FLARM

http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepits...sidy_NSWGA.doc

If interested reed the last page titled Why Flarm

also

http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html

cheers

paul


Eric Greenwell wrote:
PB wrote:

The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European version) will
be able to receive communication from transponders and thus give
information on the power aircraft.


Can you point to a website that discusses this? If it's true, it's very
interesting, because the transponder detectors available aren't much
cheaper than FLARM, and can't supply a GPS signal to navigation
computers, or make a flight log. It would make FLARM a good value even
if no other glider had one.

PB wrote:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepits...sidy_NSWGA.doc


If interested reed the last page titled Why Flarm

That is intriguing: it says FLARM will be able to sense ADSB units, but
not transponders. Where are the modules mentioned available or
discussed? I can't find mention of them on the FLARM site or the RF Dev
elopements site. Not that there is any hurry, given the limited
deployment of ADSB.


also

http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html

This states their unit can not sense transponders, a disappointment, but
I'm not surprised. It's an different technology on a different frequency
band.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

Don Johnstone wrote:
Unless 100% of gliders have
it installed it cannot be effective

If 99% of gliders had it installed, and there were 100 other gliders
flying in the area, the risk of not being aware of one would be
decreased by 99%. If 50%, risk decreased by 50%.

Not as effective as if 100% had FLARM installed, but surely not
completely ineffective?

I'm not (yet at any rate) planning to install FLARM for flying in the
UK, but would if I flew in the Alps. I can use a 50%+ improvement in my
chances of spotting other aircraft.

What your all forgetting is that dear old Don applies two basic rules to
flying.
1st Always fly in the middle of the air. The extremities can be very
dangerous, there you will find Land, Tree's, Mountains, Water, Space and
Other Aircraft
2nd If you hear a loud bang you know you've hit something.

Therefore he doesn't need FLARM

Phil :-)


Chris Reed wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:
Unless 100% of gliders have
it installed it cannot be effective

If 99% of gliders had it installed, and there were 100 other gliders
flying in the area, the risk of not being aware of one would be
decreased by 99%. If 50%, risk decreased by 50%.

Not as effective as if 100% had FLARM installed, but surely not
completely ineffective?

I'm not (yet at any rate) planning to install FLARM for flying in the
UK, but would if I flew in the Alps. I can use a 50%+ improvement in my
chances of spotting other aircraft.

Even the RAF are getting in on the act. RAF Linton
on Ouse have just developed and are installing a TCAS
system for collision avoidance in their Tucanos. It
is based on the USA company Goodrich Skywatch system.

The web site states:

'Tucanos equipped with TCAS will be able to spot other
aircraft within a 35-mile radius. The system displays
to pilots a detected aircraft's range, bearing, height
and closure rate, information that will allow crews
to decide if avoiding action is necessary. An aural
warning is added should a collision threat exits.'


The Goodrich site says the system is based on decoding
transponder signals from other aircraft.

The development was given great press coverage and
the inference was that our brylcream boys will be flying
round the skies believing that all aircraft have transponders
and therefore'can be seen'. There are 6 local gliding
club within that 35 mile radius and several others
who use the Vale or York for soaring and I suspect
few if any of the 100 or so gliders from those clubs
have transponders.

Until all gliders are transponder equipped it is a
dangerous precident. Legislation changes and the rapidly
closing UK airspace mean that in a few years time transponders
will be a must for any XC pilot. So like it or not
it is coming.

The FLARM system was introduced by the Swiss on safety
grounds. Is there any information on the success of
the system. (ie reduced accidents figures)

The basic Goodrich system is in the £5000 range.
The FLARM considerably cheaper may be about a tenth
the cost.

I can see the advantages but will the increased cost
just drive more away from the sport?

Dave Martin

At 23:36 08 March 2006, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 14:07 08 March 2006, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
Don is just a Luddite at heart (Luddite? see
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm
).

But even that does not explain why he cannot see the
advantages that
FLARM has in UK where cloud flying is legal. 'See and
be Seen' simply
does not apply in cloud.

Tim, attacking me personally does nothing for the argument.
I can see the theoretical benefit of FLARM properly
applied but in it's current state, as you have so eloquently
told us, it is useless in the UK. It cannot be used
in the USA at all. Is it likely then that it is the
answer to the problem it seeks to solve? All along
I have argued that it does not, not because I am against
it in principle but because it is never likely to be
of general practical use. Unless 100% of gliders have
it installed it cannot be effective,surely you can
see that.

The replies to my question re reduction in collisions
indicate that there is no evidence that FLARM has prevented
one confliction. I accept that it has given some glider
pilots peace of mind, but is this a false sense of
security. What about the glider not equipped with FLARM
that is not seen, you will never know. The anecdotal,
'I saw something that I would not have' is not evidence.

I am not a luddite, I am very much in favour of progress
I just don't see this approach to the problem as progress.

Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the UK
to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
about the same chance as winning the national lottery.

If the sky is populated with aircraft all carrying
FLARM I can see the benefit. If there are significant
number not so equipped then FLARM is inefective at
best and at worst dangerous.

Tim Newport-Peace

'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'

IMHO, You guys from the UK and such who are singing
the virtues of the FLARM are just swimming upstream.
Transponders are the standard aircraft identification
system. Claims that FLARM is the most cost effective
manner to enhance awareness of other traffic is very
short sighted since it will never deal with power aircraft.
Most of you are also claiming that any collision avoidance
system that functions with transponders is WAY TOO
EXPENSIVE!

Take a look a Wings and Wheels website. They sell
several portable collision avoidance systems (PCAS).
One goes for 289 USD. Another for 499 USD. A fairly
sophisticated unit goes for 1700 USD. All work with
the transponder system. A couple function off AA batteries
so the concerns about power consumption are also handled.


Again, IMHO sailplanes are aircraft, not toys. Transponders
work and are not that expensive. There are many portable,
low cost, and self powered units that provide the same
'heads up' alert that FLARM does but work with a system
that will identify many more aircraft. And if sailplanes
are required to have transponders, most aircraft will
be detected. That still leaves the hang gliders, ultralights,
and paragliders out of the loop. So looking outside
the cockpit will still be required.



At 01:00 09 March 2006, Dave Martin wrote:
Even the RAF are getting in on the act. RAF Linton
on Ouse have just developed and are installing a TCAS
system for collision avoidance in their Tucanos. It
is based on the USA company Goodrich Skywatch system.

The web site states:

'Tucanos equipped with TCAS will be able to spot other
aircraft within a 35-mile radius. The system displays
to pilots a detected aircraft's range, bearing, height
and closure rate, information that will allow crews
to decide if avoiding action is necessary. An aural
warning is added should a collision threat exits.'


The Goodrich site says the system is based on decoding
transponder signals from other aircraft.

The development was given great press coverage and
the inference was that our brylcream boys will be flying
round the skies believing that all aircraft have transponders
and therefore'can be seen'. There are 6 local gliding
club within that 35 mile radius and several others
who use the Vale or York for soaring and I suspect
few if any of the 100 or so gliders from those clubs
have transponders.

Until all gliders are transponder equipped it is a
dangerous precident. Legislation changes and the rapidly
closing UK airspace mean that in a few years time transponders
will be a must for any XC pilot. So like it or not
it is coming.

The FLARM system was introduced by the Swiss on safety
grounds. Is there any information on the success of
the system. (ie reduced accidents figures)

The basic Goodrich system is in the £5000 range.
The FLARM considerably cheaper may be about a tenth
the cost.

I can see the advantages but will the increased cost
just drive more away from the sport?

Dave Martin

At 23:36 08 March 2006, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 14:07 08 March 2006, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
Don is just a Luddite at heart (Luddite? see
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm
).

But even that does not explain why he cannot see the
advantages that
FLARM has in UK where cloud flying is legal. 'See and
be Seen' simply
does not apply in cloud.

Tim, attacking me personally does nothing for the argument.
I can see the theoretical benefit of FLARM properly
applied but in it's current state, as you have so eloquently
told us, it is useless in the UK. It cannot be used
in the USA at all. Is it likely then that it is the
answer to the problem it seeks to solve? All along
I have argued that it does not, not because I am against
it in principle but because it is never likely to be
of general practical use. Unless 100% of gliders have
it installed it cannot be effective,surely you can
see that.

The replies to my question re reduction in collisions
indicate that there is no evidence that FLARM has prevented
one confliction. I accept that it has given some glider
pilots peace of mind, but is this a false sense of
security. What about the glider not equipped with FLARM
that is not seen, you will never know. The anecdotal,
'I saw something that I would not have' is not evidence.

I am not a luddite, I am very much in favour of progress
I just don't see this approach to the problem as progress.

Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the UK
to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
about the same chance as winning the national lottery.

If the sky is populated with aircraft all carrying
FLARM I can see the benefit. If there are significant
number not so equipped then FLARM is inefective at
best and at worst dangerous.

Tim Newport-Peace

'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'

Guy Acheson wrote:

Take a look a Wings and Wheels website. They sell
several portable collision avoidance systems (PCAS).
One goes for 289 USD. Another for 499 USD. A fairly
sophisticated unit goes for 1700 USD. All work with
the transponder system. A couple function off AA batteries
so the concerns about power consumption are also handled.

Umm, for these PCAS systems to work, the threat aircraft have to have
transponders, which do draw considerable power. So if you want the PCAS
in the other glider to notice you, plan on a minimum 500 ma more current
drain from your 12 volt battery, not a couple of AA batteries.

Again, IMHO sailplanes are aircraft, not toys. Transponders
work and are not that expensive.

Looking at the Wings and Wheels website you mention, I see the cheapest
transponder with encoder and antenna is US$1900, and can easily be
$3000+ with installation by an aircraft mechanic. More, if you have to
install an additional battery and it's mounting and wiring. Expensive by
my standards.

Not that I'm against transponders: I do have one in my glider. My cost
was "only" $1850 because I was able to install it myself and I didn't
need more batteries. Where I fly, airliners and airplanes are the
principal collision hazard, not other gliders. FLARM was developed for
glider pilots whose main hazard is other glider pilots, and for them an
$US800 (installed!) FLARM is more effective and a lot cheaper than a
transponder.

FLARM was never intended to nor claimed to solve the all collision
problems everywhere in the world, yet it's detractors argue that because
it doesn't, it's worthless and doomed to failure. Each region, perhaps
each pilot, must determine the threat he faces and it's appropriate
response, such FLARM, transponders, looking out the canopy, or just
trusting to luck.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

The question of usage within the UK is now a bit of
a moot point. The latest competition rules forbid the
use of data transmission (FLARM) in competitions and
rightly so. Given the data they transmit they could
provide a big advantage to a competitor with the knowledge
and resources to decode the information.

My position is clear, if we are going to have to install
something let it be something that works not some half
baked Mickey Mouse idea that for a multitude of reasons
will never be universally accepted.

At 08:30 09 March 2006, Pb wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:

Unless 100% of gliders have it installed it cannot
be effective,surely you can
see that.

Not really Don, if any percentage of gliders is equipped
with Flarm, the
risk of collision is reduced, surely you can see that.

Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the
UK
to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
about the same chance as winning the national lottery.

Well, I do not know about UK, but I do know that at
my club, DDSC in
Queensland Australia we have achieved a nearly 100
% compliance within
few weeks. Upon request by the club committee, enough
money was donated
by members to equip all club gliders and tugs. Almost
all private
gliders were also fitted with Flarm.
In a recent competition 60 or so gliders were equipped
with Flarm. A
questionnaire and interviews after the comp showed
that all pilots were
very positive about the Flarm.
So, I am not so sure that it will be so difficult to
get a high level of
voluntary compliance.
The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European
version) will be
able to receive communication from transponders and
thus give
information on the power aircraft.
I find your position quite interesting Don. Clearly
you have no
experience with Flarm, yet you dismiss it. Likewise
you seem to able to
speak on behalf of a vast majority of UK pilots - no
mean feat.
Clearly Flarm is not a device that will solve all the
problems. Lookout
is important and will remain so. However it has failed
many time, I
guess in some cases because it was not particularly
good, but in other
cases it could have been due to physiological limitation
of pilots.
Equally you cannot see in your blind spot, Flarm can.
Personally I have only flown with Flarm 2 or 3 times.
I have found that
it showed me gliders I did not see, once dead ahead
but well bellow, so
I have changed course slightly and spotted it. One
other time at my 10
o'clock a long way away. Overall I have found that
it has improved my
situational awareness as the Australian Flarm actually
shows you where
the gliders are (well +- 22.5 deg).
Finally we all spend money on chutes (about 3x as much)
and yet their
potential to save one is quite limited.

regards

paul

Don, you really don't know what you are talking about. IGC rules explicitely
allow Flarm since July.
I agree that in areas where the main collision risk is powered aircraft, the
best way to go is a transponder with TCAS (and non-directional warnings
don't learn me anything new, I *know* that there is traffic outside).
In other regions (and that is the Alps in Europe, Germany, France ist
starting as well) there are 3000+ sailplane pilots who happily fly with
Flarm, and one could by now well claim that it is tested.

You calling it "a half baked Mickey Mouse idea" without having any precise
idea what you are talking about is just pathetic.

"Don Johnstone" wrote in message
...
The question of usage within the UK is now a bit of
a moot point. The latest competition rules forbid the
use of data transmission (FLARM) in competitions and
rightly so. Given the data they transmit they could
provide a big advantage to a competitor with the knowledge
and resources to decode the information.

My position is clear, if we are going to have to install
something let it be something that works not some half
baked Mickey Mouse idea that for a multitude of reasons
will never be universally accepted.

At 08:30 09 March 2006, Pb wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:

Unless 100% of gliders have it installed it cannot
be effective,surely you can
see that.

Not really Don, if any percentage of gliders is equipped
with Flarm, the
risk of collision is reduced, surely you can see that.

Realistically persuading sufficient pilots in the
UK
to fit FLARM to make it anywhere near effective has
about the same chance as winning the national lottery.

Well, I do not know about UK, but I do know that at
my club, DDSC in
Queensland Australia we have achieved a nearly 100
% compliance within
few weeks. Upon request by the club committee, enough
money was donated
by members to equip all club gliders and tugs. Almost
all private
gliders were also fitted with Flarm.
In a recent competition 60 or so gliders were equipped
with Flarm. A
questionnaire and interviews after the comp showed
that all pilots were
very positive about the Flarm.
So, I am not so sure that it will be so difficult to
get a high level of
voluntary compliance.
The Australian Flarm (I am not sure about the European
version) will be
able to receive communication from transponders and
thus give
information on the power aircraft.
I find your position quite interesting Don. Clearly
you have no
experience with Flarm, yet you dismiss it. Likewise
you seem to able to
speak on behalf of a vast majority of UK pilots - no
mean feat.
Clearly Flarm is not a device that will solve all the
problems. Lookout
is important and will remain so. However it has failed
many time, I
guess in some cases because it was not particularly
good, but in other
cases it could have been due to physiological limitation
of pilots.
Equally you cannot see in your blind spot, Flarm can.
Personally I have only flown with Flarm 2 or 3 times.
I have found that
it showed me gliders I did not see, once dead ahead
but well bellow, so
I have changed course slightly and spotted it. One
other time at my 10
o'clock a long way away. Overall I have found that
it has improved my
situational awareness as the Australian Flarm actually
shows you where
the gliders are (well +- 22.5 deg).
Finally we all spend money on chutes (about 3x as much)
and yet their
potential to save one is quite limited.

regards

paul

Just a reflection rather than a comment, really:

I think it's good that we have this discussion and that it is conducted
that enthusiastically. I even want to thank Don for being the punching
bag here, because he manages to provoke responses with lots of insight.
This threads should be saved as an FAQ list for later reference.

As for myself: having been slightly interested in FLARM from the
beginning, I am getting increasingly convinced that I should buy one,
even though it is not sold in Sweden, which probably also implies that
the number of installed devices it insignificant at the moment...

Seems to be the "Catch-22" like same problem as with the fax machine,
that has been invented decades before its break-through just because
others need to have it in order for it being useful to yourself... All
you can hope for are the "Early adopters".