Re defensiveness, spot on Mike. It was so obvious I even invented a word for it flarmnatics!
Recently on this list, Mark Newton asked a very good question about threat priorities of FLARM, (see below) and only got replies stating the bleeding obvious about lookout, not one reply that I saw addressed the question. Post said: >Previously if you were in a thermal or level flight with other > aircraft (more than one LED lit) and an alarm went off, the alarmed > LED would flash but additionally the other aircraft would still be > lit, the flashing LED was hard to see and confused by the other LEDS > also being lit. Now if you get an alarm, only the alarmed LED will be > on and the others will disappear for the duration of the alarm - no >confusion. Mark said >>Sounds like a positive change, with one caveat: What happens if there's >>more than one simultaneous collision risk? Does it show the first one >>detected, the most recent one detected, or all of them? Interestingly the people I have spoken to who have the most reservations are all experienced, expert people in the Electronic/Computer tech field, who are well aware of the often unforeseen problems associated with any new technology. Whilst I think the idea has some promise I like some others fear complacency about lookout becoming an issue in the long term. Even in comps where FLARM is mandated one could easily come across a glider from another site which is not fitted with FLARM. Regards Dave L -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2007 2:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] .Flarm antenna This started as a comment about wider applicability of the technology to the wider GA community. AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED the flarm units are not that suitable due to reduced range and airframe shielding issues which Nigel himself mentioned in a private email to me as a result of an earlier post of mine on this group. To get good performance in these aircraft external antennas are necessary. He also mentioned that there were some issues with reduced performance due to airframe shielding on carbon gliders. I wasn't aware that this was much of a problem in gliders until he himself mentioned the new canopy antenna which would hopefully address these issues, on this group. I find this somewhat disappointing in view of the large numbers of Flarms sold in Europe prior to their adoption here. Then again, head on in the Alps, wings level, the airframe shielding is probably minimal and Flarm performance most satisfactory against the primary collision threat. Back to the GA aircraft. Now pretty obviously a unit that just installs on top of the instrument panel in a Cessa and plugs in to the cigarette lighter is going to be more rapidly and widely adopted than one which requires the services of an an avionics tech and some CASA paperwork. Likewise for the commuter airline folks. Unfortunately it appears that the simple installation won't work well in these cases and these installations will be more complex and expensive. Pity. Someone might like to get the German article I linked to translated. My Google attempt resulted in only half the article being translated. A couple of guys with Flarms got a nasty fright and could easily have collided when flying in cross country in company. Back when I flew contests everyone was very worried about the mid air risk but on thinking about it the major worry was the thrashing around in broken lift in large gaggles pre start where there were too many gliders to keep track of. With the best will in the world it was always possible for a potential collision to eventuate and then someone taking evasive action could cause another. Apart from the odd oaf who entered thermals by pointing his glider at one already in it (we knew who they were, mostly), enroute wasn't such a worry as the traffic density was lower and gliders ahead of you were potential thermal markers so it was in everyone's interest to look for these. In the 10 or 11 years of flying State and National level FAI contests (7) I don't remember anyone actually having a mid air. These were contests with up to 81 gliders. Maybe it was just a statistical quiet period due to chance. I'm finding the defensive reactions to any criticism of Flarm fascinating. Reminds me of the reactions when human caused climate change is questioned. A few years ago a social scientist was embedded with a bunch of climate modellers for 5 years. They expressed high confidence in their climate models *except* for the bit they were each personally responsible for which they thought had uncertainties! Something to do with a well documented techological phenomenon where the people slightly further away from understanding the technology have more faith in it than the inventors. Mike _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
