FLARM.....for good, or evil??

On Oct 27, 4:15*am, "
wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:29*pm, Ramy wrote:





On Oct 26, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:47*pm, "

wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:08*am, John Cochrane
wrote:

On Oct 26, 6:53*am, "

wrote:
From Sept 2010 "Soaring"...article on FLARM...

..."we were flying in big undiciplined gaggles"...

..."I received indications about one idiot who pulled in behind and
then passed 10 feet over me."...

..."I received many beeps from gliders following 20 feet behind and
just outside..."

Holy close call Batman! *..Undisciplined??!! .. * Idiot??!! * .. 10
feet over??!!.. * 20 feet??!!

*Are you thinking what I'm thinking???

Cookie

Well, I'm thinking I'm glad to be alive. I'm thinking that I like the
trend in US contest rules that take us away from mass gaggle flying,
and wish the worlds would take a stab in that direction as well. I'm
thinking flarm is a pretty darn good idea. What are you thinking?

John Cochrane

John,

I do not disagree with anything you say above. *I am glad you are
still alive. *I see the problem with big gaggles. *I think FLARM is a
useful tool in avoiding glider to glider collisions.

Well, I was thinking that maybe FLARM is creating false sense of
security? *Could contest pilots actually be tempted *to fly
dangerously, taking extra risks, assuming that if everybody has a
FLARM there is no problem??

How could two flarm equipped gliders possibly get within 10 feet of
each other? *I mean, at some earlier point in time they we
considerably further apart, so at what point does one or both pilots
take evasive action?

Or does FLARM somehow allow safe flight within 20 feet or 10 feet or
even closer?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Guys........

I think you are missing my point / question here............In my
original post, I did not intend to simply re-open the FALRM pro or con
arguement...Note I changed the heading.

My point / question is in regard to John C's article in soaring, in
which his accounts left me with a very uneasy feeling.

Not about the FLARM, but about what a perceive as possible misuse of
FLARM, or false confidence, or increased risk taking, knowing every
glider is FLARM equipped *(that's the "evil" *part in my heading)..

I am referring to the parts in the article about "idiot" and
"undisciplined".....and what a perceive as some close, near
collisions........

Are the pilots "idiots" and "undisciplined" because of the FALRM? *Or
are they "idiots" and "undisciplined" in spite of the FLARM?

Cookie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The answer to your question is the same as the answer to the following
question: Are you flying less carefully because you are wearing a
parachute? I don't think so.

Ramy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ramy,

I disagree ..........With a parachute I do take more risk......and you
probably do to.

Here are three examples of more risky flying WITH a parachute that I
do / have done:

1) Flight testing homebuilt aircraft
2) Aerobatic flying
3) Glider competition

Regualtion and / or common sense dictates a parachute for the above
scenarios.

Cookie

So are you suggesting that parachutes are also evil?
Cookie I think you confuses activities with behavior. Of course more
pilots may also fly contests with Flarm.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:04:13 +0200, John Smith wrote:

wrote:
Here are three examples of more risky flying WITH a parachute that I do
/ have done:

2) Aerobatic flying
3) Glider competition

Off topic, but it makes me always wonder. To me, simple plain cross
country flying is by far the most dangerous way to operate a glider. At
least as risky as competition and certainly far more risky than
aerobatics. But as I said, off topic.

That surely depends on the circumstances:

- if you're flying in a flat part of the country after the crops
have been harvested that XC is only slightly more risky than
local soaring in normal Sunday afternoon conditions.

- OTOH during the UK's foot & Mouth outbreak in 2001 when only local
soaring was permitted the air round our field no only got distinctly
busy, but on the frequent weak days we had massed landings as well.
During this period local soaring involved considerably more risk than
normal XC flying does in our area.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Oct 27, 8:04*am, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
Here are three examples of more risky flying WITH a parachute that I
do / have done:
2) Aerobatic flying

* 3) Glider competition

Off topic, but it makes me always wonder. To me, simple plain cross
country flying is by far the most dangerous way to operate a glider. At
least as risky as competition and certainly far more risky than
aerobatics. But as I said, off topic.

Competition IS cross country flying plus additional constrains
(gaggles, tasks, more traffic, pressure to complete the task etc etc)
how could this make it safer than plain cross country? Are you
suggesting that contest director knows more about the weather and
risks than the pilots? But I agree, this is off topic.

Ramy

To me, simple plain cross
country flying is by far the most dangerous way to operate a glider. At
least as risky as competition and certainly far more risky than
aerobatics.

Huh? Your logic escapes me. Comp flying IS X/C flying, but with the
added element of being adrenalin saturated, pushing it faster, and
now sharing the air with 20-150 other gliders doing the same thing on
the same course, with some course legs potentially overlapping and
opposing other legs. How does regular X/C flying even come close to
this? (perhaps this should be it's own thread?)

As a pilot with acro tendencies, I also disagree with the risk levels
being on par with X/C. Acro flying removes most of the variables that
make X/C flying more likely to bite you or your ship (scratching low
for lift, stretching glides, running ridges, landing out, etc) than
say flying within the vicinity of your local airport. In USA, acro is
done above 1500ft agl, and with a chute, outside of controlled
airspace and not above dense populations, although it does add a risk
of it's own; the increased chance of structural damage. I firmly
believe acro flying teaches/promotes life saving skills and reflexes
(upset attitudes ans such) that carry over into all other flying the
same way wringing out your car on a skidpad after some advanced driver
training will leave you better equipped to deal with unexpected road
emergencies.

tl:dr: comp flying is X/C on steroids and hence more risky but acro
involves less risks than regular X/C and adds useful skills...

-Paul

ps. those promoting the seatbelt-logic-fallacy should be ashamed...

To me, simple plain cross
country flying is by far the most dangerous way to operate a glider. At
least as risky as competition and certainly far more risky than
aerobatics.

Huh? Your logic escapes me. Comp flying IS X/C flying, but with the
added element of being adrenalin saturated, *pushing it faster, and
now sharing the air with 20-150 other gliders doing the same thing on
the same course, with some course legs potentially overlapping and
opposing other legs. How does regular X/C flying even come close to
this? (perhaps this should be it's own thread?)

As a pilot with acro tendencies, I also disagree with the risk levels
being on par with X/C. Acro flying removes most of the variables that
make X/C flying more likely to bite you or your ship (scratching low
for lift, stretching glides, running ridges, landing out, etc) than
say flying within the vicinity of your local airport. In USA, acro is
done above 1500ft agl, and with a chute, outside of controlled
airspace and not above dense populations, although it does add a risk
of it's own; the increased chance of structural damage. I firmly
believe acro flying teaches/promotes life saving skills and reflexes
(upset attitudes ans such) that carry over into all other flying the
same way wringing out your car on a skidpad after some advanced driver
training will leave you better equipped to deal with unexpected road
emergencies.

tl:dr: comp flying is X/C on steroids and hence more risky but acro
involves less risks than regular X/C and adds useful skills...

-Paul

ps. those promoting the seatbelt-logic-fallacy should be ashamed...

Oops... sorry John, read closer and now see we do have the same basic
view on acro flying vs X/C, my bad. A stand by my analysis though...

On Oct 28, 4:04*am, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
Here are three examples of more risky flying WITH a parachute that I
do / have done:
2) Aerobatic flying
* 3) Glider competition

Off topic, but it makes me always wonder. To me, simple plain cross
country flying is by far the most dangerous way to operate a glider. At
least as risky as competition and certainly far more risky than
aerobatics. But as I said, off topic.

What do you consider dangerous in cross country flying?

I presume it's not mid air collisions, as that is much of what makes
competition more dangerous.

I presume it's not risk of the glider falling apart in mid air, as
most cross country is done at quite modest speeds and low G loadings.

So then ... landouts?

If that is what concerns you then I'm puzzled. At the point that
you're contemplating a landout, a parachute is of no use whatsoever.

Bruce Hoult wrote:
What do you consider dangerous in cross country flying?

I've lost three friends by midairs during leisure cross country flying
but none during competition flying (all in Pre-FLARM-age). That's just
my purely personal, anectotcal and irrelevant statistics.

Where I fly, there are "glider highways" which can be pretty crowded on
thermally active weekends. With the difference that competition pilots
tend to be 100% awake, which cannot always be said of leisure pilots on
an 8 hour leisure flight. Interesting is that one of the midairs
mentioned above didn't happen on such a highway, but out in the nowhere
after the two gliders both had happily cruised along on a straight track
for several minutes (as the logger file showed), until they happened to
be in the same place at the same time. Again just my purely personal,
anectotical and irrelevant experience.

Back to the topic: I'm convinced that all three would still be alive had
FLARM already existed.

On Oct 27, 1:39*pm, John Smith wrote:
Bruce Hoult wrote:
What do you consider dangerous in cross country flying?

I've lost three friends by midairs during leisure cross country flying
but none during competition flying (all in Pre-FLARM-age). That's just
my purely personal, anectotcal and irrelevant statistics.

Where I fly, there are "glider highways" which can be pretty crowded on
thermally active weekends. With the difference that competition pilots
tend to be 100% awake, which cannot always be said of leisure pilots on
an 8 hour leisure flight. Interesting is that one of the midairs
mentioned above didn't happen on such a highway, but out in the nowhere
after the two gliders both had happily cruised along on a straight track
for several minutes (as the logger file showed), until they happened to
be in the same place at the same time. Again just my purely personal,
anectotical and irrelevant experience.

Back to the topic: I'm convinced that all three would still be alive had
FLARM already existed.

OK, that's a reasonable attitude, then. However, remember the
Social Scientist's creed: "The plural of anecdote is not data!"

The situation in the UK is that glider traffic is constrained into
class G
areas by low level class A, B, or C airline flyways. In the US, most
longer-distance (i.e. jets) airline traffic is over FL180 in class A,
and most
shorter-distance (i.e. turboprop) airline traffic is at lower
altitudes in class E.
Most GA traffic (except the high end corporate and charter stuff)
mingles
with everyone else in class E. Class B, C, and D is used to actively
control
the airspace around terminals (decreasing busyness goes with
decreasing
control levels).

Therefore, in the US glider cross country is more or less possible in
random directions, as constrained by local conditions (e.g. where I
fly
there are two class C complexes to the North and South of us, so we
usually fly to the W-NW or SE-NE). The glider traffic we see is
usually
our buddies from the same or a nearby club. Nearby usually means
50-100
miles where I've flown.

-- Matt

On 10/27/2010 6:06 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:

There's a difference between flying in high density VFR environments
and close quarters flying. Flying in the pattern at a very busy GA
airport is not nearly as challenging as flying in a gaggle with
numerous other gliders.
It's hard to put numbers on this, because the particular situation can
be important in determining the risk, but I'm comfortable stating this:

"That's not true for me, as I am much more accustomed to gaggle flying
than flying at or near very busy GA airports, and I'm more comfortable
in the gaggle with numerous other gliders."


--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Oct 27, 10:39*am, John Smith wrote:
Bruce Hoult wrote:
What do you consider dangerous in cross country flying?

I've lost three friends by midairs during leisure cross country flying
but none during competition flying (all in Pre-FLARM-age). That's just
my purely personal, anectotcal and irrelevant statistics.

Where I fly, there are "glider highways" which can be pretty crowded on
thermally active weekends. With the difference that competition pilots
tend to be 100% awake, which cannot always be said of leisure pilots on
an 8 hour leisure flight. Interesting is that one of the midairs
mentioned above didn't happen on such a highway, but out in the nowhere
after the two gliders both had happily cruised along on a straight track
for several minutes (as the logger file showed), until they happened to
be in the same place at the same time. Again just my purely personal,
anectotical and irrelevant experience.

Back to the topic: I'm convinced that all three would still be alive had
FLARM already existed.

I think these examples reinforces the notion that PowerFlarm should be
installed by all pilots and not just competition pilots.
And I am glad to report that many pilots in my area (Region 11)
already per ordered the powerflarm even though most of them are not
flying in contest.

Ramy