|
What "evangelical
fervour"? What you have is a goodly sample of
(often cynical) competition pilots who have used the device at 1 or 2 comps
and according to their posts here, and their responses to Kevin's survey, they
almost all report good results, an aid to their lookout and many/most voted with
their chequebooks to adopt the technology. All
that have used them appear to me to be totally realistic about the need to still
maintain good lookout and an acceptance that there will surely be other wings
out there that are not OzFlarm equipped.
I reckon the opinions of
that sample holds much more weight than those that have not used the device
and continue as nay-sayers.
In the entire debate on this issue I
have not seen any example of anyone "Extolling the virtues to the utter
exclusion of any possible down sides". But there
have been a number of examples where the "world is flat", "too many
computers are bad", "use a sextant" brigade denying the virtues of Flarm to
the utter exclusion of any possible up-sides.
Re your final para ...... we are all
doomed. Let's stop this slide so that all pilots aren't mandated to have their
eyes "eyeballs comfortably inside more than out". Let's ban all instruments that
aren't steam driven and certainly get rid of this new fangled GPS and final
glide computers & moving map displays. We've all still got a slide rule
somewhere.
Is there an Amish Soaring Club
out there somewhere ..... and are some of them members of this
forum?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:54
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Queensland
Easter Competition and FLARM
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
|
