|
Hi all,
In my trade, I see problems happening for early
uptakers of new technology all the time, I reckon John
H and Simon have it absolutely right this time.
I expect some will be surprised that I agree with someone
but there you go!!
Ironically for someone who has made a career of electronics
and IT I dont trust any of it further than I can physically throw it.For example
I will not do any form of electronic money transfer, I just dont trust virtual
security.
As for making FLARM mandatory, I feel that not making
it compulsory is better-If you know there are
no non FLARM
equipped gliders around you might become complacent
with lookout, knowing there were some without FLARM would keep you more on
your toes I would think!
I do not feel terribly comfortable with making a unit
mandatory when there is only one manufacturer in the country (Monopoly
anyone?)as well, whilst not wishing to in any way denigrate that company, a
legislated mandatory requirement would seem to be
a madatory monopoly.
Its unlikely I will ever fly in comps due to disability,
but I feel an extra expense in an already very expensive sport that is losing
members all the time cannot be all good. Despite this I would support having
FLARM fitted to my clubs gliders, so please dont think I am Anti the whole
concept, just anti making it mandatory. There needs to be a balance here and
finding the correct balance is the issue.
>" I
reckon the opinions of that sample holds much more weight than those that
have not used the device and continue as
>nay-sayers."
Less than 10% of us fly comps, I would like to see more
general club use before blindly following the opinion of a limited sample of
pilots. There has simply not
been enough testing to draw any conclusions In Australia yet, mostly in the
rarefied world of comps, so no the opinion of those that have used is not a
conclusion by any means.
Zealots on EITHER side will not help the issue. Comps
pilots leading the charge should remember that others may not be as
financially fortunate as them>
We got by without FLARM for many years so whats the
rush?
David Lawley
Computer Manager
Elizabeth Park Primary
School
Elizabeth East Primary School
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
|
