Before I start, a disclaimers. I do not fly in competition, so my
comments are from club cross country perspective.
I have followed the Flarm discussion for a number of years. The part I
found surprising is that the opponents seem to want a perfect
instrument. We are quite content to wear a parachute that is only
likely to work under quite specific conditions - sufficient height, not
being incapacitated by what ever event lead to the need for deployment
etc. Do I wear it despite it being a pain? Sure I do, I figure if it
increases my chances by significant margin, it is a good thing. Equally
I figure, if the Flarm will improve my odds in a similar manner, do I
really care that is not 100 % effective, well not really.
Peter argues that the use of Flarm will diminish airmanship, lookout in
particular. Well it may, I do not know and nor does he. Yet he goes to
argue that there are already too many computers in the cockpit and that
diminishes a good lookout. Well, he could be right. But if that is
indeed the case then I would suggest that adding Flarm to the mix can
only can only help.
Peter and others argues that we are fallible, yet he argues that we
should not try to help our fallibility. I cannot grasp that logic. I
am not suggesting that a good lookout should not be taught and
encouraged. However I can see a number of areas where it will fail.
One - indeed we are fallible, therefore despite best intentions and best
training the lookout will break down. We could argue about a degree to
which this will happen, but it will happen.
Two - gliders are difficult to see, glider pilots are not getting
younger, the physiology will conspire against us.
Three - as someone already mentioned, there are mutual blind spots.
I am sure that there are other equally valid scenarios.
History clearly shows us that lookout alone cannot be relied on. There
were collisions. Would Flarm prevent all of those collisions? I do not
know, but it is my belief that it might have.
And that other bit of certified equipment we carry in gliders, partly to
reduce the risk of collisions. I do not know what happens in other
places but I do hear a lot of garbled transmit ions where I fly. Do
they reduce the risk of collisions, probably, are they perfect, hardly
think so.
So why expect a perfect performance from Flarm. None of the other
systems we use provide it.
I have started this post pointing out that a parachute and a Flarm are
quite similar, in that they may improve our odds. But there is one
important difference. If I put on a parachute I improve my chances of
survival irrespective of what anyone else might choose to do. This is
not the case with Flarm. Flying with Flarm in company of others who are
not equally equipped is utterly useless.
So I cannot understand why we support the compulsory use of parachutes
that can only save the wearer and we could argue that it actually
decreases the safety of everyone else, as the wearer, being human, will
feel that there chances of survival in a collision are improved and
therefore not maintain as good a lookout as they may without a
parachute, yet we do not support the compulsory use Flarm, where every
glider equipped with Flarm improves the odds of survival for everyone else.
Paul Bart
Peter Creswick wrote:
I no longer fly, so I probably shouldn't comment, but I will anyway.
I have watched this FLARM debate with some misgivings. It seems to be
following the same general line as with ADSB, ie, both are totally one
sided debates. There are those pushing these things with an
evangelical fervour, that would make Billy Graham look like a woozy.
Extolling the virtues to the utter exclusion of any possible down
sides, and declaring that you won't fly without it now, is effectively
delivering a unilaterally rubbishing ultimatum to those holding any
contrary opinion, and effectively says, "piss off out of my sky". A
rather conceited position for my money. What do you want, glider comp
areas declared temporary prohibited areas for anyone non FLARM
equipped ? What about GA aircraft ? You want them banned from
flying through the comp area too ?
As with all "latest and greatest techo-wiz" situations, it seems to me
that the greatest danger is rising '"techno-dependence" and a
consequent degradation of basic airmanship with time. There are
idiots who go to see in yachts with GPS and a spare battery and claim
they are safe, without having a clue how to use a sextant. Many
haven't even seen one.
The comments and justifications for FLARM along the lines that the
equipment improves lookout has me staggered. Sorry, but although
alerted see and avoid is good in principle, it is only a partial
improvement in one aspect. But that will have a long term cost. I
feel that the un-alerted SCAN will diminish, not improve, but actually
diminish, because we are humans, and we will get into a comfort zone
that will allow degradation of the un-alerted scan, with eventual, and
I believe inevitable, tragic outcomes. There are so many computers
etc in gliders now that the pilot's attention is more and more devoted
to optimising performance, to the extent that BASIC VFR LOOKOUT is
being compromised. FLARM will, even though it is audio, continue that
drain on "effective scanning", because the brain will gradually get
comfortable with the idea that there is nothing else out there to
see. Not a good way to go.
Even if you had sanitised airspace for comps, you are in a comp, and
you have compulsory FLARM, everyone equipped, and half way through the
day one person's kit fails, for whatever reason, battery goes belly
up, whatever. Come a few years hence, eyeballs comfortably inside more
than out, the end of a long hot day, 20km to run, and
.................... crunch.
----- Original Message ----- From: "rolf a. buelter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Queensland Easter Competition and FLARM
With all due respect Simon, I disagree with most all of your arguments.
I have in this season flown one competition without Flarm, one with
100 % Flarm, one with 75 % Flarm and one with 25 % Flarm and half a
dozend cross country flights in a club environment with some Flarms
in the air. I'm not concerned at all about "not certified". It
tells me reliably where the other Flarms in vicinity are. Everybody I
talked to says it improved their lookout. I have flown last Saturday
without one in the company of 3 other Flarm equipped gliders and felt
distinctly naked. I do NOT want to fly in a competition where not all
Gliders have one.
Rolf
From: Simon Hackett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in
Australia."<[email protected]>
To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in
Australia."<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Queensland Easter Competition and FLARM
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:29:06 +1030
Robert Hart wrote:
We would /like/ every glider and tug to be FLARM equipped, but
gliders without FLARM will be permitted to fly in the Easter comp.
For all Qld comps after this Easter (state, Easter, whatever and
probably nationals run in Qld) the rules are being amended to place
FLARM in the same category as radio - i.e. mandatory glider
equipment. If a glider does not have a full set of operational,
mandatory equipment, they will not be permitted to launch.
For what its worth, I'm of the view that *recommendation* to use
FLARM in comps is good and fine, and non-contentious.
However, I feel that an ultimate shift to making a FLARM *mandatory*
for competition flying is a very significant decision that should
not be taken lightly (or potentially, at all), for reasons including:
- Added cost to a sport which is already non-income-producing and
suffering from cost and 'other things in life' pressures in terms of
bringing in new blood - especially but not only (a) juniors (b)
people with older aircraft and potentially limited budgets as well
(at any age of pilot!).
- The potential to generate reliance on a technology which, I am
sure, is excellent, but which (in its current form) is *not* a
certified technology for locating other aircraft, unlike radios
(which are licensed and produced to defined standards) and the other
flight instruments (similarly).
While none of us feel like the extra money paid for 'certified'
instruments is pleasant, it does come with some level of assurance
that the certified instruments are the survivors of a test regime
which is adequate, and a regime of checking and verifying future
changes in firmware which will then be fully tested to ensure they
continue to maintain the appropriate level of demonstrated accuracy
and reliability.
And if the response to all of this is (I would argue, correctly)
that its irrelevant because FLARM is only a secondary/backup to the
correct primary approach, see-and-avoid ... then sincerely, this is
the key argument in my mind *against* mandating it. Don't mandate
something safety related that you (on the other hand) won't yet bet
your life on.
Think about it like cameras vs GPS. Sure, noone turns up at a comp
with a camera any more, but for a decade or so, we were in a
genuinely mixed environment, as all of us got the hang of GPSs, as
they became cheaper, and (most importantly) as we all formed a trust
relationship with the data they provided, and learned when to trust
them and when not to.
I'm not sure if I've explained myself clearly enough here, and
whether you will buy my argument, but sincerely I feel that imposing
both the cost and the potentially gray area of implict endorsement
of FLARM as being a safety-critical device are the right answers at
this time for any form of 'mandate' in respect of its use.
Please appreciate that I'm the last person to want to hold back the
takeup of technology. The reverse of that is in fact my day job as a
broadband services provider.
And personally, I'm also amply able to afford to buy a FLARM - hell,
I'm trading in my Stemme for a new one partly because the new one
has a two-screen light-jet standard glass cockpit system in it, and
sports a total of four GPS receivers (in various objects) and enough
technology to run a small business already :)
But... it genuinely makes me feel concerned for the people who
aren't as lucky as I am in that regard, and whose Boomerang or
Cirrus or Astir may be all they can afford, all they want to fly,
and they may already be feeling the pinch in finding the money for
the tow tickets, let alone to buy a FLARM as well.
Give it a few more years before seriously contemplating making
something so new 'mandatory'. Regardless of how good it looks now. I
think thats the bottom line.
In a few years, we'll all have more experience with it, it'll be
cheaper, and our general trust relationship with the technology will
be stronger.
Recommend? Fine. Strongly recommend, even? Fine.
But 'mandate' is a much, much larger step. Step carefully. Please.
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
