PowerFlarm rentals

[Lee[_11_]]

Before everyone gets thier shorts in a knot, give peace a chance.
There WILL be a rental program for contest gliders. There are 4
months to get this up and active. Dale has elected to abdicate the
effort to MIRA but that does not mean that the rental effort is dead.
We are very busy with other priorities at this time.
Lee

[DaleKramer]

abdicate = Fail to fulfill or undertake (a responsibility or duty)

First of all there was no duty, on my part, involved in the formation
of the FLARM Fund other than to my stated goals.

Failure to fulfill the original stated MIRA goals of the FLARM Fund
was beyond my control.

The Rules Committee failed to undertake a duty and responsibility to
the contest pilots that elected them when they completely roadblocked
a specific MIRA direction presented to them by a large majority of
those contest pilots.

I suggest that MIRA was defeated, other people abdicated.

Dale Kramer

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 21, 6:26*am, DaleKramer > wrote:

> The Rules Committee failed to undertake a duty and responsibility to
> the contest pilots that elected them when they completely
> roadblocked a specific MIRA direction presented to them by a
> large majority of those contest pilots.

Interesting. How do you support your assertion regarding the "large
majority"?

Thanks, Bob K.

[DaleKramer]

68%, see FLARM Fund submission to Rules Committee:
http://www.FlarmFund.com/RC_Submission_1.pdf

Dale

[Mike Schumann]

On 11/21/2010 9:26 AM, DaleKramer wrote:
> abdicate = Fail to fulfill or undertake (a responsibility or duty)
>
> First of all there was no duty, on my part, involved in the formation
> of the FLARM Fund other than to my stated goals.
>
> Failure to fulfill the original stated MIRA goals of the FLARM Fund
> was beyond my control.
>
> The Rules Committee failed to undertake a duty and responsibility to
> the contest pilots that elected them when they completely roadblocked
> a specific MIRA direction presented to them by a large majority of
> those contest pilots.
>
> I suggest that MIRA was defeated, other people abdicated.
>
> Dale Kramer

The rules committee had the "duty" to mandate the use of equipment that
is not yet in production and has not yet been approved by the FCC for
use in this country??????

--
Mike Schumann

[brianDG303[_2_]]

>
> The rules committee had the "duty" to mandate the use of equipment that
> is not yet in production and has not yet been approved by the FCC for
> use in this country??????
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Mike,
you are misstating the facts and the question. I think your question
should have been:

" The rules committee had the "duty" to mandate the use of equipment
if available?????? "

I don't see the problem myself.

[Mike Schumann]

On 11/21/2010 11:20 AM, brianDG303 wrote:
>
>>
>> The rules committee had the "duty" to mandate the use of equipment that
>> is not yet in production and has not yet been approved by the FCC for
>> use in this country??????
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> Mike,
> you are misstating the facts and the question. I think your question
> should have been:
>
> " The rules committee had the "duty" to mandate the use of equipment
> if available?????? "
>
> I don't see the problem myself.

Since when does the rules committee have the "duty" to mandate anything,
just because a group of people suggest that they do????

--
Mike Schumann

[brianDG303[_2_]]

On Nov 21, 8:30*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 11:20 AM, brianDG303 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The rules committee had the "duty" to mandate the use of equipment that
> >> is not yet in production and has not yet been approved by the FCC for
> >> use in this country??????
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> > Mike,
> > you are misstating the facts and the question. I think your question
> > should have been:
>
> > " The rules committee had the "duty" to mandate the use of equipment
> > if available?????? "
>
> > I don't see the problem myself.
>
> Since when does the rules committee have the "duty" to mandate anything,
> just because a group of people suggest that they do????
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

When people die at an unacceptable rate?

[Mike the Strike]

On Nov 21, 8:33*am, brianDG303 > wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:30*am, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11/21/2010 11:20 AM, brianDG303 wrote:
>
> > >> The rules committee had the "duty" to mandate the use of equipment that
> > >> is not yet in production and has not yet been approved by the FCC for
> > >> use in this country??????
>
> > >> --
> > >> Mike Schumann
>
> > > Mike,
> > > you are misstating the facts and the question. I think your question
> > > should have been:
>
> > > " The rules committee had the "duty" to mandate the use of equipment
> > > if available?????? "
>
> > > I don't see the problem myself.
> MID-AIR COLLISIONS
> > Since when does the rules committee have the "duty" to mandate anything,
> > just because a group of people suggest that they do????
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> When people die at an unacceptable rate?

Mid-air collisions involving gliders comprise about 2% of accidents,
although they are more likely to involve a fatality. While higher
than we'd all like, the rate of mid-airs isn't all that high, IMHO.

I estimate that the US glider community is probably going to spend
something in excess of $3 million installing anti-collision warning
devices in the next year or two. If this saves one fatality per year,
this is probably a reasonable return on investment, although I am
lukewarm on mandating adoption of equipment. If it makes economic
sense, pilots will do it anyway. If they perceive the risk of a mid-
air to be higher than it really is, then perhaps you'll get pretty
widespread adoption.

However, there are other things we can do that cost very little,
including setting contest tasks that minimize head-on traffic at
turnpoints - a major contributory factor in one recent fatality.

I also sincerely hope that our focus on mid-airs isn't diverting too
much energy away from other safety issues.

Mike

[brianDG303[_2_]]

>
> > When people die at an unacceptable rate?
>
> Mid-air collisions involving gliders comprise about 2% of accidents,
> although they are more likely to involve a fatality. *While higher
> than we'd all like, the rate of mid-airs isn't all that high, IMHO.
>
> I estimate that the US glider community is probably going to spend
> something in excess of $3 million installing anti-collision warning
> devices in the next year or two. *If this saves one fatality per year,
> this is probably a reasonable return on investment, although I am
> lukewarm on mandating adoption of equipment. *If it makes economic
> sense, pilots will do it anyway. *If they perceive the risk of a mid-
> air to be higher than it really is, then perhaps you'll get pretty
> widespread adoption.
>
> However, there are other things we can do that cost very little,
> including setting contest tasks that minimize head-on traffic at
> turnpoints - a major contributory factor in one recent fatality.
>
> I also sincerely hope that our focus on mid-airs isn't diverting too
> much energy away from other safety issues.
>
> Mike

Not sure that overall soaring statistics are as useful as just looking
at contest stats, which are more grim. A lot more grim.

Otherwise couldn't agree more.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 11/21/2010 9:50 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:33 am, > wrote:
>
>>
>>> When people die at an unacceptable rate?
>>
>> Mid-air collisions involving gliders comprise about 2% of accidents,
>> although they are more likely to involve a fatality. While higher
>> than we'd all like, the rate of mid-airs isn't all that high, IMHO.
>>
>> I estimate that the US glider community is probably going to spend
>> something in excess of $3 million installing anti-collision warning
>> devices in the next year or two. If this saves one fatality per year,
>> this is probably a reasonable return on investment, although I am
>> lukewarm on mandating adoption of equipment. If it makes economic
>> sense, pilots will do it anyway. If they perceive the risk of a mid-
>> air to be higher than it really is, then perhaps you'll get pretty
>> widespread adoption.

I think "economic sense" doesn't apply very well to PowerFlarm and
contests. It makes no economic sense to one pilot; but far more economic
sense to the 40th pilot. Thus, the usefulness of a mandate; however, the
RC has chosen not to do that, and is relying on a sufficient number of
early adopters and peer pressure (including the rental system) to likely
achieve close to the same result. I think it's a good approach to a
product that is new, and a technology that is new to our contests and
most of our pilots.

There is another factor: unlike a parachute, which protects only the
owner, PowerFlarm also protects people besides the owner, so the
"economic factor" is effectively higher for the group, but not for the
individual that has to purchase one. Again, a situation where a mandate
makes sense.

Since we already mandate a parachute which protects just the owner, I
don't have any problem with mandating a device that costs the same, but
protects the owner AND other pilots.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Wayne Paul]

Do you people realize that this continuous venomous conversation has long passed the phase of being constructive? In fact it is getting to the point that it is actually impeding instead of fostering the acceptance of the PowerFLARM.

Respectfully, an old guy who flies homebuilt gliders.

Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


"brianDG303" > wrote in message ...

>
> > When people die at an unacceptable rate?
>
> Mid-air collisions involving gliders comprise about 2% of accidents,
> although they are more likely to involve a fatality. While higher
> than we'd all like, the rate of mid-airs isn't all that high, IMHO.
>
> I estimate that the US glider community is probably going to spend
> something in excess of $3 million installing anti-collision warning
> devices in the next year or two. If this saves one fatality per year,
> this is probably a reasonable return on investment, although I am
> lukewarm on mandating adoption of equipment. If it makes economic
> sense, pilots will do it anyway. If they perceive the risk of a mid-
> air to be higher than it really is, then perhaps you'll get pretty
> widespread adoption.
>
> However, there are other things we can do that cost very little,
> including setting contest tasks that minimize head-on traffic at
> turnpoints - a major contributory factor in one recent fatality.
>
> I also sincerely hope that our focus on mid-airs isn't diverting too
> much energy away from other safety issues.
>
> Mike

Not sure that overall soaring statistics are as useful as just looking
at contest stats, which are more grim. A lot more grim.

Otherwise couldn't agree more.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote

> Do you people realize that this continuous venomous conversation has long
> passed the phase of being constructive? In fact it is getting to the
> point that it is actually impeding instead of fostering the acceptance of
> the PowerFLARM.

I have to agree. I now skip most threads with flarm involved.
--
Jim in NC

[Bruce Hoult]

On Nov 22, 6:50*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> I estimate that the US glider community is probably going to spend
> something in excess of $3 million installing anti-collision warning
> devices in the next year or two. *If this saves one fatality per year,
> this is probably a reasonable return on investment

$3m to save one life would be a little high by the standards of those
who decide where to spend money on road safety improvements etc
(though it's incredibly low compared to, say, mandatory swimming pool
fencing).

But bear in mind that the $3m is a one-off, but the safety extends for
many years. I would think a unit could be reasonably expected to work
for 10 - 15 years, so it's $200k to $300k per life saved.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 21, 4:20*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> I would think a unit could be reasonably expected to work
> for 10 - 15 years, so it's $200k to $300k per life saved.

If the economics are so compelling, the insurance companies ought to
be the ones pushing for it. What says Costello?

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 11/21/2010 4:47 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Nov 21, 4:20 pm, Bruce > wrote:
>> I would think a unit could be reasonably expected to work
>> for 10 - 15 years, so it's $200k to $300k per life saved.
>
> If the economics are so compelling, the insurance companies ought to
> be the ones pushing for it. What says Costello?

I'd like to hear an insurance company comment on it, but I suspect an
insurance company may not benefit from something like Flarm. One simple
case: all pilots equip with Flarm, company A's insurance payouts go
down, their competitors offer policies at lower premiums that company A
has to match to keep the customers, and ta-da! their profits are back to
pre-Flarm levels. So, no financial benefit to the insurance company.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Brad[_2_]]

On Nov 21, 7:57*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 4:47 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 4:20 pm, Bruce > *wrote:
> >> I would think a unit could be reasonably expected to work
> >> for 10 - 15 years, so it's $200k to $300k per life saved.
>
> > If the economics are so compelling, the insurance companies ought to
> > be the ones pushing for it. What says Costello?
>
> I'd like to hear an insurance company comment on it, but I suspect an
> insurance company may not benefit from something like Flarm. One simple
> case: all pilots equip with Flarm, company A's insurance payouts go
> down, their competitors offer policies at lower premiums that company A
> has to match to keep the customers, and ta-da! their profits are back to
> pre-Flarm levels. So, no financial benefit to the insurance company.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

that, Eric............in a nutshell is why insurance company are
bloodsucking parasites.

Brad

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 11/21/2010 8:56 PM, Brad wrote:
> On Nov 21, 7:57 pm, Eric > wrote:

>>
>>> If the economics are so compelling, the insurance companies ought to
>>> be the ones pushing for it. What says Costello?
>>
>> I'd like to hear an insurance company comment on it, but I suspect an
>> insurance company may not benefit from something like Flarm. One simple
>> case: all pilots equip with Flarm, company A's insurance payouts go
>> down, their competitors offer policies at lower premiums that company A
>> has to match to keep the customers, and ta-da! their profits are back to
>> pre-Flarm levels. So, no financial benefit to the insurance company.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>> email me)
>> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
>
> that, Eric............in a nutshell is why insurance company are
> bloodsucking parasites.

That's way too harsh - Costello has served us well for decades; besides,
I didn't say or imply they wouldn't or didn't want to do something like
that, only suggesting a reason why the economics might not be compelling
to them. I believe they are concerned about our safety.

It's not like smoking, where policy holders that didn't smoke did reduce
the companies payouts, so it was worth enticing those individuals with
reduced premiums. One pilot buying a Flarm, or using it in low risk
areas won't affect his risk, and the very small numbers of pilots and
fatalities (compared to smoking) make it an actuarial nightmare. The
economics are not their fault.

But, if we do reduce the collisions and fatalities with Flarm or other
methods, it should make future premiums lower than they otherwise would
be. But that's really a small part of the benefit of reduced collisions,
given the current low cost of liability insurance. It's the "staying
alive" thing that is our payoff, personally and for the sport.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[[email protected]]

On Nov 21, 7:47*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Nov 21, 4:20*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
> > I would think a unit could be reasonably expected to work
> > for 10 - 15 years, so it's $200k to $300k per life saved.
>
> If the economics are so compelling, the insurance companies ought to
> be the ones pushing for it. What says Costello?

This is response by Costello to Phil Umphries on this question.
FYI - UH

FM: COSTELLO INSURANCE

TO: SSA

ATTN: PHIL UMPHRES, SSA CHAIRMAN

CC: DAVID VOLKMANN, SSA INSURANCE SPECIALISTS
Hi!

Our office sometimes audits the various blogs pertaining to Soaring.
It helps us stay abreast of our clients’ needs. Recently, we noticed
comments pertaining to the use of FLARM to enhance mid air collision
avoidance. Some of the threads suggest the insurance company for the
SSA’s insurance plan be asked to offer premium credits to those who
purchase collision avoidance equipment. Also, this date I have
received an email request from the U S distributor for FLARM to
solicit the company for credits. I’m contacting you to let you know
I’ve already had discussions with the company in anticipation of this
very request.

The company believes:

Anything to enhance collision avoidance is great.
However, loss statistics for the SSA Group Insurance Program indicates
mid airs, though sometimes tragic, are truly infrequent and thus
inconsequential to the insurance carrier from a claim payment point of
view. They would have no reason to offer a credit as they don’t
consider it a significant loss payment problem.
The SSA’s insurance administrator has already negotiated premium
credits for being claims free that top out at a significant 25%. SSA
members employing whatever they can to remain claims free are already
enjoying these credits.

In short, the positives and negatives of FLARM aside, the insurance
company will not underwrite a glider owner’s purchase of FLARM or any
other collision avoidance device with premium discounts beyond what
they are already providing.

Here are some stats.

2010 2 mid airs thus far.

In 2008 1 mid air claim.

In 2007 1 mid air claim.

In 2006 1 mid air claim.

In 2005 no mid air claims.

The program did not have the mid air involving Mr. O’Callaghan.

Historically, mid airs represent less than 1% of the program’s
claims.

If you are approached this information should assist you in explaining
why the insurance company will not offer additional credits for the
installation of FLARM.

Best regards,

Pat

Pat Costello

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

And contest pilots should beware doing any complaining about
insurance. Someday the insurers might get the bright idea of
separately tabulating off field landing damage in contests. When
you're getting a great deal, it's good to stay quiet.

John Cochrane

[Juanman]

Using mid-air statistics is only one way of looking at the usefulness
of PowerFLARM. How many of us have had near misses with gliders, GA
aircraft and airliners that scare the hell out of us? If PowerFLARM
will help us avoid any one of those it will be very welcome.

Juan





On Nov 21, 12:50*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:33*am, brianDG303 > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 8:30*am, Mike Schumann >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 11/21/2010 11:20 AM, brianDG303 wrote:
>
> > > >> The rules committee had the "duty" to mandate the use of equipment that
> > > >> is not yet in production and has not yet been approved by the FCC for
> > > >> use in this country??????
>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Mike Schumann
>
> > > > Mike,
> > > > you are misstating the facts and the question. I think your question
> > > > should have been:
>
> > > > " The rules committee had the "duty" to mandate the use of equipment
> > > > if available?????? "
>
> > > > I don't see the problem myself.
> > MID-AIR COLLISIONS
> > > Since when does the rules committee have the "duty" to mandate anything,
> > > just because a group of people suggest that they do????
>
> > > --
> > > Mike Schumann
>
> > When people die at an unacceptable rate?
>
> Mid-air collisions involving gliders comprise about 2% of accidents,
> although they are more likely to involve a fatality. *While higher
> than we'd all like, the rate of mid-airs isn't all that high, IMHO.
>
> I estimate that the US glider community is probably going to spend
> something in excess of $3 million installing anti-collision warning
> devices in the next year or two. *If this saves one fatality per year,
> this is probably a reasonable return on investment, although I am
> lukewarm on mandating adoption of equipment. *If it makes economic
> sense, pilots will do it anyway. *If they perceive the risk of a mid-
> air to be higher than it really is, then perhaps you'll get pretty
> widespread adoption.
>
> However, there are other things we can do that cost very little,
> including setting contest tasks that minimize head-on traffic at
> turnpoints - a major contributory factor in one recent fatality.
>
> I also sincerely hope that our focus on mid-airs isn't diverting too
> much energy away from other safety issues.
>
> Mike