfully unaware of their presence.

Dan is entitled to his opinion, but he should be aware that he is in the minority, and his insistence on only a transponder makes US aware of HIM, but he is not taking advantage of a valuable tool that might make his flying safer for HIM (and US!)

And his assertion that he has "a whole brain" is a subject of regular debate amongst other Moriarty pilots. You might want to get a second opinion, Dan.

Just kidding :-)