"I have flown with a FLARM in Australia and can see its benefits. Obviously, 2010 was a bad year with two mid-air collisions occurring during national contests. However, I remember a very near collision at the 2009 18 meter nationals, and we don't know how many more near misses occurred. I doubt that there is a contest pilot who hasn't been "surprised" by the close proximity of another sailplane at one time or another. It will continue to happen; that's the nature of our sport. FLARM will not eliminate mid-air collisions, but can be a valuable tool to minimize risk. I feel that we are at the point where we must bite-the-bullet and pay the price for an added level of safety. I would not want to be the persons who had to explain to some new widow that we had by-passed the technology which could have saved her husband."

 

"Excellent plan. There was a midair at the last two contests that I attended in 2010. I will probably not attend any more contests until FLARM becomes mandatory."

 

"The MIRA concept is excellent! I am usually against "mandates", but the MIRA idea makes too much sense. I am afraid I am too poor to buy a FLARM for the cause, but I can afford to rent one and to chip in for other competitors who can't."

 

"I am philosophically opposed to mandates.  However, after looking at the FLARM Fund website, I have to say that I think you have come up with a great idea."

 

"As a result of Chris's accident I changed my plans and did not register/attend the other contest I had been planning to go to this year. I have been seriously considering discontinuing my participation in contest flying. Thanks for doing something positive that will make me reconsider."

 

"I think the greatest risk in contest flying is collision. It is one risk that you can only partially control. Looking back on my contest flying I remember many close calls."

 

"I believe it should be mandatory. Radios are mandatory and they provide far fewer functions and less safety advantages than the PowerFLARM."

 

"Great idea and keeping the rental cost to $50.00 SHOULD make it affordable to all those that can't afford the new FLARM unit."

 

"Requiring all pilots in a US soaring contest, especially Nationals, is not an option. It is a must!"

 

"FLARM is the answer. And FLARM is designed for sailplane operations. The challenge is to get all sailplane pilots to get a FLARM. And your initiative is a good way to make that happen in contests anyway."

 

"Voluntary use of FLARM is pointless for obvious reasons. Pilots accept ELT's because they believe they might have a better chance of survival in the event of a crash, even though many, perhaps most, don't really believe it "could happen to me". A mid-air COULD happen to the best pilot in the world (it already has, pace Reichmann) so get on board all."

 

"While FLARM is clearly not a cure all for the midair problem, it can materially reduce the probability.  "

 

"I was planning to wait for hardware shake out, but the initiative/drive is necessary or adoption just will not happen. "

 

"To be honest I did not reply because I am seriously considering not flying in contests in the future. In part this is because of the mid airs this year. I was very concerned after the mid air at Parowan. Then, after the fatality at Uvalde, I found myself seriously considering if contest flying is worth the risk. Your stated odds on being involved in a mid air or being killed in one are, as you say, "not very good...". In fact, I was shocked that my odds of dying in one were 1 in 368. My goal in contest flying was always "to have fun"...since only in a rather non competitive regional did I ever have a chance of winning,  that usually was not on my mind. During my last two or three contests I have not had as much "fun" as I used to have...could be my age creeping up but, whatever the reasons, the fun factor has fallen significantly."

 

"Too many close calls and it just makes too much sense.  Collisions are tragic (and borderline inexcusable) when reliable and relatively affordable technology exists to all but eliminate a large amount of the clear risks."

 

 

Selected responses from a Tom Knauff newsletter:

 

"Being a European glider pilot with all gliders in my club equipped with Flarm as a safety measure, I can vouch for the added safety that the device offers.  I think I can say that Flarm has saved many lives by preventing mid-air collisions already during its existence. One thing that Flarm provides and that cannot be obtained by eye scans is information on the positions of gliders in the very large cone in space behind you.  Especially in high concentrations before the startline opens on competitions, but also en-route on busy legs in the task or along busy ridges, one really appreciates the feedback the device provides. Importantly: the feedback is by a sound warning and an easy to interpret direction indication by bright leds.  There is also an add-on 'Butterfly' display which needs a bit more in-the-cockpit attention that may be seen as a tool giving more awareness of the traffic around you, if properly used.

 

Here in Norway we had a collision at the Nationals. After that everybody must have it at Championships. The people that were against it are now silent and admits it is very good for safety. Now they also want it in motorplanes.

 

A collision between two aircraft in cruise is a constant bearing, diminishing range condition.  In other words, the other aircraft is stationary in your visual field and simply grows in size.  Our eye detects motion and an object that doesn’t appear to be in motion will usually be missed even by a careful scan.  The growth of the object in our visual field however is exponential.  The rate of growth isn’t detectable until the object is too close.

 

There was an excellent study done to determine why drivers rear end slowly moving vehicles on the freeway.  How could they miss a semi truck, going slowly, directly ahead of them?  It was found that the rapid closure wasn’t detectable until the driver was right on top of the slowly moving vehicle because the visual angle subtended by the truck grew slowly until the last moments when it grew really fast.  At that point in time frequently a driver would not be able to avoid it.

 

We all agree that pilots don’t look around properly or, for that matter, enough.  However, there are many blind spots and geometries where detecting another glider is unlikely.   To simply dismiss an important safety feature as a “gadget” is not the right answer.

 

In fact I see more sailplanes now than ever before. Remember the guys that has invented the device did it after loosing a friend in a midair.  But safety does not sell. Many people will not turn to Flarm before they have experienced a near miss or even worse."