PowerFLARM leeching comments

Wow! So much is assumed about the usefulness of PowerFLARM in so-called "radar mode." Its painful to read the assumption, marketing based arguments some are making loudly. FLARM itself strongly recommends not using STEALTH mode as it significantly reduces to capability of the system. Pretty clear to me. But some really want to go after this latest technology ban. Why? An apparent deathly fear of new technology. Almost a phobia. We have seen it many times before, yet it is all here! Radio's. Vario's. GPS. Eyeglasses.

Again, I vote (and did so in the SSA Contest pilot poll weeks ago) for ABSOLUTELY NO restrictions, limitations or complications of any kind to the implementation and adoption of PowerFLARM until such time that:

A) PowerFLARM adoption reaches a level of completeness that satisfies the initial goals (Mandatory in contests and strong growth in general US soaring) and

B) it is OBJECTIVELY PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that so-called Flarm leeching is reasonably possible.

To review: The goal of powerFLARM is improved safety generally in all environments (towing, clubs, contests) and a general reduction of collisions...such as the one that happened in the US a few months back at the World Championships.

That's right. A nearly fatal collision just occurred in the USA where a glider was lost, a pilot was forced to bail out and was knocked unconscious on the parachute landing. Thankfully he was OK...but the truth is that collisions are STILL OCCURRING, statistically very often. Very little was said about this accident and the numerous other accidents at that event. Near misses are all to common in US contest soaring and in clubs. Collision safety is a huge concern worldwide. Regardless of these facts, some really want to ban important aspects of this impressive new innovation in soaring safety before it even gets started. Some seem more concerned about crushing any small almost impossibly unrealistic chance of improved "leeching" than achieving original goal of the system...SAFETY and prevention of needless fatal collision accidents of our friends.

Safety needs to be doubled down on at all costs.

It should be the policy of the US rules committee to error DEEPLY on the the side of SAFETY. I think this is true in most cases. But FLARM and collision risk is not the area to screw around with at this point. Most pilots in the US are still relying on "chance" to avoid collision. A collision occurs when both pilots do not see eachother. It is clear that visual scan's are not sufficient and never will be. Without PowerFLARM or better technology, it's only a matter of time until you have your collision. We need to do better!

When looking at those involved in these arguments, ask yourselves the following questions: 1) Who is concerned about general safety off the soaring community? 2) Who here is concerned about the slim potential for leeching harming THEM in a contest? What is the motivation? Expand safety without comprimise? Or personal concerns? Answer those questions and I think you will have some useful intelligence on this discussion. Is the PowerFLARM system worth working on a ban for the minuscule chance that someone could actually follow (LEECH) you at greater speed from outside visual range with the PowerFLARM and LX 8000?

Give me a break!!!!!! Lets move on and focus on more productive things this winter.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

Ok. Just to play Devil’s advocate and stir the pot a bit, if it is SAFETY you are really looking for, then perhaps the SSA and Rules Committee should MANDATE that every pilot have a 3 flight checkout demonstrating proficiency in takeoffs and landings (logged and signed) every 90-120 days with a qualified instructor. Not proficient? Then no sign off and no flying until you do it right. Since only 4% of the soaring accidents occur in air to air collisions and over 65% occur in the pattern, then the OBVIOUS course of action is to spend the $1800+ that PowerFlarm costs on instruction/validation of pilot skills and NOT on hardware/software for anti-collision products. Spread over say 7 years, that equals about $260 per year for instruction in the environment that is killing most of the glider pilots today (and yesterday as well). The results would be staggering in reducing glider deaths and injuries. Once that statistic is reduced, then worry about collision avoidance hardware/software.

Since the latest and greatest technology is assumed by many glider pilots to be the future in gliding and the most prudent course of action for safety, I guess that better airmanship is a stupid and worthless idea in reducing glider accidents. However, I can’t count the number of times I’ve observed world class (not average) pilots make takeoffs and landings that would flunk them in a private pilot check ride.

In business and life, any prudent person would begin with the big picture first. If you are really interested in safety, put your efforts into reducing the number of takeoff and landing accidents.

Craig R.

On Monday, October 29, 2012 5:32:44 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Safety needs to be doubled down on at all costs.

Yup. I'm installing a 5-point harness on my Barcolounger
so I can't hurt myself watching foootbaaall.
Hope I don't hurt myself with the power-tools during
installation, wish me luck.
Yes, I've got an STC for that harness install.


Give me a break!!!!!! Lets move on and focus on more
productive things this winter.

Yup, its time for the PW-5 debate to start...


See ya, Dave

In business and life, any prudent person would begin with the big picture first. If you are really interested in safety, put your efforts into reducing the number of takeoff and landing accidents.



Craig R.

Actually,I've put together the numbers. Takeoff and landing accidents in US contests are essentially zero. Clem Bowman was the unfortunate exception that proves the rule. Otherwise, zero -- zero -- PTT accidents. Read Tom Knauff in the latest soaring for how that compares with soaring in general.

Landings, back at the airport, following a finish with reasonable energy, have also produced no accidents that I can find from searching NTSB or contest reports. (A few gear up landing sorts of things, but that's it.)

There have been quite a few accidents resulting from approaching the airport with insufficient energy, "low passes" that start at 60 knots and 50 feet, or crashes in fields very close to the home airport.

In contests, the really big accident categories are running in to mountains, and running in to things during off field landings. The latter often started way too low, with far too much thermaling attempt at very low altitude. Midair collisions follow all of these categories, and a long way back.

That's the big picture. If you want safer contests, the main areas to work on are low altitude thermaling, off field landings, running in to mountains, marginal final glides blown just before or just after reaching the home airport, and mid-air collisions.

I'm surprised you think top pilots are lacking in stick and rudder skills that a checkride would notice. Every contest pilot I know is fully aware of these dangers, and would easily pass a checkride. All the pilots I have known who crashed would have passed even more easily. It has happened that a pilot gave the safety talk warning of danger X, and then went and crashed in that exact scenario at the end of the day.

If you want to make contests safer, I think you have to look at dangers other than takeoff and landing accidents -- common in regular soaring, I admit -- and more stringent checkrides.

John Cochrane

John, I concur with your comments. My words were for all using PowerFlarm. In our club, few are contest pilots, yet there are many PowerFlarm units installed and in use (tugs too). I don't expect the additional checkrides (unrealistic/very unpopular), but shifting the safety emphasis to takeoff and landing accidents in gliding is very real and needed. We need to bring those numbers down. The big picture is ALL glider pilots and not just comp pilots. An interesting thought, what percentage of accidents occur from pilots that have flown in competition, but not during a competition?

Craig R.

Regarding stick and rudder skills of the top people, anyone, including them, have bad takeoffs and landings. Percentage wise, they will be less than the average pilot, but they are NOT exempt from screwing it up. Again, I have seen top pilots do ugly things in the pattern that would have got them bounced from a checkride. Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. It just takes one time to become a statistic.

Craig R

On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:36:26 PM UTC-7, Craig R. wrote:
Regarding stick and rudder skills of the top people, anyone, including them, have bad takeoffs and landings. Percentage wise, they will be less than the average pilot, but they are NOT exempt from screwing it up. Again, I have seen top pilots do ugly things in the pattern that would have got them bounced from a checkride. Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. It just takes one time to become a statistic.



Craig R

The difference between midairs and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you can do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm. See and avoid fails to prevent midairs. Yet this is the only type of accident which can be avoided by using relatively low cost and easy to install technology.

Ramy

The amount of head down time required to develop any actionable information from present flarm radar screens is scary large. In fact I would argue that given only flarm/butterfly panel mount displays currently available we'll be safer with everyone in stealth mode simply because there will be less to look at on the panel and eyes may stay outside a little more. 3rd parties will solve the display problem even if Flarm doesn't, but the fact remains that radar in open mode shows you mostly targets that are not and will never become collision threats.

Evan,

I'm fully with you in that head-down time needs to be minimized.

Just for the record, another possibility to reduce the number of irrelevant
targets on the display is of course to reduce the respective horizontal and vertical ranges. Dangerous targets are not affected by the range setting.

Best
--Gerhard

On Monday, October 29, 2012 7:22:20 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:

The difference between midairs and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you can do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm. See and avoid fails to prevent midairs. Yet this is the only type of accident which can be avoided by using relatively low cost and easy to install technology.

Ramy


Exactly. I'm a bit surprised to see the continuing nit-picking about this.

9B

At 02:22 30 October 2012, Ramy wrote:

The difference between midairs and all other cause of accidents is that
it
=
is the only type which you can do almost nothing to prevent it, except
usin=
g flarm. See and avoid fails to prevent midairs. Yet this is the only
type
=
of accident which can be avoided by using relatively low cost and easy to
i=
nstall technology.=20

Ramy

I sincerely hope that no-one believes the above statement because it is
misguided.
The only way of preventing mid air collisions is for pilots to maintain a
good lookout and situational awareness AT ALL TIMES.
By far the most common scenario for a mid air in a glider is in a thermal,
followed by flying in wave. FLARM was designed to address the second cause,
flying in wave, and it does assist a pilot in that it alerts him where to
look for a threat that he has not seen, in theory. It is reasonably
efficient at this task. FLARM is not particulary good at assisting a piot
in a thermal and the effectiveness reduces as the number of gliders in a
thermal increases. Were are we likely to find large numbers of gliders in
the same thermal? in competitions.
If you are sharing a thermal with other gliders outside competition flying,
being the person able to climb faster is a matter of personal pride, not a
high priority you might think. In the competition scenario being able to
outclimb your opponents is a very high priority, you are there to win after
all. Of course a good lookout and situational awareness are essential when
sharing a thermal with others but is this priority degraded by the need to
get the best out of the thermal so climbing better. No pilot deliberately
degrades his lookout and situational awareness to address other priorities
but the need to out perform is always in the mind, that is the paradox of
competition flying. Does FLARM help in a busy thermal? The good people at
FLARM and many pilots will tell you the answer to that is NO, it was not
designed for that situation and given the heading/track problem it can be a
hinderance rather than a help.
The only way to prevent a mid air in a glider is to maintain a good lookout
and situational awareness and anyone who says otherwise is a asking for
trouble. Training people and emphasising that need is what is needed not a
technology solution that gives pilots the idea that their lookout can be
delegated to a machine that has serious limitations.