Apparently midair at Gympie at 3pm today, 9/11/22

[plantain]

Some background on why gliders (have to) use FLARM:

We have been using FLARM in gliding since ~2005, and it is mandatory at all contests/regattas and even mandatory in some countries or clubs. Almost every glider in Australia has had one for more than a decade now. It's very entrenched.

 

When gliders are soaring we are looking for thermals, and when one glider finds a thermal the surrounding gliders will want to use the same thermal rather than trying to find their own and risking outlanding.

This naturally brings gliders together very frequently, and it is quite common to fly an entire flight in close proximity (<1km) from your friends. This is practiced and trained for and generally a non-issue because they are highly manouverable with good visibility, but very occasionally pilots get it wrong.

A naive collision detection system would alert non-stop in a situation with so many aircraft in close proximity. FLARM has patented a number of algorithms such that their collision detection system understands the movement of gliders in thermals such that it will only alarm when the pilots have missed each other and are actually likely to collide.

So I'm afraid we can't just get rid of FLARMs and change to ADS-B, as it simply won't function to help prevent collisions between gliders, of which the risk of collision is much much higher than to any other aircraft.
 

As for the frequency/SkyEcho, FLARM uses the 'ISM' band (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_radio_band), which is a general-purpose unlicensed radio band allocated by the ITU, unfortunately the ITU allocated a different frequency range in AU/US to Europe.

uAvionix will have to explain whether it's a legal issue or a hardware issue as to why the SkyEcho can't receive the ISM band in Australia (915Mhz). If that could be solved it would be great.

 

There is hope though, more modern FLARM's can have ADS-B IN, and we then see power aircraft with ADS-B OUT on our instruments.

Some pilots especially in busy areas are now fitting SkyEcho's to their gliders using the grant scheme, but they are unlikely to have alarms or displays showing power aircraft due to space and excessive alarming (from other glider) concerns. Glider cockpits are small and we can't just add another iPad.

A very few ultra-modern gliders have certified transponders with ADS-B OUT - until recently the power consumption of transponders/ADS-B was too high for gliders running off battery power only. Transponders are generally prohibitively expensive to retrofit relative to the cost of most gliders, even with the rebate. Most gliders are only worth ~20,000$.

 

On glider radios:

Gliders by and large have the exact same radios as RAAUS aircraft, there's no reason for them to be any better or worse. Often gliders flying with their friends in Class G airspace (where gliders largely operate) will be listening on one of the allocated gliding frequencies, so you may not be able to reach them on the area frequency.

Glider pilots have to hold a radio operator licence same as all pilots, and have to have biannual flight reviews where this should be checked. Of course there are still bad apples who don't do the right thing, but it's not as though glider pilots are unlicensed cowboys talking into tin cans.

[John.]

On 10/11/2022 at 1:46 AM, Carbon Canary said:

Coincidentally, I have ordered avionics with both ADS-B in & out + FLARM today.

.

Edited November 13, 2022 by John.

[Kyle Communications]

"

As for the frequency/SkyEcho, FLARM uses the 'ISM' band (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_radio_band), which is a general-purpose unlicensed radio band allocated by the ITU, unfortunately the ITU allocated a different frequency range in AU/US to Europe.

uAvionix will have to explain whether it's a legal issue or a hardware issue as to why the SkyEcho can't receive the ISM band in Australia (915Mhz). If that could be solved it would be great."

 

It would be a hardware issue maybe thats why as soon as you select australia it will turn off the FLARM in the SE2

868mhz is not that far away from 915 but the antenna on the internal PCB is made for 868 so it would have a big mismatch

The RF chip nowdays will do the full frequency range but it would be the microstrip antenna 

 

Most likely a new antenna and it would work fine but Australia is a small market so it would require different hardware version

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bosi72]

10 hours ago, plantain said:

Some background on why gliders (have to) use FLARM:

We have been using FLARM in gliding since ~2005, and it is mandatory at all contests/regattas and even mandatory in some countries or clubs. Almost every glider in Australia has had one for more than a decade now. It's very entrenched.

 

When gliders are soaring we are looking for thermals, and when one glider finds a thermal the surrounding gliders will want to use the same thermal rather than trying to find their own and risking outlanding.

This naturally brings gliders together very frequently, and it is quite common to fly an entire flight in close proximity (<1km) from your friends. This is practiced and trained for and generally a non-issue because they are highly manouverable with good visibility, but very occasionally pilots get it wrong.

A naive collision detection system would alert non-stop in a situation with so many aircraft in close proximity. FLARM has patented a number of algorithms such that their collision detection system understands the movement of gliders in thermals such that it will only alarm when the pilots have missed each other and are actually likely to collide.

So I'm afraid we can't just get rid of FLARMs and change to ADS-B, as it simply won't function to help prevent collisions between gliders, of which the risk of collision is much much higher than to any other aircraft.
 

As for the frequency/SkyEcho, FLARM uses the 'ISM' band (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_radio_band), which is a general-purpose unlicensed radio band allocated by the ITU, unfortunately the ITU allocated a different frequency range in AU/US to Europe.

uAvionix will have to explain whether it's a legal issue or a hardware issue as to why the SkyEcho can't receive the ISM band in Australia (915Mhz). If that could be solved it would be great.

 

There is hope though, more modern FLARM's can have ADS-B IN, and we then see power aircraft with ADS-B OUT on our instruments.

Some pilots especially in busy areas are now fitting SkyEcho's to their gliders using the grant scheme, but they are unlikely to have alarms or displays showing power aircraft due to space and excessive alarming (from other glider) concerns. Glider cockpits are small and we can't just add another iPad.

A very few ultra-modern gliders have certified transponders with ADS-B OUT - until recently the power consumption of transponders/ADS-B was too high for gliders running off battery power only. Transponders are generally prohibitively expensive to retrofit relative to the cost of most gliders, even with the rebate. Most gliders are only worth ~20,000$.

 

On glider radios:

Gliders by and large have the exact same radios as RAAUS aircraft, there's no reason for them to be any better or worse. Often gliders flying with their friends in Class G airspace (where gliders largely operate) will be listening on one of the allocated gliding frequencies, so you may not be able to reach them on the area frequency.

Glider pilots have to hold a radio operator licence same as all pilots, and have to have biannual flight reviews where this should be checked. Of course there are still bad apples who don't do the right thing, but it's not as though glider pilots are unlicensed cowboys talking into tin cans.

 

Welcome to the forum Plantan,

 

From wikipedia: FLARM is proprietary electronic system used to selectively alert pilots to potential collisions between aircraft. It is not formally an implementation of ADS-B, as it is optimized for the specific needs of light aircraft, not for long-range communication or ATC interaction. FLARM is a portmanteau of "flight" and "alarm".

 

Certainly over the time, a number of tools, competition applications were developed based on data coming from GPS receiver built within FLARM devices, e.g. if a glider changes an altitude in short period of time, then it must be in thermal, etc.. and thats all fine.

 

However my problem is in word "proprietary", meaning only FLARM company has legal rights to communication protocol between devices, unless we pay for the licence. I am not interested whether glider is in thermals or whatever specific information is relevant to gliders, but I am interested in basic GPS data.

 

I don't think any of 10's of thousands of powered aircrafts both private and commercials, plus very soon a large number of UAV's, drones around the world will be installing FLARM devices to avoid gliders. 

 

Unfortunately, I have received an email confirmation that SkyEcho2 cannot receive Australian FLARM frequencies due to hardware limitations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bosi72]

6 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

"

As for the frequency/SkyEcho, FLARM uses the 'ISM' band (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_radio_band), which is a general-purpose unlicensed radio band allocated by the ITU, unfortunately the ITU allocated a different frequency range in AU/US to Europe.

uAvionix will have to explain whether it's a legal issue or a hardware issue as to why the SkyEcho can't receive the ISM band in Australia (915Mhz). If that could be solved it would be great."

 

It would be a hardware issue maybe thats why as soon as you select australia it will turn off the FLARM in the SE2

868mhz is not that far away from 915 but the antenna on the internal PCB is made for 868 so it would have a big mismatch

The RF chip nowdays will do the full frequency range but it would be the microstrip antenna 

 

Most likely a new antenna and it would work fine but Australia is a small market so it would require different hardware version

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

email from uavionix tech
***
Australia, US & Canada are using a transmission technique called "Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum" (FHSS).

 

In UK/EU FLARM is centred on 868.2 MHz and does not use FHSS. This means that the second SkyEcho receiver can be offset from its designed 978MHz to 868.2 MHz to enable UK FLARM reception instead of UAT. This is not feasible in Australia because of FHSS (the frequency is changing at a pseudo random rate) and SkyEcho is not capable of following it. We therefore cannot offer FLARM reception on the Australian frequencies.

***

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Thanks for that great info..so that confirms the RF chip can do the range but its the modulation technique that is the issue. Interesting that the UK is the odd man out now for this. I am not sure but wasnt FLARM first developed here but on a much lower UHF frequency?

 

 

 

[plantain]

FLARM was developed in Switzerland but saw early adoption in Australia, and we even had a local manufacturer produce them under licence.

To my knowledge, the frequencies have been ISM band since inception.

[Kyle Communications]

I think I may have found why I thought UHF  in the 400mhz band..I was told many years ago about it by a mate who was doing a lot of gliding back then and there was a early version in 2009 at least for OZFLARM and MINIOZ  it was based on FLARM but a different frequency and it must have just transitioned to the usual FLARM parameters

[Thruster88]

I feel RAAus is taking a correct and well articulated position in relation to fatal accident investigations.

 

MEMBER COMMUNIQUE

29 November 2022

Dear Members, It is important to share with you an update on RAAus’ recent decision to not investigate a fatal accident that occurred at Kybong in Queensland involving an RAAus registered aircraft and a VH- Registered Glider, resulting in the death of two Australians. In recent years, as a result of the ATSB choosing not to investigate sport aviation fatal accidents, RAAus has played a crucial role in formally supporting state police and Coroners, to assist them in understanding the circumstances around how/why an accident occurred. An artefact is that our participation has masked the fact that the ATSB have not been involved. Because of this our staff have endured WHS risk associated with deploying to accident sites, our reputation has at times been tainted due to our inability to share the reports we write as they ‘belong’ to the Coroner thus impeding the safety benefits for all aviators, and our members have funded a function that is not a core activity of RAAus. Moreover, this activity is one that is funded for other airspace users while our members are excluded from such safety dividends while contributing to the funding of the ATSB via the tax system. We have also been subjected to strong criticism due to the lack of independence in our findings despite us being faced with little alternative but to investigate our own. Nevertheless, we are proud of the significant work performed over the years to improve safety and provide some degree of closure for the loved ones of fatal accidents. During recent discussions with the ATSB Chief Commissioner we were informed that the decision as to whether or not to investigate lies within the ATSB prioritisation system. That is, where can they focus their efforts (and funding) for the ‘greatest public benefit’. For the recent accident at Kybong we contend that in applying their prioritisation system, the ATSB should have investigated this accident given the high airspace risk that is evident and that an investigation would yield significant benefits for ALL airspace users, not just sport aviation organisations. RAAus is strongly of the view that an independent understanding of the circumstances into this accident is essential and that the ATSB is best placed to do this. This is a view shared by many others in the industry. The ATSB enjoys a host of protections under the TSI Act 2003, whereas RAAus does not. It is for this reason and those mentioned above that we have made repeated (unsuccessful) representations to the ATSB Chief Commissioner and that we will once again be making representations to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to seek the appropriate level of funding for the ATSB. This would mean that RAAus members are afforded the same status that is given to other aviators and transport users in our community in recognition of the role we play in the sector and our position in the industry as Australia’s largest cohort of private aviators. The Board has therefore resolved that RAAus’ default position will be to not deploy staff/investigators to future fatal accidents, irrespective of ATSB’s position, to ensure we protect our people and the organisation. The CEO has been charged with making the assessment on our level of involvement which may still involve deployment however the role we would play will be significantly different from what we have done previously. We remain committed to supporting police, local authorities and Coroners wherever we can. There will be further work done on this matter including the continued seeking of legal advice. Should we shift our position in the future we will advise members accordingly. Michael Monck Chairman (for the board)

[turboplanner]

I agree with reason he gave; there is considerable risk at an accident scene.

RAA has always been between a rock and a hard place in terms of not being able to get access to the Police Brief and the Coroner wanting to know the cause of death and not the cause of accident which we need to learn to avoid making the same mistake. Having said that there are accidents  where some Coroners do go down the path of covering the cause of accident, and they are immensely useful to us.  Then there's the delay in getting the Coroners' decisions.

The TSI Act 2000 needs some scrutiny to see where there are opportunities which CAN be reported because things like forced landings runway excursions, airprox, etc do need to be circulated and which Mick Monck says he would like RA pilors to have the same status as other aviators, but the response to that is likely to be that RA operates as a Self Administering Organisation complying with a lower standard of safety than GA, so accident investigation should also be funded at a lower level.

[jackc]

Does the RAAus company structure allow this investigative procedure to be legally recognised?

[Blueadventures]

6 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

I feel RAAus is taking a correct and well articulated position in relation to fatal accident investigations.

 

MEMBER COMMUNIQUE

29 November 2022

Dear Members, It is important to share with you an update on RAAus’ recent decision to not investigate a fatal accident that occurred at Kybong in Queensland involving an RAAus registered aircraft and a VH- Registered Glider, resulting in the death of two Australians. In recent years, as a result of the ATSB choosing not to investigate sport aviation fatal accidents, RAAus has played a crucial role in formally supporting state police and Coroners, to assist them in understanding the circumstances around how/why an accident occurred. An artefact is that our participation has masked the fact that the ATSB have not been involved. Because of this our staff have endured WHS risk associated with deploying to accident sites, our reputation has at times been tainted due to our inability to share the reports we write as they ‘belong’ to the Coroner thus impeding the safety benefits for all aviators, and our members have funded a function that is not a core activity of RAAus. Moreover, this activity is one that is funded for other airspace users while our members are excluded from such safety dividends while contributing to the funding of the ATSB via the tax system. We have also been subjected to strong criticism due to the lack of independence in our findings despite us being faced with little alternative but to investigate our own. Nevertheless, we are proud of the significant work performed over the years to improve safety and provide some degree of closure for the loved ones of fatal accidents. During recent discussions with the ATSB Chief Commissioner we were informed that the decision as to whether or not to investigate lies within the ATSB prioritisation system. That is, where can they focus their efforts (and funding) for the ‘greatest public benefit’. For the recent accident at Kybong we contend that in applying their prioritisation system, the ATSB should have investigated this accident given the high airspace risk that is evident and that an investigation would yield significant benefits for ALL airspace users, not just sport aviation organisations. RAAus is strongly of the view that an independent understanding of the circumstances into this accident is essential and that the ATSB is best placed to do this. This is a view shared by many others in the industry. The ATSB enjoys a host of protections under the TSI Act 2003, whereas RAAus does not. It is for this reason and those mentioned above that we have made repeated (unsuccessful) representations to the ATSB Chief Commissioner and that we will once again be making representations to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to seek the appropriate level of funding for the ATSB. This would mean that RAAus members are afforded the same status that is given to other aviators and transport users in our community in recognition of the role we play in the sector and our position in the industry as Australia’s largest cohort of private aviators. The Board has therefore resolved that RAAus’ default position will be to not deploy staff/investigators to future fatal accidents, irrespective of ATSB’s position, to ensure we protect our people and the organisation. The CEO has been charged with making the assessment on our level of involvement which may still involve deployment however the role we would play will be significantly different from what we have done previously. We remain committed to supporting police, local authorities and Coroners wherever we can. There will be further work done on this matter including the continued seeking of legal advice. Should we shift our position in the future we will advise members accordingly. Michael Monck Chairman (for the board)

Agree and hope GFA is of similar view.

[jackc]

How qualified are RAAus investigators?

[Yenn]

I don’t know what the problems are but RAAus are not doing for safety by not investigating. CASA gave them the rights to organise recreational aviation, surely that includes safety.

[Garfly]

9 hours ago, jackc said:

How qualified are RAAus investigators?

They're plenty well qualified but not well supported by the establishment in the investigative role.

 

I'd have thought that most, if not all, lessons learned investigating an RAAus accident would be applicable to GA.  Furthermore, the Ballina airprox incident, alone, shows that all flying machines are inter-locking parts of the one sky-safety system. It's foolish to regard the RAAus sector as Sunday drivers who can be dismissed and set aside.

 

 

From the RAAus website:

• Who are RAAus Accident Consultants (ACs)?

  Accident Consultants (ACs) are typically RAAus employees who are requested to assist at accident sites.  ACs who are employees of RAAus are required to complete the ATSB Accident Investigation Training, or an equivalent course, to formalise their qualifications. RAAus is also supported by other subject matter experts and the ATSB.

   

  https://members.raa.asn.au/safety/fatal-accident-investigation-process/?

[jackc]

In that case RAAus have to be the principle investigators of an accident and they can nominate who they want to call in from the outside to help do the relevant investigation.  ATSB don’t want to run investigations?  That’s OK but it’s RAAus’s privilege IF they choose to have advice from an ATSB investigator to advise only, on an investigation?  My opinion only……. 

[Flying_higher]

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

I don’t know what the problems are but RAAus are not doing for safety by not investigating. CASA gave them the rights to organise recreational aviation, surely that includes safety.

I think you’ll find that their administration functions do not include accident investigation because this is the job of the ATSB. 
 

When ATSB cease an investigation of a VH registered aircraft you don’t see CASA doing it instead. 
 

There are significant legal pitfalls for anyone who tries to do ATSBs job. This is why ATSB have so many protections under the Act. 

[facthunter]

I think Mick Monk has put it very well. . That's 'something' from me. This one is an issue of responsibility AND support and indemnification. The administering body should be separate from the Investigatory arm  (as the CASA is in GA)  ATSB is INDEPENDANT and has to be seen to be so at all times.. IF RAAus accepts any sponsors then how can it investigate  without allegations of Bias?  Nev

[Dermot McD]

I've got both ADS-B (SE2) and FLARM installed. FLARM is far more useful.

 

As Plantain says, FLARM is an anti collision system with in-built functions to calculate the possibility of a collision. The basic display with tri-colour LEDS shows only direction and whether the contact aircraft is above, below or at your level. In comparison, something  like the SkyEcho only shows you roughly where the other aircraft was within a 5 minute window. Given the right glide computer, FLARM will voice announce a collision warning giving the pilot the bearing (as in 9 o'clock) the relative altitude and  distance, flash the computer display orange and display the aircraft on screen. It's well above the ADS-B in almost all regards.

 

FLARM has an installed database of over 15,000 users including rescue aircraft and the Battle of Britain flight aircraft. While it is not perfect, it is ideal where a number of aircraft are flying in close proximity like the Alps, where it was developed. So what's surprising in many ways is why we adopted ADS-B instead of FLARM.

 

I'm not so sure about RA pilots, but I know for sure that almost no glider pilot is as bad at radio calls as most GA pilots. Most radio calls from GA pilots will tell you their life story in terms of tracking, intentions, altitude etc. while clipping or garbling the most important words at the start - location - and omitting them altogether at the close of transmission.

 

That said, at the London Gliding Club, an Australian instructor was having a flight with a local instructor and asked whether he should make a radio call. The instructor replied that would be pointless since there were about 150 aircraft in the region and making a radio call would distract their attention from a proper lookout and make things more dangerous than less so. During a competition, it's common to have three or more gliders doing straight in landings in very close proximity at about the same time - that is with some lateral separation but little lateral separation - think Oshkosh x 4 on a narrower strip. A short radio call to say if they're landing short, long, left or right is about all that's said. So radio is an aid to situational awareness but only that.

 

Finally, most gliders are white because most are made from a low-temperature epoxy which will soften around 55-60º. Modern ones are PU painted but older ones use gelcoat. With a modern glider costing north of $400,000, people don't usually leave them outdoors if they can help it!

[Garfly]

42 minutes ago, Dermot McD said:

I've got both ADS-B (SE2) and FLARM installed. FLARM is far more useful. // ...

In comparison, something  like the SkyEcho only shows you roughly where the other aircraft was within a 5 minute window. 

This is not correct. SE2 will indicate exactly where other ADSB targets are relative to your own ship vertically and horizontally, and in real time. It will also show whether it is climbing, descending or level plus it's speed and direction.

You might be confusing it with a cell based system like FR24 (and even they do way better than a "5 minute window".

Edited December 6, 2022 by Garfly

[kgwilson]

There is definitely no latency with my SE2. I have had it operating with Enroute Flight Planning & watched ADSB out equipped GA aircraft land & takeoff at our aerodrome with the details showing on the screen within a second or 2.

[Dermot McD]

Quote

This is not correct. SE2 will indicate exactly where other ADSB targets are relative to your own ship vertically and horizontally, and in real time.

Yes, but the collision warning is done by you, slowly if you are tired and so far as I remember, with no audio or visible warning. FLARM does all the calculations internally, very quickly and with multiple threats with obvious spoken audio, beeps and visible flashes without you really needing to have your eyes in the cockpit. This is what makes it useful when gliding. 

 

Even when 'cruising' between thermals, a glider may make large deviations to avoid sink or look for the next lift source. This isn't something that you get much in powered aviation. FLARM copes with this well.

 

Quote

There is definitely no latency with my SE2.

Perhaps latency is the wrong word. On a recent trip flying in central QLD, the position of another aircraft was jumping all over the place on Ozrunways and sometimes appeared twice. This was probably due to the competing signals from ADS-B and OzRunways using the phone system.

 

The point remains though that while things like the SE2 are useful and probably as good as you'll get for GA use, they're not half as useful as FLARM as a collision avoidance system. 

 

Since FLARM can record a flight track, the data can and has been used to assess mid-airs and crashes which is really what this thread is about.

 

I'm actually not a huge FLARM fan or things like the SE2. They're OK tools but I find it baffling that regulators cannot get themselves together and include the superior functionalities of FLARM with ADS-B etc in one reasonably priced device.

[Bosi72]

Welcome to the forum Dermott McD, lots of stereotypes for your first post ever.  A number of people on this forum fly both powered and unpowered aircrafts, so comments about radio calls of one group vs another doesn't make sense.

 

Regardless, the fact is there are about 6% of gliders based on information from VH and RAA registers. Flying hours wise, the percentage is significantly less, therefore it is not realistic to expect that 94% of powered world would switch to FLARM.

 

I suggest that gliding community takes an opportunity to get government subsidised ADSB/out devices. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Garfly]

15 hours ago, Dermot McD said:

... the SkyEcho only shows you roughly where the other aircraft was within a 5 minute window.

 

15 hours ago, Garfly said:

This is not correct. SE2 will indicate exactly where other ADSB targets are relative to your own ship vertically and horizontally, and in real time. It will also show whether it is climbing, descending or level plus it's speed and direction.

 

54 minutes ago, Dermot McD said:

Yes, but the collision warning is done by you, slowly if you are tired and so far as I remember, with no audio or visible warning.

 

Yes, but ...

getting our facts straight on such matters is pretty desirable.  And falsely dissing the benefits of ADSB IN-OUT / SE2  is, to say the least, counter to current safety messaging.

 

In its report on the tragic collision of two light-twins over Mangalore in early 2020, The ATSB observed:

 

"Had each aircraft been fitted with ADS-B IN, and a suitable cockpit display, the occupants would have received the same quality of surveillance information received by the controller. This technology could have prevented this accident from occurring ... // The ATSB also notes that ADS‑B receivers, suitable for use on aircraft operating under both the instrument or visual flight rules, are currently available within Australia at low cost and can be used in aircraft without any additional regulatory approval or expense."

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-012

 

 

[Garfly]

By the way, when it comes to FLARM and ADSB (at least in the UK context)

it's not necessarily an either/or situation.

 

https://flyer.co.uk/flarm-and-uavionix-to-collaborate-on-electronic-conspicuity/