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.'