Is FLARM helpful?

Even for gliders in the local pattern you should certainly consider buying a FLARM.
In our club we decided to install it in every aircraft, even the paraclub decided to install devices in their drop planes.

We had serveral very very close calls:
- The Cessna Grand caravan in short final aborted the approach because of the flarm beeping like crazy.
Our twin was just below in front of him in his blind spot. Luckily he didn't wait a blink of an eye longer.
- A tow pilot with glider on the rope not seeing another glider in the pattern, the instructor too busy with the student.
Only the flarm alerted them to make evasive manoevres.
- And a few others...

Flarm certainly saved our asses several times


Bert

I consider PowerFlarm to be a great asset in the cockpit. I have had a couple of warnings that may have made a difference. In one, I was thermalling with another glider when the warning went off. I was tempted to ignore it because I had "eyes on target" and I am sure the other pilot was watching me. A quick glance at the Flarm display indicated that the alarm was for someone in my low five o'clock position. Sure enough, a glance over my shoulder showed that another glider had joined us at speed and with a pullup into the circle. I was startled, but not freaked out- because I had the warning. If he hadn't had Flarm, it would have been much more disconcerting. I wish everybody had 'em, but I am not going to make a big deal out of it. I consider it one more source of insurance, just like my transponder, and yes, my glasses.

From a previous post:

"Say the 100 knots indicated is 134 knots true. Closure rate 268 knots or 496 kph, covering 2Km is about 1/4 a second warning. Just saying."

Uh- I don't think so. 2 m in .25 sec = 8 km/sec = 480 km/min = 28,800 km/hr = 17,856 mph = orbital velocity.

Obviously not a script writer for "The Martian."

"Interstellar," maybe.

Oops!

Make the first line read "2 KM in .25 sec"

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 5:35:10 PM UTC-8, Casey Cox wrote:
Has anyone been thankful that they have had FLARM?

And do the same people have a transponder?

How many people fly with FLARM or Transponder?

Let's hear about the close calls, or potential close calls, or even the peace of mind of awareness.

PowerFlarm helped me avoid a mid air at the Truckee FAI contest this year. I was going north on the Pine Nuts looking for lift. I know I was being followed by another glider behind and above but wasn't sure of exactly where.. I turned right in strong lift, came around 180 degrees climbing as I turned, and the flarm went nuts. I was banking into a head-on with the pilot following me. I turned hard right, and he turned hard right. Sweaty palms were the only negative outcome.

Buy one and install it this winter. If not for your benefit, then for the other guy.

Matt

Interesting discussion. We've been through it in Italy 10 years ago, when Flarm was made mandatory in competitions. Lots of negative opinions, based on monopoly by the manufacturer, high cost (debatable), negative impact on "looking out" etc. Nevertheless, a vast majority adopted it also for local flying. There was also some resistance from the club fleet managers and instructors, fearing a change in the traditional way of teaching and of flying. Some said "not relevant to local flying, as we have radio and we are on local frequency" (dumb statement: I will not call a glider I have not seen).
By the way, Flarm is so widespread that it is now recommended, not compulsory equipment in italian competitions. Which is OK with me, as competition airspace is definitely open to non-Flarm traffic, including large birds, balloons, airplanes, helicopters etc.

Occasionally, the dispute comes out again, as is happening in these days.
Usually triggered by the press releases on the Flarm website. The latest is the sum of Flarm's suggestion we should add the Flarm device to the sailplane's official equipment list, have the installation approved by producing the (expensive) "Minor Change Approval" document, and by introducing Flarm firmware update in the annual inspection list.
So far, these facts infer that Flarm may be tempted, in the not-so-distant future, to ask for an annual fee, which of course most people would adverse.. A majority would welcome an alternative to Flarm, in the form of an OGN device or similar.

In conclusion, at the moment, if Flarm is installed inside a sailplane, the glider manufacturers insist that no MCA is necessary. However, if you install an antenna on the sailplane body (practically, that includes external antennas), then an MCA is required by european rules. The cost for the individual MCA is at the moment 99euros (under the definition of "special offer" for gliders (much more for aircraft), so it may well increase in the future.

aldo cernezzi
www.voloavela.it

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 6:05:49 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Interesting discussion. We've been through it in Italy 10 years ago, when Flarm was made mandatory in competitions. Lots of negative opinions, based on monopoly by the manufacturer, high cost (debatable), negative impact on "looking out" etc. Nevertheless, a vast majority adopted it also for local flying. There was also some resistance from the club fleet managers and instructors, fearing a change in the traditional way of teaching and of flying. Some said "not relevant to local flying, as we have radio and we are on local frequency" (dumb statement: I will not call a glider I have not seen)..
By the way, Flarm is so widespread that it is now recommended, not compulsory equipment in italian competitions. Which is OK with me, as competition airspace is definitely open to non-Flarm traffic, including large birds, balloons, airplanes, helicopters etc.

Occasionally, the dispute comes out again, as is happening in these days.
Usually triggered by the press releases on the Flarm website. The latest is the sum of Flarm's suggestion we should add the Flarm device to the sailplane's official equipment list, have the installation approved by producing the (expensive) "Minor Change Approval" document, and by introducing Flarm firmware update in the annual inspection list.
So far, these facts infer that Flarm may be tempted, in the not-so-distant future, to ask for an annual fee, which of course most people would adverse. A majority would welcome an alternative to Flarm, in the form of an OGN device or similar.

In conclusion, at the moment, if Flarm is installed inside a sailplane, the glider manufacturers insist that no MCA is necessary. However, if you install an antenna on the sailplane body (practically, that includes external antennas), then an MCA is required by european rules. The cost for the individual MCA is at the moment 99euros (under the definition of "special offer" for gliders (much more for aircraft), so it may well increase in the future.

aldo cernezzi
www.voloavela.it

WRT 9B let me add some more "lies, damn lies and statistics":

With respect to pilots who reported (on the annual poll) flying in a National contest in 2015 (63), 43% want "stealth" to be mandatory by rule. 10% want stealth to be prohibited by rule. 27% want it to be the pilot's choice, 13% the organizer's.

Again, among pilots who reported flying in a National, 34% say stealth-off "adds enjoyment" and 35% say "decreases enjoyment."

Btw, consider that when a pilot puts a tin foil hat over the FLARM antenna so as to become invisible (yes, it happens), it effectively negates any "FLARM mandatory" mandate and negatively impacts the benefits FLARM is designed to provide.

The RC is waiting for the revised definition of "Competition" mode to be released by FLARM before making a final recommendation to the SSA BOD.


QT
RC Chair

Has there been a single documented case of a pilot in us competition putting a tinfoil hat over flarm? Yes this has happened at worlds, where classes, assigned tasks and leeching are big. Let's not pass rules over imaginary problems.

Ps if you're a little worried about legal system mplications of stealth, those of the tinfoil hat are much larger

John cochrane bb

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:31:47 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Has there been a single documented case of a pilot in us competition putting a tinfoil hat over flarm? Yes this has happened at worlds, where classes, assigned tasks and leeching are big. Let's not pass rules over imaginary problems.

Ps if you're a little worried about legal system mplications of stealth, those of the tinfoil hat are much larger

John cochrane bb

The answer is yes.
I won't out the individual.
It is known that this tactic is becoming more common in europe, including one world champion.
There are also other quite easy ways to kill the out signal while getting the in on antenna 2.
UH

Has there been a single documented case of a pilot in us competition putting a tinfoil hat over flarm?
John cochrane bb

The answer is yes.
I won't out the individual.
It is known that this tactic is becoming more common in europe, including one world champion.
There are also other quite easy ways to kill the out signal while getting the in on antenna 2.
UH

OK. I'll call and raise. Is one pilot doing one questionably useful dumb thing once sufficient to impose cumbersome rules with potential safety consequences, over the expressed preferences of the pilots? Again, worlds is a different issue, as the nature of flying there is totally different.

Is the presence of other possible ways to do stupid things, that nobody has done yet, sufficient? This is how the rule book is starting to look like federal regulations

BB