I have not read the German incident but I am sure we will see others and possibly in Australia we might have a collision between 2 flarm equipped aircraft - I hope not - the technology does not guarantee safety - we all know that but I have equally many emails, personal conversations and even a few on this forum who have said that flarm may have prevented them from having an accident and that's what it is all about, providing some sort of pre warning or display of traffic. Even TCAS with is high price tag in commercial airliners has its faults and has resulted in accidents. Harry brought up a point on his accident, had he known the guy was behind him he would not have hooked into the thermal or if he did probably with extra caution.
David and others are right, the information needs to be handled properly and in situations where one might get confused as we see in early pilots working controlled airspace and in particular getting information overload from ATC the first thing drummed in is Aviate, Navigate , communicate - I guess the same can be said here, in thermals where the screen is lit up and false alarms occur its business as usual - lookout, maintain safe separation and if you don't like it leave the thermal. I too am concerned about complacency, but this would relate to any technology introduced, I am sure a lack of see and avoid in the start line area for some can be attributed to a few trying to enter the start point into a computer or PDA, or staring at a GPS to make sure they enter the circle correctly or just poor visibility or all of the above. I must apologise I didn't see Marks remarks - if 2 threats are in alarm both will flash, it does not distinguish currently the highest to lowest, that is the OzFlarm does not - not sure what the other do. We did this because the threat status might change from one to the other - this would be confusing so we though show both - if any one has any ideas contact me direct on my email. Nigel Andrews -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2007 2:20 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 Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com _______________________________________________ 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
