Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA

5Z wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:57 pm, "Mike Schumann" mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com wrote:
We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
affordable for glider pilots.

I agree.

But... I doubt ADS-B will have the smarts to provide intelligent
warnings and ignore false alerts due to the close proximity we fly in.

Actually, the ADS-B specification says nothing about how collisions are
detected, it just provides a standardized means of periodically
broadcasting aircraft type (e.g. glider), altitude, position, and
velocity vector. An uncertified glider specific UAT receiver and threat
display could be developed. Or, a future version of SeeYou Mobile or
WinPilot could perhaps license the FLARM algorithm, and apply it to the
data stream received from a dumb UAT device...

Marc

"5Z" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 25, 1:57 pm, "Mike Schumann" mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com wrote:
We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
affordable for glider pilots.

I agree.

But... I doubt ADS-B will have the smarts to provide intelligent
warnings and ignore false alerts due to the close proximity we fly in.

I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing which gliders in the
gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?

-Tom


I have not flown with Flarm but a comment that I received from an
experienced pilot flying with his new Flarm unit in a competition this
summer was: 'I ended up switching it off half the time because it was going
off all the time when thermalling in gaggles'

Hi,

That is an interesting data point from one person. I sure there are people
that turn off their FLARM units from time to time. That seems very... I
can't think of a better word than "stupid". I imagine that the FLARM
devices can be annoying at times when near a lot of other users. But
turning it off seems very similar to the glider pilot that had his
transponder turned off and was hit by a jet.

However, the feedback I have received from glider pilots in Europe and
Australia and New Zealand and more recently the U.K. is that FLARM is an
extremely useful safety enhancing device.

I don't recall the exact details, but there was a soaring competition in New
Zealand or Australia at which everyone was encouraged to try FLARM. I don't
know whether it was required, or rented to the pilots, or loaned to them,
or... Many of them were very skeptical about FLARM until they tried it.
But the end result I heard was that nearly everyone was very impressed with
the FLARM units - so much so that they purchased them. I also heard that at
least one head-on collision was avoided due to the FLARM units in 2 gliders
during the competition.

It would be impossible to know how many lives FLARM has saved in the
European Alps. My guess is that it has saved many.

I'm sure it seems like I'm trying to push new technology so I can sell it.
Well... I would like to sell it. But I am sincere in my desire to increase
safety. I would love to have FLARM or something similar in all the gliders
I fly ASAP. But that would only be of benefit if everyone else in the area
(gliders and power planes alike) was also using it. So how can we get
there? We have many very intelligent people in soaring. Let's drive a
movement to get there.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

"John Wilton" wrote in message
om...

"5Z" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 25, 1:57 pm, "Mike Schumann" mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com wrote:
We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that
is
affordable for glider pilots.

I agree.

But... I doubt ADS-B will have the smarts to provide intelligent
warnings and ignore false alerts due to the close proximity we fly in.

I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing which gliders in the
gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?

-Tom


I have not flown with Flarm but a comment that I received from an
experienced pilot flying with his new Flarm unit in a competition this
summer was: 'I ended up switching it off half the time because it was
going off all the time when thermalling in gaggles'

On Oct 26, 8:32 am, 5Z wrote:

I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing which gliders in the
gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?

-Tom

CORRECT.
Nothing else I've seen will look at a similarly equipped towplane at
the other end of the rope, or a glider in the same gaggle and tell you
it's there but not tell you to leave.
Jim

As someone else noted, ADS-B is purely a way to broadcast the position,
speed, direction, and altitude of all aircraft. The ability to interpret
this data and display or announce it in a way that is meaningful to a pilot
will vary greatly from one potential implementation to another.

Obviously, gliders need some very specialized collision avoidance algorithms
on the receiving end, as we tend to intentionally fly in close proximity to
one another. However, that does not mean that the system should be turned
off in a gaggle. Rather it means that we need more intelligence in glider
specific ADS-B units, so we can determine if there is a collision threat in
a gaggle, or if there is an orderly structure to the gliders in the thermal
that does not pose any issues. There are lots of times that I am in a
gaggle and lose sight of the other glider(s). It would be great to have a
way to know where the gliders are that I can't see, in a way that does not
provide sensory overload.

It would be very interesting if someone could come up with a low cost ADS-B
transceiver that had an interface to a PDA (if desired) to handle the
processing and display of inbound traffic and weather data. That would make
it easy for a lot of different people to get very creative with innovative
collision avoidance software, without incurring the big costs associated
with hardware development and with certification issues.

Mike Schumann

"5Z" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 25, 1:57 pm, "Mike Schumann" mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com wrote:
We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
affordable for glider pilots.

I agree.

But... I doubt ADS-B will have the smarts to provide intelligent
warnings and ignore false alerts due to the close proximity we fly in.

I understand FLARM does a good job of recognizing which gliders in the
gaggle may pose a threat. Correct?

-Tom




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Aviation Consumer's current issue has an article on traffic-detection
systems. It points out that mode S is already going away and ADS-B in
only just beginning to be installed. and that a defect of ADS-B is
that several seconds may elapse between the time aircraft A replies to
the radar facility, the facility processes the signal and calculates
vector information, and then broadcasts this. So this isn't going to
help as much as we'd like in gaggles, never mind that it won't be
available everywhere for a long time.

It sounds as though FLARM is available and functional. It might be
possible for pilots to cooperatively use it without an FAA
imprimateur, though the FTC will have jurisdiction over the use of
frequency.

Dan

On Oct 26, 4:53 pm, "Mike Schumann" mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com wrote:
As someone else noted, ADS-B is purely a way to broadcast the position,
speed, direction, and altitude of all aircraft. ...

...we need more intelligence in glider specific ADS-B units,
so we can determine if there is a collision threat in
a gaggle, or if there is an orderly structure to the gliders in the thermal
that does not pose any issues....

On Oct 25, 1:57 pm, "Mike Schumann" wrote:
We don't need FLARM. What we need is a low cost version of ADS-B that is
affordable for glider pilots.

I agree.

But... I doubt ADS-B will have the smarts to provide intelligent
warnings and ignore false alerts due to the close proximity we fly in.

-Tom

danlj wrote:
Aviation Consumer's current issue has an article on traffic-detection
systems. It points out that mode S is already going away and ADS-B in
only just beginning to be installed. and that a defect of ADS-B is
that several seconds may elapse between the time aircraft A replies to
the radar facility, the facility processes the signal and calculates
vector information, and then broadcasts this. So this isn't going to
help as much as we'd like in gaggles, never mind that it won't be
available everywhere for a long time.

I haven't read the article, but the above is only partially correct.
This only refers to the case of an ADS-B equipped aircraft detecting a
nearby Mode C or S equipped aircraft. When two ADS-B (more correctly,
UAT) equipped aircraft are in proximity, they communicate directly with
minimal delay, the ground network and radar facilities are not involved.

It sounds as though FLARM is available and functional. It might be
possible for pilots to cooperatively use it without an FAA
imprimateur, though the FTC will have jurisdiction over the use of
frequency.

If a FLARM-like device using an FCC approved frequency was available, we
could use it without FAA approval. But, our glider population density
is much lower than Europe, except in a few areas, and other aircraft are
a hazard these days in many areas. ADS-B UAT is a FLARM-like device
with regulatory issues that make it difficult to develop a low cost
device. It seems to me that the best thing to do is attack the
regulatory problem, so that gliders, balloons, light sport aircraft,
etc. can all participate in the system at a lower cost...

Marc

The discussion of using FLARM in the USA is just so much self
flagulation. I have flown in France and used FLARM. A very nice,
compact, and simple system that is easy to understand while flying.
The primary problem is exactly the same as gliders having a
transponder in the USA. There are many, many gliders flying around
the Alps that do not have FLARM. You get comfortable with responding
to the signals from FLARM and then WHAM...there is a glider headed
right at your nose and no FLARM !

I feel that for the USA it would be a much better course to encourage
the installation of transponders and development of systems that use
transponder technology to do the work of FLARM. These chat groups
seem dominated by people constantly arguing that they won't buy a
transponder because a new system is just over the horizon whether it
is ADS-B or Mode S. The reality that we all see is that the existing
system is going to be it for some time. By working with the existing
system you get gliders to become full fledged members of the aviation
community that exists today. You become better friends with other
traffic because they can see you on their collision avoidance
systems. Having FLARM means you are still invisable to commercial
traffic and the air traffic controllers. It means that instead of
having just two groups of gliders in the USA (with or without
transponders) you create a microscopic group that have FLARM and are
still invisable to the air traffic control system.

Flying around Reno became DRAMATICALLY better after installing a
transponder. AIr traffic control sees you and directs all of their
traffic away from you without any effort on the glider pilot's part.
Commercial traffic and others with "fish finders" happily see you and
avoid without any sweat being shed. Work should be put into small,
modestly expensive collision avoidance systems that use the existing
transponders.

Guy Acheson "DDS"

On 25 Oct, 18:32, "Paul Remde" wrote:

FLARM has become extremely popular in several regions of the world (Europe,
and Australia, and ...?), but it has not been "allowed" in the USA so far.
However, there are several gliders flying with FLARM here in the USA. It is
a great technology solution and safety enhancer. But technical and
liability hurdles exist here in the USA. Everyone that I've talked to that
uses FLARM in their glider loves it - especially in contests or at crowded
soaring sites, or along crowded ridges.

I have never used it myself [1] but I was chatting about it just a few
days ago with an instructor at a busy ridge site here. His view was
that it's a menace: it generates far too many false alarms, and pilots
who try to evade non-existent hazards may thereby cause significant
danger. What are you supposed to do, he asked, if you get a six-second-
t-death warning about a glider which is supposedly dead ahead but
which you can't see? He reckoned the main problem was that the system
only believes in "cruising" and "thermalling" and gets hopelessly
confused by the turn at the end of a beat on the ridge.

Ian

[1] and have no intention of doing so: I'm profoundly sceptical about
a further increase in the number of things to fiddle with and focus on
inside the glider. Why not just look out?

On Oct 26, 9:07 am, Ian wrote:
SNIP
[1] and have no intention of doing so: I'm profoundly sceptical about
a further increase in the number of things to fiddle with and focus on
inside the glider. Why not just look out?

Because your human eyes can't detect most threats on time to avoid it,
especially gliders and especially if they are comming from behind or
the side. The only exception is during thermaling and maybe traffic
pattern where you know when and where to look.
See http://dwp.bigplanet.com/fosterflight/scottsrants/

Ramy