FLARM Statistics

My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common with
powered aircraft is the answer. I would think that a combination of a
transponder that is visible by ATC and conventional TCAS, along with a low
cost low/power TCAS type device designed for gliders wouldn't be more
appropriate for the US environment.

Mike Schumann

"Ramy" wrote in message
ps.com...
I don't have any numbers but I heard of many more midairs between two
gliders or gliders with tow planes than between gliders and other
powered aircrafts. I'm afraid the White Mountains in Nevada are a
midair waiting to happen. On a good weekend you can have 20-50 gliders
flying in a very narrow band in both directions. It is very difficult,
almost impossible, to spot on time a glider flying straight and level
at closing speeds of over 200 knots, unless you know exactly when and
where to look. Remember, the moving targets we often spot easily are
not the threat, it is the one which don't move on the canopy which will
hit us. If we equip all gliders and tow planes with Flarm you will
significantly reduce midairs, as it has been proved in Europe and OZ.
One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.

Just my humble opinion,

Ramy


Mike Schumann wrote:
Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs
are
between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.

Mike Schumann

"John Galloway" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
gliders in those European countries in which it is
in widespread use?

Thanks in advance.

John Galloway

There are no low cost/power TCAS, and as far as I understand there will
never be. You may refer to TPAS, which are indeed low cost/power but
they are a far cry from TCAS or FLARM, as they only tell you that there
is an aircraft somewhere nearby (if it has a transponder which is
beeing interrogated) , no direction or resolution, and they don't
determine if it is actually a threat or not. However they are much
better then nothing, and deffinitly worth the $500. The ultimate
solution would be the ADSB, which, AFAIK, has similar functionality to
FLARM but also act as conventional transponders so covering both
worlds. But it may take long time until the FAA will implement it, and
meanwhile there will likely be more midairs fatalities, so the FLARM
sounds like the current best solution. The good news is that the FLARM
is effordable, can be used as a data logger (hopfully it will be
certified as well) and does not require much instalation. Since powered
aircrafts will not likely use it, it will be good idea to have both a
TPAS and a FLARM. They both small and I bet they can be fit together on
the glare shield without noticable obstruction.

Ramy (who never really saw a FLARM or an ADSB, but stayed at the
Holliday Inn Express ;-)


Mike Schumann wrote:
My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common with
powered aircraft is the answer. I would think that a combination of a
transponder that is visible by ATC and conventional TCAS, along with a low
cost low/power TCAS type device designed for gliders wouldn't be more
appropriate for the US environment.

Mike Schumann

"Ramy" wrote in message
ps.com...
I don't have any numbers but I heard of many more midairs between two
gliders or gliders with tow planes than between gliders and other
powered aircrafts. I'm afraid the White Mountains in Nevada are a
midair waiting to happen. On a good weekend you can have 20-50 gliders
flying in a very narrow band in both directions. It is very difficult,
almost impossible, to spot on time a glider flying straight and level
at closing speeds of over 200 knots, unless you know exactly when and
where to look. Remember, the moving targets we often spot easily are
not the threat, it is the one which don't move on the canopy which will
hit us. If we equip all gliders and tow planes with Flarm you will
significantly reduce midairs, as it has been proved in Europe and OZ.
One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.

Just my humble opinion,

Ramy


Mike Schumann wrote:
Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs
are
between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.

Mike Schumann

"John Galloway" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
gliders in those European countries in which it is
in widespread use?

Thanks in advance.

John Galloway

You may well be correct. Does such equipment exist? If not, when is it
likely to be available?

Meanwhile, Flarm does exist, has sold some 5,000 units worldwide, is known
to work, and in some environments is fitted 100%, in quite a few 90%

Flarm is sufficiently low priced, small, low powered and easy to install
that if it becomes obsolete in say 5 years time it is still a very sensible
fit today.

I have never flown in the USA. If I were flying out of Minden I rather
think I would like to have a transponder. This was advocated by Gordon
Boettger in an article dated 13th July
http://www.mindensoaringclub.com/int...=87&Itemi d=1
written of course before the mid-air of 28th August.

In the UK I want Flarm provided enough other people fit it. I should think
that in the USA anyone flying the White Mountains would welcome it.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
news
My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common
with powered aircraft is the answer. I would think that a combination of
a transponder that is visible by ATC and conventional TCAS, along with a
low cost low/power TCAS type device designed for gliders wouldn't be more
appropriate for the US environment.

Mike Schumann


"Ramy" wrote in message
ps.com...

I don't have any numbers but I heard of many more midairs between two
gliders or gliders with tow planes than between gliders and other
powered aircrafts. I'm afraid the White Mountains in Nevada are a
midair waiting to happen. On a good weekend you can have 20-50 gliders
flying in a very narrow band in both directions. It is very difficult,
almost impossible, to spot on time a glider flying straight and level
at closing speeds of over 200 knots, unless you know exactly when and
where to look. Remember, the moving targets we often spot easily are
not the threat, it is the one which don't move on the canopy which will
hit us. If we equip all gliders and tow planes with Flarm you will
significantly reduce midairs, as it has been proved in Europe and OZ.
One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.

Just my humble opinion,

Ramy


Mike Schumann wrote:

Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs
are between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.

Mike Schumann


"John Galloway" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
gliders in those European countries in which it is
in widespread use?

Thanks in advance.

John Galloway

I don't know what the right answer is. Here in the US, there is a lot more
power traffic than in Europe. Unless you are flying in contests or in high
glider traffic areas, I suspect that the biggest risk is not other gliders,
but power traffic.

It's very frustrating that the FAA doesn't accelerate the deployment of ADSB
here in the US. Then everyone could focus on developing cost effective
technology that will cover all traffic.

In the mean time, the best investment might be a ballistic recovery chute.

Mike Schumann

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." wrote in message
...
You may well be correct. Does such equipment exist? If not, when is it
likely to be available?

Meanwhile, Flarm does exist, has sold some 5,000 units worldwide, is known
to work, and in some environments is fitted 100%, in quite a few 90%

Flarm is sufficiently low priced, small, low powered and easy to install
that if it becomes obsolete in say 5 years time it is still a very
sensible
fit today.

I have never flown in the USA. If I were flying out of Minden I rather
think I would like to have a transponder. This was advocated by Gordon
Boettger in an article dated 13th July
http://www.mindensoaringclub.com/int...=87&Itemi d=1
written of course before the mid-air of 28th August.

In the UK I want Flarm provided enough other people fit it. I should
think
that in the USA anyone flying the White Mountains would welcome it.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
news
My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common
with powered aircraft is the answer. I would think that a combination of
a transponder that is visible by ATC and conventional TCAS, along with a
low cost low/power TCAS type device designed for gliders wouldn't be more
appropriate for the US environment.

Mike Schumann


"Ramy" wrote in message
ps.com...

I don't have any numbers but I heard of many more midairs between two
gliders or gliders with tow planes than between gliders and other
powered aircrafts. I'm afraid the White Mountains in Nevada are a
midair waiting to happen. On a good weekend you can have 20-50 gliders
flying in a very narrow band in both directions. It is very difficult,
almost impossible, to spot on time a glider flying straight and level
at closing speeds of over 200 knots, unless you know exactly when and
where to look. Remember, the moving targets we often spot easily are
not the threat, it is the one which don't move on the canopy which will
hit us. If we equip all gliders and tow planes with Flarm you will
significantly reduce midairs, as it has been proved in Europe and OZ.
One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.

Just my humble opinion,

Ramy


Mike Schumann wrote:

Another interesting question for the US is what percentage of mid-airs
are between two gliders vs. between a glider and a powered aircraft.

Mike Schumann


"John Galloway" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know of a source of any statistics that
might indicate the effectiveness or otherwise of FLARM
in reducing the rate collisions between FLARM fitted
gliders in those European countries in which it is
in widespread use?

Thanks in advance.

John Galloway

Ramy wrote:

One would wish that one of the local US manufactures of glider avionics
or an entrepreneur would have try to license flarm in US. If it is
possible to manufacture and sell TPAS like equipments in the US without
liability concerns, it should be possible to sell Flarms.

This is my belief, also, and perhaps the TPAS manufacturers are the ones
to approach about this. They might be able to convince the FLARM folk
that they could manufacture and sell the units without any liability for
FLARM, or develop one their own. A unit for North America wouldn't need
to be compatible with units in other countries.

I think the biggest problem is disinterest in the US community. In
preparation for a presentation on FLARM at the 2005 SSA convention, I
contacted a number of pilots about potential interest in it. I thought
the Minden pilots would be very excited about it because of the White
Mountains issues, but there was almost no interest in it. I was stunned.

I now think the potential for collision with another glider is widely
perceived (rightly or wrongly) as so low, it's not worth the effort or
cost to use something like FLARM. One way to reduce the cost would be a
FLARM with an IGC secure recorder, so the additional cost of the FLARM
capability is, say, less than $200 (I don't know if that is possible).
Still, since so many pilots already have a secure recorder, it might
take years for a significant number to be in use.

Perhaps a simpler, cheaper, "proximity" alert unit would be more
acceptable in North America. It wouldn't be completely passive, but
would broadcast a periodic weak signal with an ID code that can be
detected a mile or two away. It would receive signals from other units
and estimate their distance by the signal strength (no GPS). TPAS
manufacturers could easily convert their current designs (like the Zaon
MRX) just by fitting a different RF "front end". The box, power supply,
displays, logic, etc would remain the same. This would make it much
cheaper for them to develop and manufacture than a FLARM style unit.

It wouldn't be as effective as a FLARM, but if it were available for
less than $500, there might be a market for it. The Zaon MRX unit, for
example, already has an altimeter function in it, so the altitude could
be broadcast along with the ID code, allowing display of the relative
altitudes of the two gliders.

In the ideal world, this detection capability would be an "add-on" to a
company's standard TPAS unit, allowing detection of transponder equipped
aircraft AND aircraft with just the dual TPAS.

It just occurred to me the reason the TPAS unit manufacturers don't seem
to have a liability issue is their units only alert based on proximity,
and not on predicted flight path. If this is true, perhaps a modified
FLARM could be sold in North America by FLARM folks or a licensed
dealer/manufacturer.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Mike Schumann wrote:
I don't know what the right answer is. Here in the US, there is a lot more
power traffic than in Europe. Unless you are flying in contests or in high
glider traffic areas, I suspect that the biggest risk is not other gliders,
but power traffic.

It's very frustrating that the FAA doesn't accelerate the deployment of ADSB
here in the US. Then everyone could focus on developing cost effective
technology that will cover all traffic.

In the mean time, the best investment might be a ballistic recovery chute.

In the Minden collision, the regular parachute worked just fine, and if
he'd had an operating transponder, he'd likely not needed the parachute
at all.

A transponder and a TPAS unit will give you most of what you'd get from
having an ADSB unit in your cockpit, more cheaply than an ADSB unit (or
a ballistic parachute), and you can have it now. Powered traffic is
already flying with transponders, so you don't have to wait for the rest
of the fleet to buy into the idea. ADSB still doesn't protect you from
aircraft that don't have them, and I don't think they will be any
cheaper than a transponder. So, if powered traffic is your concern, I
think there is decent solution.

A ballistic recovery chute has some advantages, of course, but perhaps
not in the typical collision which is usually high enough that a
conscious pilot has time to get out. The problem is they are expensive
to retrofit to most gliders, and then you have an untested system.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

John Galloway schrieb:

...
It was interesting to read on the board about the collision
in a thermal between two Swiss FLARM equipped gliders
who already knew of each other's presence. It just
goes to show that no matter whether a glider is spotted
by eyeball or FLARM you still have to avoid it.

Exactly. FLARM does not avoid collisions. It helps finding the
"opponent" before it's too late.

I presume that was not a fatality.

Yes. One landed the damaged glider, the other one bailed out.


I think that European clubs are fitting FLARMS in the
tugs because it is mentioned in some off-board messages
I have received. Apparently early on it gave false
alarms on tow but that this now has been addressed
in the updates.

Also correct.

Regards
Marcl Duenner

Hi,

My question is whether introducing another technology that isn't common with
powered aircraft is the answer.

My answer is no.

I doubt there is _the_ answer, anyway. "See and avoid" most obviously isn't.

For the time being FLARM is small, uses next to no power, minimal panel space,
does not distract the pilot and is comparatively affordable. In my environment
it warns me of almost all the gliders I am likely to encounter and the
towplane.

I cannot see a reason why _not_ to use it. Not using it because it does not
solve the problem of potential mid-airs by 100% does not seem reasonable to
me.

For people flying in the alps there is the added benefit of FLARM warning of
cables spanning valleys (IF they are in the database). These, I am told, are
mostly invisible from the air against the ground. No transponder can help you
there and fleet coverage is not an issue.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you
do something and the time you tell a woman what you did."

Ballistic Recovery Chutes would primarily be an advantage in a low level
collision (i.e. in a traffic pattern). Are there any statistics on glider
mid-airs that can shed some light on where most of the danger is?

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:am_Wg.4860$YD.241@trndny09...
Mike Schumann wrote:
I don't know what the right answer is. Here in the US, there is a lot
more power traffic than in Europe. Unless you are flying in contests or
in high glider traffic areas, I suspect that the biggest risk is not
other gliders, but power traffic.

It's very frustrating that the FAA doesn't accelerate the deployment of
ADSB here in the US. Then everyone could focus on developing cost
effective technology that will cover all traffic.

In the mean time, the best investment might be a ballistic recovery
chute.

In the Minden collision, the regular parachute worked just fine, and if
he'd had an operating transponder, he'd likely not needed the parachute at
all.

A transponder and a TPAS unit will give you most of what you'd get from
having an ADSB unit in your cockpit, more cheaply than an ADSB unit (or a
ballistic parachute), and you can have it now. Powered traffic is already
flying with transponders, so you don't have to wait for the rest of the
fleet to buy into the idea. ADSB still doesn't protect you from aircraft
that don't have them, and I don't think they will be any cheaper than a
transponder. So, if powered traffic is your concern, I think there is
decent solution.

A ballistic recovery chute has some advantages, of course, but perhaps not
in the typical collision which is usually high enough that a conscious
pilot has time to get out. The problem is they are expensive to retrofit
to most gliders, and then you have an untested system.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Eric Greenwell wrote:

I think the biggest problem is disinterest in the US community. In
preparation for a presentation on FLARM at the 2005 SSA convention, I
contacted a number of pilots about potential interest in it. I thought
the Minden pilots would be very excited about it because of the White
Mountains issues, but there was almost no interest in it. I was stunned.

I think you would get a very different reaction now, that it's been
discovered that the sky is not that big after all, not even on a
weekday over Minden nor over the remote Amazonas rainforest. I'll be
the first one in line to replace my volkslogger with a flarm. The cost
should be minimal.

Ramy