[Aus-soaring] Fw: [chat] FLARM!

[Peter Stephenson]

to Nigel Andrews; would it be possible for you to give me a safety case to present to RAPAC on the use of FLARM in all light aircraft in preference to ADS-B as per my comments below?   The Airservices Rep at that meeting was only slightly knowledgable about it, having had Bob Hall mention it to him.   PeterS Peter C. Stephenson RAPAC Qld. South Convenor Gliding Qld. RAPAC (Qld.South) 07 3886 6889 Fax: 07 3886 6129     ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephensons To: DDSC chat ;  Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [chat] FLARM! The FLARM units have also datalogger capabilities, are very reasonably priced @ AUSD 600 and economical on battery use so I can see that *all* gliders will have them soon as a matter of course.  Student glider pilots will start familiarising themselves with them from their first instructional flight should they happen to come close to a similarly equipped glider/aircraft.  I do not believe that the standard of lookout will deteriorate having FLARM, provided the instructors keep up their standards of insisting on a full head swivel lookout is maintained during instruction and on annual checks.     Experienced competition pilots who have used the FLARM are quite amazed at the gliders that they did *not* see before the FLARM unit warned them of the potential conflict.  I am sure that is why the adoption of FLARM has taken off so quickly.   I think that all light GA a/c should have them too; a minimal version of the "black box" flight recorder as loggers seem to be able to survive a spin in accident as we have just tragically found out recently.    At the last South Queensland RAPAC meeting, I have already mentioned that I think FLARM should be investigated as well as ADS-B for light aircraft as ADS-B is so much more expensive in dollar terms and battery energy consumption.  I am now the Convenor of South Queensland RAPAC and I will pursue this.   PeterS ----- Original Message -----   To: DDSC chat Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:09 AM Subject: [chat] FLARM! Jenny wrote:   “the FLARM anti-collision trial at the NSW State comps was very successful and well supported by all the pilots.  Robert Hart, JT and Brett Kettle have bought units.”   Good to know when the _expensive_ gliders are close ;)   But seriously,   I’m glad to see experienced members embracing new technologies that may well provide an added safety benefit to a sport we enjoy. Especially when I read:   “For more general use in Australia I'd wait for a year or two until the technology stabilises and there is more experience with its use in Europe.”   The way I see it, you have to use it, for it to “stabilise” and develop. Especially if we wish to tailor it for Australian use.   (Admittedly that author now believes it to be a great idea: “Let's hope there are no showstoppers and we can get Flarms into service in Australia ASAP.” But it illustrates a sentiment that may well be very common with the early adoption of such a new technology)   There are of course a number of practical issues to consider (and I clearly recognise that I don’t believe I’m first to think of this, so I’m just generating discussion here)   1)       critical mass, FLARM needs FLARM equipped gliders to work. (Equipping club gliders?) 2)       Appropriate integration of the FLARM system into the well entrenched  (and successful when used properly)  see-and-avoid principles.   The second point will no doubt produce enough discussion to power a gaggle of 20 gliders, but my thoughts on point 1.   I can see how FLARM would become basic equipment in a competition equipped glider, with the higher glider densities and with serious pilots who fly regularly.   One could argue that a lack of FLARM in the gliders piloted by the lesser experienced pilots, significantly reduces the number of situations in which it may be beneficial. Such gliders in our context, would be the lower end of the club glider spectrum, the student glider, which clocks up the most hrs and are more regularly in high concentration areas (circuit areas).  Then, there is of course the thermal gaggle. Junior pilots just _love_ these.   Let me explain: (*Puts on flame proof jacket*)   An application for FLARM in student gliders. It’s students (that would be me), with the lesser predictable movements, with the least developed lookout that could possibly benefit from having FLARM on board. (Jacket Top button done up) Students are however very distractible. May I suggest silent FLARM: The digital equivalent of painting a Puch in flouro pink.  Equipped and running but no audio or visual cues to the student, to push lookout habits (but, possibly visual only cues to the instructor in the back who may well be more distracted than usual). Everyone else in the air will “see” the student.   The glider that should be broadcasting FLARM data is the least likely to. A FLARM unit just isn’t beginner gear. Just a thought.   Appropriate integration into the lookout/see-and avoid principles: There is the very obvious statement that needing to look into the cockpit at yet another “instrument” would obviously detract from good lookout. But if you have effective lookout you would hope that the alarm would just be augmenting what you already know? (depending on set tolerances) If it alarmed for a conflict that you have NO CLUE about, one could make a case for a quick look for an accurate clue.   I should be sleeping, and no, the pie-cart does not need a FLARM unit. Cheers   (958 gliding hours before I get to fly JT ;)

_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring