So how many light a/c have FLARM fitted & how many have a GPS?
Can/could the two systems "talk" to each other?
It is the "Listens for other FLARM devices" that means we all have to have a FLARM unit & not just any old GPS.
CAA conspicuity trials
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Nick Allen
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Oxford
- Contact:
The orginal version of FLARM detects other FLARM-equipped aircraft, plus fixed obstacles.
The latest version, PowerFLARM, detects in addition all transponder-equipped aircraft. Although the FLARMs have a GPS chip inside them, they don't display your current position. So the short answer to your question, is yes: you would need to buy a FLARM in addition to your navigational GPS. Perhaps the next iteration will combine everything into one box!
(I had a flight in a FLARM-equipped sailplane last summer: it's a neat little unit and works well -- picked up other cross-country sailplanes, which are often hard to spot. It would be interesting to see if the BGA have got any data on the take-up in the sailplane fleet.)
The latest version, PowerFLARM, detects in addition all transponder-equipped aircraft. Although the FLARMs have a GPS chip inside them, they don't display your current position. So the short answer to your question, is yes: you would need to buy a FLARM in addition to your navigational GPS. Perhaps the next iteration will combine everything into one box!
(I had a flight in a FLARM-equipped sailplane last summer: it's a neat little unit and works well -- picked up other cross-country sailplanes, which are often hard to spot. It would be interesting to see if the BGA have got any data on the take-up in the sailplane fleet.)
-
Adrian Hatton
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:22 pm
Re: CAA conspicuity trials
[quote="Rod1"]CAA conspicuity trials
The CAA has issued the following press release which indicates the LAA are involved. Anyone any idea who is organizing our end and do they need any small composite aircraft? [quote]
Rod,
To address your original question, I have had a reply from the LAA office to my request along similar lines to your post as below:
"The trials are nothing to do with LAA. It's just a news item on our website - LAA aren't involved at all."
So, I guess the bit in the press release about the LAA being involved is not (entirely?) correct.
Further to the above.
Today, during a phone chat with one of the Instructors at Syerston, I was told that he understands that the conspicuity trial will be conducted with one RAF ATC Vigilant and a civilian G109. ie using two near enough identical machines flown to test existing colours and markings in a controlled way.
Apparently, the trial is being managed by a third party and the aircraft are to be flown by local staff pilots so no more aircraft or other asistance are required at this stage - but the guy at Syerston did say thanks for the offers.
I will watch for results of this trial with interest but will not be holding my breath for any great revelations other than that aircraft are not always easy to see in some conditons from another aircraft......
The CAA has issued the following press release which indicates the LAA are involved. Anyone any idea who is organizing our end and do they need any small composite aircraft? [quote]
Rod,
To address your original question, I have had a reply from the LAA office to my request along similar lines to your post as below:
"The trials are nothing to do with LAA. It's just a news item on our website - LAA aren't involved at all."
So, I guess the bit in the press release about the LAA being involved is not (entirely?) correct.
Further to the above.
Today, during a phone chat with one of the Instructors at Syerston, I was told that he understands that the conspicuity trial will be conducted with one RAF ATC Vigilant and a civilian G109. ie using two near enough identical machines flown to test existing colours and markings in a controlled way.
Apparently, the trial is being managed by a third party and the aircraft are to be flown by local staff pilots so no more aircraft or other asistance are required at this stage - but the guy at Syerston did say thanks for the offers.
I will watch for results of this trial with interest but will not be holding my breath for any great revelations other than that aircraft are not always easy to see in some conditons from another aircraft......
-
Nick Allen
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Oxford
- Contact:
I think Adrian has hit the nail on the head there! There is surely not a solution that will meet every eventuality, so the answer is -- as always -- to mitigate risk where possible. Shiny black may work well for the Air Force, but I'm not so sure it helps to pick out lower, slower traffic against the ground as you rejoin a circuit. A 20 m glider can disappear in the sky in a moment as the aircraft turns -- not sure any colour would help...but FLARM might. And so on.I will watch for results of this trial with interest but will not be holding my breath for any great revelations other than that aircraft are not always easy to see in some conditons from another aircraft......
-
chrismk260
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:05 am
- Location: middle wallop
Morning all well I phoned the laa regarding this and they didn’t no about it at the time. I have a vari eze that’s coming up to paint stage so I offered that up. Yes the RAF did do that trial a while ago black and yellow proved to be the best for high vis however black aint the best for a composite structure. However the old firefly fleet that served on the DEFTS contract are yellow on top black underneath this gave the aircraft geographical restrictions I now work on another contract where the company has now fitted TCAS and are also looking at fitting portable flarm units in a bid to reduce near misses. Re the tcas and transponder questions you are correct only really works if every one has one.
025059
To give some approximate idea of the size of the problem;
Approximately 50% of the things you are likely to bump into will have a transponder.
FLARM has only been legal in the UK for a couple of years, but take up, especially in the cross country fleet, is rapid.
Electronic assistance makes see and avoid 8 times more effective.
Units like PCAS may only see 50% of the things that are going to kill you but that is actually probably double what you would see using unaided see and avoid in an average aircraft. Many studies and AAIB investigations have shown that see and avoid is very poor due to limitations of the eye and the visibility from the cockpit.
Electronic aids used correctly do not encourage you to look in the cockpit, but to look out when you have missed something important.
The above is from an article I wrote for Flyer mag a little while ago. I hope to do an update in the next 6 months.
Rod1
Approximately 50% of the things you are likely to bump into will have a transponder.
FLARM has only been legal in the UK for a couple of years, but take up, especially in the cross country fleet, is rapid.
Electronic assistance makes see and avoid 8 times more effective.
Units like PCAS may only see 50% of the things that are going to kill you but that is actually probably double what you would see using unaided see and avoid in an average aircraft. Many studies and AAIB investigations have shown that see and avoid is very poor due to limitations of the eye and the visibility from the cockpit.
Electronic aids used correctly do not encourage you to look in the cockpit, but to look out when you have missed something important.
The above is from an article I wrote for Flyer mag a little while ago. I hope to do an update in the next 6 months.
Rod1
021864
-
Graham Clark
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:28 am
At the recent Air Warfare Centre's RPAS Symposium at Shrivenham, 2Excel Aviation (a parent company of the "Blades" Aerobatic Team) announced some work they were doing with Selex-Galileo on a "sense and avoid" solution. Whilst designed for unmanned system, the cross-over to GA was obvious. They have fitted a working system to a light twin (a Piper Navajo if I recall correctly) and they hope to minaturise it further. I asked whether they thought whether they could produce it for less than £1500 and they believed they might.
Advantage over FLARM? Well its completely non-cooperative and will work against any aircraft (gilder, baloon, microlight, etc...). They had also tested it looking through a propellor succesfully.
No indication how far this was from being marketed but £1500 might be cheaper than a new paint job!!!
Advantage over FLARM? Well its completely non-cooperative and will work against any aircraft (gilder, baloon, microlight, etc...). They had also tested it looking through a propellor succesfully.
No indication how far this was from being marketed but £1500 might be cheaper than a new paint job!!!
Gary Coleman
031196
031196
-
John Brady
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:39 pm
As one of the very few GA people involved with the CAA on FAS (Future Airspace Strategy) I would be interested in your views on the usefulness of Mode S transponders in making us "interoperable" and improving safety. The strategy document refers to a wish to make Mode S mandatory everywhere.
I have just finshed analysing all the mid-air collisions in the CAA database. Since 1976 there have been 84 collisions with 87 people killed. All collisions occured in Class G airspace and all involved GA aircraft colliding with each other or military aircraft (2 jets, 1 turboprop and 2 helicopters). So it seems the greatest risk to us is us. If we all had Mode S transponders would the GA vs GA situation change greatly?
Back in 96 there was a collision between a glider and an aircraft near Wescott and the Chief Inspector of Accidents wrote that technology could have prevented it. I thought that at the time he was wrong as the technology did not exist then but now it does (see earlier posts). If you read collision accident reports they usually include a diagram extracted from radar traces showing the paths of the aircraft. So, knowledge about these tracks existed in the ATC system before the collision. The system knew a collision was likely but it kept that information to itself until after the event. Why? Human in-the-loop alerting is impracticable for most circumstances suggesting that an automated process is needed. Various systems are on the market but there is no national infrastructure to utilise the knowledge that the ATC system has. Should there be such an infrastructure?
If you want to see what ADS-B out can offer try http://planefinder.net/
Setting aside improvements in visual conspicuity, what should we do stop us killing each other?
John Brady
GA rep on the NATMAC FAS Working Group and a few other things
I have just finshed analysing all the mid-air collisions in the CAA database. Since 1976 there have been 84 collisions with 87 people killed. All collisions occured in Class G airspace and all involved GA aircraft colliding with each other or military aircraft (2 jets, 1 turboprop and 2 helicopters). So it seems the greatest risk to us is us. If we all had Mode S transponders would the GA vs GA situation change greatly?
Back in 96 there was a collision between a glider and an aircraft near Wescott and the Chief Inspector of Accidents wrote that technology could have prevented it. I thought that at the time he was wrong as the technology did not exist then but now it does (see earlier posts). If you read collision accident reports they usually include a diagram extracted from radar traces showing the paths of the aircraft. So, knowledge about these tracks existed in the ATC system before the collision. The system knew a collision was likely but it kept that information to itself until after the event. Why? Human in-the-loop alerting is impracticable for most circumstances suggesting that an automated process is needed. Various systems are on the market but there is no national infrastructure to utilise the knowledge that the ATC system has. Should there be such an infrastructure?
If you want to see what ADS-B out can offer try http://planefinder.net/
Setting aside improvements in visual conspicuity, what should we do stop us killing each other?
John Brady
GA rep on the NATMAC FAS Working Group and a few other things
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Hi John, how many of those collisions occurred in the circuit? It could be argued that any collision avoidance system is unlikely to be very effective in the circuit because warnings would be sounding off almost continuously due to the close proximity of other aircraft and you would have to ignore them.
You may then have a greatly reduced number of deaths caused by collisions that technology may have prevented, let's say for argument's sake 40 over 35 years. In accidents per 100,000 hours, the oft quoted measurement standard, that would amount to a very small number indeed. Could we really then suggest that mandating the fitting of collision avoidance equipment would be proportionate to the real risk of GA aircraft colliding with each other outside of the circuit environment?
The cost of equipping many aircraft would almost certainly be better spent on improved training because we do know that most deaths are caused by poor pilotage and decision making. Let's get that sorted out before imposing yet more costs on an already overburdened GA community.
You may then have a greatly reduced number of deaths caused by collisions that technology may have prevented, let's say for argument's sake 40 over 35 years. In accidents per 100,000 hours, the oft quoted measurement standard, that would amount to a very small number indeed. Could we really then suggest that mandating the fitting of collision avoidance equipment would be proportionate to the real risk of GA aircraft colliding with each other outside of the circuit environment?
The cost of equipping many aircraft would almost certainly be better spent on improved training because we do know that most deaths are caused by poor pilotage and decision making. Let's get that sorted out before imposing yet more costs on an already overburdened GA community.
-
Ian Melville
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:21 pm
Mandated ADS-B would also require a TCAS type of display device to be effective. A double whammy, both in power cost and in financial cost. Not to mention the impracticality in some aircraft types.
As far a ATC picking up an impending collision. Whether automatic or manual, how would you propose to get the message to both pilots?
As Brian mentions awareness on collision risks during initial and follow-up training may be just as effective. When I did my PPL, I don't recall blind spots being mentioned at all.
As far a ATC picking up an impending collision. Whether automatic or manual, how would you propose to get the message to both pilots?
As Brian mentions awareness on collision risks during initial and follow-up training may be just as effective. When I did my PPL, I don't recall blind spots being mentioned at all.
THe problem with the strategy document is that it is based upon a technology that more than 50% of the GA fleet cannot use. At the end o fthe day ADS-B, Mode C etc are all ATC based systems - they are not intended for colission avoidance - which is why when you use them for that purpose they become very expensive.
FLARM was designed from the outset for collision avoidance - hence its comparative 'elegance' versus the existing systems. As with most official policy there is a huge degree of 'wish fulfillment' in the so-called solution. Givent hat most gliders cannot fit a conventional transponder of any sort and most microlights will also struggle there has to be a degree of reality in official policy making and conveninet though it may be ADS-B is not the answer.
Having had a good look at PowerFlarm at the Sywell bash I am contemplating raiding the piggy bank - at the mooment it seems to be the most viable 'solution' in town - just a shame it costs so much!
FLARM was designed from the outset for collision avoidance - hence its comparative 'elegance' versus the existing systems. As with most official policy there is a huge degree of 'wish fulfillment' in the so-called solution. Givent hat most gliders cannot fit a conventional transponder of any sort and most microlights will also struggle there has to be a degree of reality in official policy making and conveninet though it may be ADS-B is not the answer.
Having had a good look at PowerFlarm at the Sywell bash I am contemplating raiding the piggy bank - at the mooment it seems to be the most viable 'solution' in town - just a shame it costs so much!
Pete Morris
013242
013242
-
steveneale
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Bristol'ish
My limited experience of GA TCAS is a G1000 in a 182. That certainly does not have any problem in the circuit. All transponding traffic is displayed but TCAS only alerts on traffic that may conflict. So it's quite useful even in the circuit and not at all distracting unless you might die.
Re ADS-B TCAS displays, a Garmin 495/496+ will display TIS traffic and presumably TIS-B too as the transponder interface should be common. So anyone with mode S (not Garmin gtx328) and a 495/496 already has the kit.
The problem is CAA have never required NATS to transmit MODE-S TIS let alone ADS-B TIS-B if it came along. TIS has been pretty well dumped by the FAA in the US anyway.
However now MODE-S radars are being installed anyway a simple safety initiative might be for CAA to require ground stations to transmit TIS so we could connect out transponders to GPSs that can display traffic. My understanding is these new radars can do so but have it switched off.
Call it a trial of TIS in the UK if you like.
Re ADS-B TCAS displays, a Garmin 495/496+ will display TIS traffic and presumably TIS-B too as the transponder interface should be common. So anyone with mode S (not Garmin gtx328) and a 495/496 already has the kit.
The problem is CAA have never required NATS to transmit MODE-S TIS let alone ADS-B TIS-B if it came along. TIS has been pretty well dumped by the FAA in the US anyway.
However now MODE-S radars are being installed anyway a simple safety initiative might be for CAA to require ground stations to transmit TIS so we could connect out transponders to GPSs that can display traffic. My understanding is these new radars can do so but have it switched off.
Call it a trial of TIS in the UK if you like.
-
Graham Clark
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:28 am
Solutions
Although there is only one unique way to boil an egg, there are plainly several possible remedies to the question that John Brady poses. However, I fear there is little chance of a 'one size fits all' solution, especially if it is expensive.
I understand that the number of collisions and airporxes in Switzerland went down significantly following the introduction of FLARM. I don't know the figures, but I will try to find them.
Bearing in mind the range of aircraft in the UK GA and gliding fleets, we need a solution that will work as well in a MiniMax as it does in Cessna Caravan. But for those of us who fly on personal disposable income, if it is not affordable, it will not gain general acceptance.
I have a basic FLARM in my Jodel, and on a fine day it earns its corn.
I understand that the number of collisions and airporxes in Switzerland went down significantly following the introduction of FLARM. I don't know the figures, but I will try to find them.
Bearing in mind the range of aircraft in the UK GA and gliding fleets, we need a solution that will work as well in a MiniMax as it does in Cessna Caravan. But for those of us who fly on personal disposable income, if it is not affordable, it will not gain general acceptance.
I have a basic FLARM in my Jodel, and on a fine day it earns its corn.