I totally agree with the claims that FLARM is NOT perfect. Since that has
been agreed upon I suggest that we strip all FLARM units from all gliders
and ban them. Ban things that are not perfect. But hey, lets not stop
there. Let's ban radios as well. Since a radio's battery can go flat and
fuses can blow they're not perfect. What about harnesses. The sun can
deteriate them and stitching can come loose so they're useless as well. But
there's more! Parachutes don't always work so why bother using them at all.
For that matter why bother with DI's? You may not pick up everthing all
the time anyway.
I am a low hours pilot with only one comp under my belt and fly a DDSC. I
learn't to fly without FLARM but shortly there after it was adopted fully by
my club. Since then I don't like to fly without it. No it's not perfect,
no one has ever claimed that but guess what. Unlike some others on this
list my eyes are not perfect either. FLARM will never be justified in some
minds as we will never now how many lives will be saved. It's only the
accidents that people hear about. My first comp (Easter Comps Chinchilla
06) had full FLARM attendence and it sure helped in my opinion. I have
some stories of when it HAS worked but we seem to be only talking about it's
limitations here so I won't bother.
But anyway, what would I know? Because I use FLARM, according to some I can
push the safety envelope a lot more and I no longer need to look outside the
cockpit. I guess I will have a lot to answer for someday.
Chad Nowak
From: "Peter Creswick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Peter Creswick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "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] Controversial - a bit
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:28:33 +1100
This incident seems to be shaping up as a classic example of the real
problems with the rampant adoption of technology for the sake of technology
in general, FLARM in this particular case, but recent incidents with TCAS
in Europe and Brazil are also illustrative, to mention but a few.
Those who rave about the upsides and demand mandatory adoption of such
systems whilst ignoring, down playing, or even straight out denying the
limitations and downsides, will have a lot to answer for someday.
In this case, what if they had collided, and the recorded data survived,
what would the report have said ? Pretty academic really, since GFA
reports are never published.
For my money, situational awareness is the precursor to see and avoid, with
FLARM et al a very distant third. If you still had position reporting,
each of the four pilots here would have "known" that there were three
others out there. If any one of them can only see two others, they should
"search" for the third. But that was not the case, they were all
apparently blissfully, but erroneously, confident that they were "situation
aware". They had been fooled by their own "faith" in technology, and as a
result, there were very nearly only two, and possibly a couple of funerals
to attend.
How long before it happens ?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kittel, Stephen W (ETSA)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Discussion of issues relating to
Soaring in Australia." <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Controversial - a bit
Well, they probably both did have indication of a threat ahead (though
at 200kts only for about 10 seconds).
BUT as Luke indicated, he was thinking about the other two (known)
aircraft he was with (and I probably would have been too).
The oncoming pilot, we won't know what they were thinking/doing, but
it's quite conceivable that they were fully aware of a "threat" ahead
and were happy they were clear of the one or two gliders that they saw.
Luke being the unspotted third!
Regards
SWK
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Cole
I didn't mean to be sarcastic. Sorry. Presuming that the
oncoming glider had the Flarm turned on, I just can't see how
the two pilots did not both have a earlier 'red led' warning
in *front* of them at their height.
Michael
> Michael Cole was being sarcastic as all the gliders at the
comps had
> Flarms.
>
> >
> > Michael Cole (Neonatology) wrote:
> >> Wouldn't it have been wonderful if he had had a Flarm fitted !!
> >>
> >> He probably would have been alerted to one or more
gliders in front
> >> of him.
> >>
> >> Michael
**********************************************************************
This email and any file attachments are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please tell us immediately
by return email and delete the document.
The information in this email expresses the opinion of the author
and does not necessarily represent the views of ETSA Utilities.
**********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date:
12/01/2007 2:04 PM
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_________________________________________________________________
Advertisement: Amazing holiday rentals?
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eninemsn%2Erealestate%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Frsearch%3Fa%3Dbhp%26t%3Dhol%26cu%3DMSN&_t=758874163&_r=HM_Txt_Link_Holiday_Oct06&_m=EXT
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
