Another mid-air (UK)

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

I have used US Powerflarm in every flight I have made since it was released in the USA at Uvalde 2011. This includes around 10 contests. For me, FLARM solves one key problem and one key problem only. Anything else that it provides is a bonus.

THE ONE KEY PROBLEM FLARM SOLVES IS:

Powerflarm (if properly installed) MAY alert me to gliders that I MIGHT otherwise not be aware of (PERIOD).

This potential knowledge is a highly valuable thing to have. In my opinion glider collisions where one pilot (or both) sees the other are quite rare. Glider collisions are usually a result of BOTH PILOTS NOT being aware of the other. FLARM gives both pilots a fighting chance to avoid being unaware of each other and the chance to visually acquire each other before a surprise collision can occur. Period.

Situations in which 2 gliders may be dangerously unaware of each other may include: gliders flying the same course (behind, below, above or to the side), head on collisions, entering a thermal from different directions, entering the pattern, in the pattern, the chaos of the starting cylinder (gliders coming from any direction, little organization), or (most importantly) THE CHAOS OF A GLIDER GLUB OR COMMERCIAL OPERATION WITH MANY GLIDERS LOITERING NEAR THE AIRPORT.

Flarm (IMO) is also very good at managing up to 3 gliders at the same altitude in the same thermal.

What I DO NOT expect Flarm to do well for me is to manage MANY gliders (5+) in the same thermal ALTHOUGH PowerFlarm is usually very good at only providing relevant collision warnings even in crowded thermals. The problem I have is when more than 3 gliders in a thermal I have absolutely no time to look at the FLARM display and need 100% focus outside the glider on the other sailplanes nearby. The Flarms audible collision warnings are still useful to me however. I can usually easily/immediately correlate an audible warning to a change in turn radius by a nearby glider that could result in a collision. That audible warning "makes sense" even though I am no longer referring to the FLARM display to confirm it.

The scary part is when you get an audible alert in a very crowded thermal and nothing that you see visually from the other gliders around you seems to warrant that FLARM audible warning!

In regards to the (ch^%p) pilots who don't have FLARM, won't buy it or argue that it doesn't work or provide safety value. I have one simple statement for them:

Darwin was absolutely spot on.

http://youtu.be/iKz01UB8QrY

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:00:03 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
Glider collisions are usually a result of BOTH PILOTS NOT being aware of the other. FLARM gives both pilots a fighting chance to avoid being unaware of each other and the chance to visually acquire each other before a surprise collision can occur.

That's an excellent summary. It reads better on its own, don't you think :-)?

My $0.02: The flarm boosters and the flarm critics are both right. I have a foot in each camp.

The technology works pretty well, given a decent installation, configuration and cockpit interface. Sadly, I have seen plenty of crappy installations, mis-configurations and horrid cockpit displays... bad in enough in many cases to render the device somewhere between handicapped and completely non-functional. It does seem like the product and support could be improved.....

Evan Ludeman / T8

Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from
flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of
the flight path? I flew at Nephi last week (in a Flarm-equipped ship)
and saw and heard *nothing*. Does that mean there were no other gliders
nearby?

Those making the most stringent arguments for Flarm seem only to
denigrate the intelligence of those who choose not to use it while, on
other threads, complain about such things as antennae placement, blind
spots (below and behind), software, displays, false alerts, no alerts,
etc. I'll bet they also drive hybrid cars and lobby for wind energy and
against nuclear energy.

And as to buying unfinished technology - who actually believes he can
beat Kawa by buying an ASG-29 or a JS-1?

Dan Marotta

On 8/5/2014 10:46 PM, 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 14:26 06 August 2014, Dan Marotta wrote:
Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from
flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of
the flight path?

http://www.flarm.com:

"obstacle database covers Italian, Swiss, Austrian, French and German
obstacles, with updates (functionality at cost)"

That is why helicopters carry Flarm in the Alps.

Mike

Thanks. Mocho told me that today at the airport. Despite how we rail
at each other on this forum, we actually get along pretty well.

Considering the accuracy of GPS, I would assume that the database which
alerts users of obstacles is more for awareness than specific avoidance.

I really appreciate a straight answer!

Dan Marotta

On 8/6/2014 8:52 AM, Mike Clarke wrote:
At 14:26 06 August 2014, Dan Marotta wrote:
Kindly explain to me how Flarm or Power Flarm prevented someone from
flying into wires. Do they mount them on the towers on either side of
the flight path?
http://www.flarm.com:

"obstacle database covers Italian, Swiss, Austrian, French and German
obstacles, with updates (functionality at cost)"

That is why helicopters carry Flarm in the Alps.

Mike