Pilots with weakening vision - please install Powerflarm

[son_of_flubber]

I understand that you want to fly for a few more years.

Please install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can turn the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.

[Vaughn]

On 7/6/2013 1:48 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I understand that you want to fly for a few more years.
>
> Please install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can turn the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.
>
>
>
Some of you might also want to consider eye surgery. If nothing else,
do it for the sake of your fellow aviators. A while back my vision
deteriorated to something slightly better than 20/40. (Still FAA legal!)
At that point, I typically couldn't see other planes in the pattern,
and reluctantly came to the conclusion that I wouldn't want to share the
air with somebody in my condition, so therefore I shouldn't be there.
So I got surgery, even though the doctors had called my condition
"marginal".

The difference after cataract surgery was literally night and day!

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 4:43:42 PM UTC-4, Vaughn wrote:

> Some of you might also want to consider eye surgery. If nothing else,
>
> do it for the sake of your fellow aviators. A while back my vision
>
> deteriorated to something slightly better than 20/40. (Still FAA legal!)

> The difference after cataract surgery was literally night and day!

Thank you. Thank you very much.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 9:48:32 AM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I understand that you want to fly for a few more years. Please install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can turn the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.

I'm old and I got me one of those flarm things. I just can't figure out the circles and pointy things. Perhaps you could teach us old guys how this new fangled stuff works. You seem really smart.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 1:48:32 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I understand that you want to fly for a few more years.
>
>
>
> Please install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can turn the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.

I got Flarm and had my eyes done, they both cost about the same.
Glen

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 6:48:32 PM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I understand that you want to fly for a few more years.
>
>
>
> Please install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can turn the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.

What is Powerflarm abd how is it different to regular old flarm? What advantages does it give me?

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

At 12:35 09 July 2013, wrote:
>On Saturday, July 6, 2013 6:48:32 PM UTC+1, son_of_flubber
wrote:
>> I understand that you want to fly for a few more years.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You
can turn
>the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.
>
>What is Powerflarm abd how is it different to regular old flarm?
What
>advantages does it give me?
>

Depends on which country you are in. In USA, it's PF or nothing.

Chris N

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

PowerFLARM includes:
- FLARM transmitter and receiver
- ADS-B receiver (to see ADS-B equipped aircraft)
- Mode C/S transponder receiver (To see all Mode C and Mode S transponder
equipped aircraft) (non-directional)

You can see details here:
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/flarm.htm

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
______________________________________

wrote in message
...

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 6:48:32 PM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I understand that you want to fly for a few more years.
>
>
>
> Please install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can turn
> the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.

What is Powerflarm abd how is it different to regular old flarm? What
advantages does it give me?

[GC[_2_]]

On 9/07/2013 23:44, Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PowerFLARM includes:
> - FLARM transmitter and receiver
> - ADS-B receiver (to see ADS-B equipped aircraft)
> - Mode C/S transponder receiver (To see all Mode C and Mode S
> transponder equipped aircraft) (non-directional)
>
> You can see details here:
> http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/flarm.htm

Not with my poor vision! You'll have to shout louder.
GC

[GC[_2_]]

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 6:48:32 PM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:

>> I understand that you want to fly for a few more years.

>> Please install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can
>> turn the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.

I understand that you're more scared of dying than I am. I don't have
Flarm so keep a really good lookout.

In all age rugby, players over a certain age have patches on their
shorts so the 80-year-olds don't get tackled as hard. In the same
spirit, I've painted a small pirate-style eye patch below my cockpit to
give you fair warning. Watch out for it!

GC

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:20:38 AM UTC-5, GC wrote:
> On Saturday, July 6, 2013 6:48:32 PM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I understand that you want to fly for a few more years.
>
>
>
> >> Please install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can
>
> >> turn the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.
>
>
>
> I understand that you're more scared of dying than I am. I don't have
>
> Flarm so keep a really good lookout.
>
>
>
> In all age rugby, players over a certain age have patches on their
>
> shorts so the 80-year-olds don't get tackled as hard. In the same
>
> spirit, I've painted a small pirate-style eye patch below my cockpit to
>
> give you fair warning. Watch out for it!
>
>
>
> GC

That's really funny GC - until you are being warned by PFlarm of a target heading right at you that you had no idea was there. Your lookout is just not good enough and at your age (I honestly have no idea) you probably cannot turn your head far enough to see what's going on behind you.
I'm also really weary of people not afraid of dying...
Herb

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:00:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:20:38 AM UTC-5, GC wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, July 6, 2013 6:48:32 PM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >> I understand that you want to fly for a few more years.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >> Please install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can
>
> >
>
> > >> turn the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I understand that you're more scared of dying than I am. I don't have
>
> >
>
> > Flarm so keep a really good lookout.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In all age rugby, players over a certain age have patches on their
>
> >
>
> > shorts so the 80-year-olds don't get tackled as hard. In the same
>
> >
>
> > spirit, I've painted a small pirate-style eye patch below my cockpit to
>
> >
>
> > give you fair warning. Watch out for it!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > GC
>
>
>
> That's really funny GC - until you are being warned by PFlarm of a target heading right at you that you had no idea was there. Your lookout is just not good enough and at your age (I honestly have no idea) you probably cannot turn your head far enough to see what's going on behind you.
>
> I'm also really weary of people not afraid of dying...
>
> Herb

Funny though, the risk averse society we have become.

Your risk of dying in a car accident on the drive to the airport is far greater than a glider-glider midair, and yes, you can do something about it: It has been proven that you are far more likely to survive an automobile accident wearing a crash helmet. And given that your hours of exposure in a car are many times greater than in a glider, wearing a crash helmet anytime you drive would have an even greater effect on your life expectancy.

And so my question is, how many PowerFlarm users bought a crash helmet for the car first? It is more effective and at the same time much cheaper and easier to use.

[Dan Marotta]

I think he should take up skate boarding with those young whipper-snappers,
get a few more body piercings and tattoos, and leave us old farts alone with
our old-fashioned airplanes without engines.


> wrote in message
...
> On Saturday, July 6, 2013 9:48:32 AM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
>> I understand that you want to fly for a few more years. Please install
>> Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can turn the volume down.
>> You don't have to learn how to use it.
>
> I'm old and I got me one of those flarm things. I just can't figure out
> the circles and pointy things. Perhaps you could teach us old guys how
> this new fangled stuff works. You seem really smart.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

PowerFlarm saved us from a probable fatal midair at Hobbs.

Thanks to everyone who has equipped their gliders with flarm.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 11:43:37 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I think he should take up skate boarding with those young whipper-snappers,
> get a few more body piercings and tattoos, and leave us old farts alone with
> our old-fashioned airplanes without engines.

I meant no disrespect when I tried to raise this issue with humor.

My smart-ass remark was prompted by a gentleman who is in need of cataract surgery and who has on two occasions flown across my bow while I was circling in a thermal. Yes, I saw him coming. He should have seen me.

If you want to take this seriously, you could encourage your pals to get their eyes fixed. It's a simple procedure and it works. There are a number of people flying who could have their vision improved.

I'm not afraid of dying, but I would like the chance to enjoy our sport for a few more years, and I don't want to be grounded prematurely by an avoidable accident.

[GC[_2_]]

On 10/07/2013 01:00, wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:20:38 AM UTC-5, GC wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 6, 2013 6:48:32 PM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:
>>
>>>> I understand that you want to fly for a few more years. Please
>>>> install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can
>>>> turn the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.

>>
>> I understand that you're more scared of dying than I am. I don't
>> have Flarm so keep a really good lookout.
>>
>> In all age rugby, players over a certain age have patches on their
>> shorts so the 80-year-olds don't get tackled as hard. In the same
>> spirit, I've painted a small pirate-style eye patch below my
>> cockpit to give you fair warning. Watch out for it! GC

>
> That's really funny GC - until you are being warned by PFlarm of a
> target heading right at you that you had no idea was there. Your
> lookout is just not good enough and at your age (I honestly have no
> idea) you probably cannot turn your head far enough to see what's
> going on behind you. I'm also really weary of people not afraid of
> dying... Herb

You'll just have to toughen up, Herb ...or get a sense of humour.

If O'flubber (and you) intended it seriously, he needs to be called on
it's stupidity and arrogance and if it wasn't, I've just extended the
joke. Whichever way you like.

GC

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:06:07 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> PowerFlarm saved us from a probable fatal midair at Hobbs.
>
>
>
> Thanks to everyone who has equipped their gliders with flarm.
>
>
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

In the last 20 years, there have been 2 fatalities reported to the NTSB in glider-to-glider collisions. One in competition, the other not (ridge flying). Most of this period is without the benefit of Flarm. In both cases had both gliders been Flarm equipped the accident probably would have been avoided. Nevertheless, it remains statistically a very rare event. If safety is your concern there is more fertile ground to plow.

Disclaimer: my glider is PFlarm equipped and I have 20/15 vision in both eyes.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 1:28:13 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:06:07 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > PowerFlarm saved us from a probable fatal midair at Hobbs.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks to everyone who has equipped their gliders with flarm.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>
> In the last 20 years, there have been 2 fatalities reported to the NTSB in glider-to-glider collisions. One in competition, the other not (ridge flying). Most of this period is without the benefit of Flarm. In both cases had both gliders been Flarm equipped the accident probably would have been avoided. Nevertheless, it remains statistically a very rare event. If safety is your concern there is more fertile ground to plow.
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: my glider is PFlarm equipped and I have 20/15 vision in both eyes.

Cast your excellent vision on this sometime, please. It's 20 years old, unfortunately still very relevant. Bruno speaks for me on the comparison of auto and glider safety.

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html

FWIW, I agree (it's obvious to anyone that takes the time to look) that mid air risk is second order to launch phase, landing phase and terrain collision accidents.

Different types of risk respond to different risk management approaches and what works (training, judgement) for these other types of accidents just doesn't work as well for mid air avoidance. It's a sensory limitation. We don't have 4pi steradian vision and we aren't very good at picking up targets that are on a direct collision course. Happily, flarm does these things pretty well. Good on you for installing flarm.

regards,
Evan

[Brad[_2_]]

My PF cost about as much as my AR-15, a dozen PMAGS and a locker of ammo.........I feel REALLY safe now.

Brad

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 11:27:09 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 1:28:13 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:06:07 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > PowerFlarm saved us from a probable fatal midair at Hobbs.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Thanks to everyone who has equipped their gliders with flarm.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In the last 20 years, there have been 2 fatalities reported to the NTSB in glider-to-glider collisions. One in competition, the other not (ridge flying). Most of this period is without the benefit of Flarm. In both cases had both gliders been Flarm equipped the accident probably would have been avoided. Nevertheless, it remains statistically a very rare event. If safety is your concern there is more fertile ground to plow.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Disclaimer: my glider is PFlarm equipped and I have 20/15 vision in both eyes.
>
>
>
> Cast your excellent vision on this sometime, please. It's 20 years old, unfortunately still very relevant. Bruno speaks for me on the comparison of auto and glider safety.
>
>
>
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html
>
>
>
> FWIW, I agree (it's obvious to anyone that takes the time to look) that mid air risk is second order to launch phase, landing phase and terrain collision accidents.
>
>
>
> Different types of risk respond to different risk management approaches and what works (training, judgement) for these other types of accidents just doesn't work as well for mid air avoidance. It's a sensory limitation. We don't have 4pi steradian vision and we aren't very good at picking up targets that are on a direct collision course. Happily, flarm does these things pretty well. Good on you for installing flarm.
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> Evan

That is an interesting article, but only tangentially on point.

Soaring is (compared to automobile travel) statistically dangerous. Glider-to-glider mid air collisions are a negligible part of that danger. Concentrating on them distracts from the much larger dangers. However, your point about mid air collisions being intractable to training is valid. Here is a risk that - with the mere expenditure of $2000 by every glider owner - can be largely eliminated. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you are much safer as a result.

Look at the numbers. I believe we have around 10 - 15 fatalities a year in the US in soaring. Let me pick 12 as a average for the sake of discussion. That means that in 20 years, of 240 people that died, just 2 are from glider-to-glider mid air collisions. Eliminating those you still have 238 fatalities. You are reducing your risk by less than 1%. Now I am aware that a particular misfortune that befalls me is not made more bearable by its statistic rarity. Nevertheless, those are the numbers.

I installed the PFlarm mainly for two reasons: peer pressure and as an in-flight entertainment system. Safety concerns were a distant third. I will though, turn hard right if I see you coming on my entertainment system!

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:09:34 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:

> Look at the numbers. I believe we have around 10 - 15 fatalities a year in the US in soaring. Let me pick 12 as a average for the sake of discussion.. That means that in 20 years, of 240 people that died, just 2 are from glider-to-glider mid air collisions. Eliminating those you still have 238 fatalities. You are reducing your risk by less than 1%.

The past 20 years are not a terribly good predictor of the next 5 years when you consider that a number of pilots are now seeing their vision deteriorate due to age. It happens gradually so the change sneaks up on you.

Take a minute to reread Vaughn's post which is very much to the point:

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 4:43:42 PM UTC-4, Vaughn wrote:
> Some of you might also want to consider eye surgery. If nothing else,
> do it for the sake of your fellow aviators. A while back my vision
> deteriorated to something slightly better than 20/40. (Still FAA legal!)
>
> At that point, I typically couldn't see other planes in the pattern,
> and reluctantly came to the conclusion that I wouldn't want to share the
> air with somebody in my condition, so therefore I shouldn't be there.
> So I got surgery, even though the doctors had called my condition
> "marginal".
>
> The difference after cataract surgery was literally night and day!

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 2:46:41 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:09:34 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
>
>
>
> > Look at the numbers. I believe we have around 10 - 15 fatalities a year in the US in soaring. Let me pick 12 as a average for the sake of discussion. That means that in 20 years, of 240 people that died, just 2 are from glider-to-glider mid air collisions. Eliminating those you still have 238 fatalities. You are reducing your risk by less than 1%.
>
>
>
> The past 20 years are not a terribly good predictor of the next 5 years when you consider that a number of pilots are now seeing their vision deteriorate due to age. It happens gradually so the change sneaks up on you.
>
>
>
> Take a minute to reread Vaughn's post which is very much to the point:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 6, 2013 4:43:42 PM UTC-4, Vaughn wrote:
>
> > Some of you might also want to consider eye surgery. If nothing else,
>
> > do it for the sake of your fellow aviators. A while back my vision
>
> > deteriorated to something slightly better than 20/40. (Still FAA legal!)
>
> >
>
> > At that point, I typically couldn't see other planes in the pattern,
>
> > and reluctantly came to the conclusion that I wouldn't want to share the
>
> > air with somebody in my condition, so therefore I shouldn't be there.
>
> > So I got surgery, even though the doctors had called my condition
>
> > "marginal".
>
> >
>
> > The difference after cataract surgery was literally night and day!

Well, A: I don't believe the demographics of glider pilots has changed much in 20 years. But please find some statistics on that, I'm interested.

B: from the descriptions of the only 2 fatalities in the NTSB database, better (or worse) eyesight would have made no difference in the outcome (though Flarm probably would).

I'm not trying to be dismissive or flippant about this issue, but I think there is a sort of hysteria about mid air collisions brought on by the sudden appearance of an elegant technical solution to what is really quite a small problem. Now everyone must have it, with a growing body who advocate legal requirement. In fact, there is every reason to believe that a stall warning buzzer would save many more glider pilots. This is old technology yet not installed in any glider that I am aware of. I do not advocate them - you really ought to just learn to fly the damn glider - but at the same time many of us are standing in a forest fretting over a particularly small tree.

By all means get a Flarm. But don't then say, "There! I fixed the glider safety problem." You are statistically just about as likely to die in a glider with it, as without it. The likelihood of dying due to being hit mid air by an aging glider pilot strictly because of his deteriorating vision is about the same as hitting the Powerball jackpot.

[[email protected]]

Finally, a rational voice in the internet wilderness.
Statistically, midair collisions in non-contest situations are so small, especially as compared to approach to landing and scratching for lift stall/spins that the attention and money being directed to this technology is crazy. To my knowledge, the leading cause of pilot deaths is stall/spins in the landing phase of flight. The recent situation at SFO is different?

THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY AND EFFORT SHOULD GO.

Flame me.

Guy Acheson "DDS"

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

jfitch wrote, On 7/9/2013 4:24 PM:

>
> Well, A: I don't believe the demographics of glider pilots has
> changed much in 20 years. But please find some statistics on that,
> I'm interested.
>
> B: from the descriptions of the only 2 fatalities in the NTSB
> database, better (or worse) eyesight would have made no difference in
> the outcome (though Flarm probably would).
>
> I'm not trying to be dismissive or flippant about this issue, but I
> think there is a sort of hysteria about mid air collisions brought on
> by the sudden appearance of an elegant technical solution to what is
> really quite a small problem. Now everyone must have it, with a
> growing body who advocate legal requirement. In fact, there is every
> reason to believe that a stall warning buzzer would save many more
> glider pilots. This is old technology yet not installed in any glider
> that I am aware of. I do not advocate them - you really ought to just
> learn to fly the damn glider - but at the same time many of us are
> standing in a forest fretting over a particularly small tree.
>
> By all means get a Flarm. But don't then say, "There! I fixed the
> glider safety problem." You are statistically just about as likely to
> die in a glider with it, as without it. The likelihood of dying due
> to being hit mid air by an aging glider pilot strictly because of his
> deteriorating vision is about the same as hitting the Powerball
> jackpot.

There were a number of glider-glider collisions in the last 20 years
that did not result in fatalities (like Ed Sakeld's a few years ago), so
perhaps we are lucky it's only two in twenty years. And since PowerFlarm
also adds transponder and ADS-B reporting, perhaps the statistics should
be enlarged to include accidents that could have been avoided by those
two technologies (like the airplane/towplane accident in Boulder).

Besides the collision warnings, many pilots will derive some value from
the flight recorder function and the "entertainment" aspect of PowerFlarm.

So, attributing some monetary value to these additional functions lowers
the cost of the glider-glider fatality avoidance function. I can't say
it would become the most cost effective way to spend that money for
glider-glider fatality avoidance, but it certainly makes it cheap enough
I'm happy to spend the money today for value that will accrue for many
years.

--
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

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:50:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Finally, a rational voice in the internet wilderness.
>
> Statistically, midair collisions in non-contest situations are so small, especially as compared to approach to landing and scratching for lift stall/spins that the attention and money being directed to this technology is crazy. To my knowledge, the leading cause of pilot deaths is stall/spins in the landing phase of flight. The recent situation at SFO is different?
>
>
>
> THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY AND EFFORT SHOULD GO.
>
>
>
> Flame me.
>
>
>
> Guy Acheson "DDS"

It's not about money. If you can figure out how to get every glider pilot to use the ABCCCDDE or equivalent pre take off checklist for every take off, we'll cut fatalities by at least a quarter, right there. Dive brakes, dollies & canopies, anyone? A moment's advance thinking on an Emergency plan might save a few too.

Back to mid-airs. Eric is right to point out the potential utility of PF in the preventing accidents with transient power plane traffic. As well, it could have prevented the 2009(?) midair between a glider and tow plane (2 more fatalities).

regards,
Evan

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:39:53 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> jfitch wrote, On 7/9/2013 4:24 PM:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Well, A: I don't believe the demographics of glider pilots has
>
> > changed much in 20 years. But please find some statistics on that,
>
> > I'm interested.
>
> >
>
> > B: from the descriptions of the only 2 fatalities in the NTSB
>
> > database, better (or worse) eyesight would have made no difference in
>
> > the outcome (though Flarm probably would).
>
> >
>
> > I'm not trying to be dismissive or flippant about this issue, but I
>
> > think there is a sort of hysteria about mid air collisions brought on
>
> > by the sudden appearance of an elegant technical solution to what is
>
> > really quite a small problem. Now everyone must have it, with a
>
> > growing body who advocate legal requirement. In fact, there is every
>
> > reason to believe that a stall warning buzzer would save many more
>
> > glider pilots. This is old technology yet not installed in any glider
>
> > that I am aware of. I do not advocate them - you really ought to just
>
> > learn to fly the damn glider - but at the same time many of us are
>
> > standing in a forest fretting over a particularly small tree.
>
> >
>
> > By all means get a Flarm. But don't then say, "There! I fixed the
>
> > glider safety problem." You are statistically just about as likely to
>
> > die in a glider with it, as without it. The likelihood of dying due
>
> > to being hit mid air by an aging glider pilot strictly because of his
>
> > deteriorating vision is about the same as hitting the Powerball
>
> > jackpot.
>
>
>
> There were a number of glider-glider collisions in the last 20 years
>
> that did not result in fatalities (like Ed Sakeld's a few years ago), so
>
> perhaps we are lucky it's only two in twenty years. And since PowerFlarm
>
> also adds transponder and ADS-B reporting, perhaps the statistics should
>
> be enlarged to include accidents that could have been avoided by those
>
> two technologies (like the airplane/towplane accident in Boulder).
>
>
>
> Besides the collision warnings, many pilots will derive some value from
>
> the flight recorder function and the "entertainment" aspect of PowerFlarm..
>
>
>
> So, attributing some monetary value to these additional functions lowers
>
> the cost of the glider-glider fatality avoidance function. I can't say
>
> it would become the most cost effective way to spend that money for
>
> glider-glider fatality avoidance, but it certainly makes it cheap enough
>
> I'm happy to spend the money today for value that will accrue for many
>
> years.
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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

The thread started with the idea that old folks in gliders are plowing into young folks in gliders at an alarming rate. This is simply not happening, and not likely to. Yes there have been a few more non fatal mid airs, but still quite a low rate - only 4 or 5 more in twenty years history. Mid air collisions of any type are simply not the low hanging fruit of soaring safety.

I'm not sure the PCAS capability of PowerFlarm is going to be all that useful - but the ADS-B will be, and more so as time goes on. Mid airs between glider and tow plane (there have been more of those than glider-to-glider) would be prevented only if the towplanes have either Flarm or ADS-B. However much of this would also be (and is) accomplished by transponders.

I justified the PFlarm cost by the entertainment and leeching value.

[kirk.stant]

It's true that Powerflarm will only help prevent a very unlikely situation - but unlike most causes of gliding accidents that can be largely handled by training and procedures, that situation (midair) is pretty much out of the pilots control and likely to be catastrophic - if you are lucky you land with a broken glider or under your chute, if you are unlucky you die. And unlike stall-spins, low final glides, or assembly errors, you can do everything perfectly and still get hit by someone you could not see. So while it is an (relatively) expensive solution to a low-probability event, it is (IMO) a damn good one. Ditto the expensive seat cushion most of us wear every-time we fly - how many chute saves have there been in the last 10 years? Does that mean we really don't need to wear chutes? We have been training and flying 2-33s and 1-26s for years without wearing chutes, so why the hysteria about wearing them in glass?

So I will continue to wear my chute whenever I can, fly with a PowerFLARM whenever I can, use checklists and positive control checks, and practice stall/spins and final glides whenever I can.

And hope a meteorite doesn't hit me.

But I aint wearing no stinkin' helmet! It messes up my hair...

Cheers,

Kirk

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:12:13 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:

> The thread started with the idea that old folks in gliders are plowing into young folks in gliders at an alarming rate.<

No. I started this thread because of ***one specific vision-impaired pilot*** who does not see me (or other pilots I've spoken with) in the air. This guy is a statistical anomaly; the low number of mid-airs over the years tells us that MOST people have had the good sense to get their cataracts fixed. This guy does not.

It was only a matter of hours before another pilot(Vaughn)caught my drift, bravely came forward on this thread, and admitted that he too had flown with poor vision (before he got his cataracts fixed). So it is fair to say that there are few other pilots out there that have been putting off cataract surgery ("but the doctor says that my eyes are 'not so bad'").

Now if these vision-impaired pilots want to extend the low historically low rate of mid-air collisions, they need to do what smart pilots have done in the past and get their eyes fixed. I would go so far as to say that if you are still flying with impaired vision, that you are probably suffering from mental impairment as well. That's the most polite way that I can say it..

The historically low rate of mid-air collisions is partly due to pilots in the past having the good sense to get their vision fixed. It is partly due to a safety culture that encourages pilots to get their vision fixed. If we want to continue the good historical record, we need to continue the safety culture that has made that record possible. It is "bad safety culture" to say "statistics tell us that people either do not fly with poor vision, or that they do not pose a real problem." Do I hear a tendency to deny that there are any impaired glider pilots in the air?

Back to the one specific "flying menace" in my neighborhood. This guy is cantankerous and sharp-tongued, he "goes off on people" and nobody wants to step into the line of fire. I've had him "go off" on me because I was mishandling his wingtip (according to him). The best advice that I've gotten so far is to "start flying XC and get away from him".

[Dan Marotta]

<snick, snick, snick...>

Oh, Brother! Put on your flame suit.


"Brad" > wrote in message
...
> My PF cost about as much as my AR-15, a dozen PMAGS and a locker of
> ammo.........I feel REALLY safe now.
>
> Brad

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 1:01:37 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
> It's true that Powerflarm will only help prevent a very unlikely situation - but unlike most causes of gliding accidents that can be largely handled by training and procedures, that situation (midair) is pretty much out of the pilots control and likely to be catastrophic - if you are lucky you land with a broken glider or under your chute, if you are unlucky you die. And unlike stall-spins, low final glides, or assembly errors, you can do everything perfectly and still get hit by someone you could not see. So while it is an (relatively) expensive solution to a low-probability event, it is (IMO) a damn good one. Ditto the expensive seat cushion most of us wear every-time we fly - how many chute saves have there been in the last 10 years? Does that mean we really don't need to wear chutes? We have been training and flying 2-33s and 1-26s for years without wearing chutes, so why the hysteria about wearing them in glass?
>
>
>
> So I will continue to wear my chute whenever I can, fly with a PowerFLARM whenever I can, use checklists and positive control checks, and practice stall/spins and final glides whenever I can.
>
>
>
> And hope a meteorite doesn't hit me.
>
>
>
> But I aint wearing no stinkin' helmet! It messes up my hair...
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Kirk

S.O.F:

That you were speaking to one particular pilot did not occur to me until you said so about 15 posts in. There are always a couple of pilots you learn to avoid. Most often this is due to weak skills rather than weak vision. However I will grant you that Flarm is a great tool for avoiding them!

Kirk:

Actually parachutes save many more people than die in mid air collisions. Even in mid air collisions. The two fatalities in the database each have one death and one save (by parachute). Mid airs do seem to be bipolar: either you die or you fly home and land (or in a few cases bail and land). In fact there are in the database many more survived glider-to-glider mid airs than fatal ones.

In my area the parachute would come first, followed by a transponder due to the many non-Flarm equipped commercial airliners, followed by Flarm.

[gkemp]

Maybe it is time to revisit Bruno Gatenbrink's essay on soaring safety, which begins
"The most dangerous part of gliding is the trip to the glider field"
is the dumbest, most ignorant saying that has found a home in our sport.

gkemp

[[email protected]]

Son,I just spoke to your dad (Flubber ) and he said " Yeah the kid stepped on his weenie, he should just own it and move on"

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:01:26 AM UTC-7, gkemp wrote:
> Maybe it is time to revisit Bruno Gatenbrink's essay on soaring safety, which begins
>
> "The most dangerous part of gliding is the trip to the glider field"
>
> is the dumbest, most ignorant saying that has found a home in our sport.
>
>
>
> gkemp

But the thread is about glider-to-glider mid air collisions. And the statistics support the idea that an auto accident on the way to the airfield is more probable than a mid air collision once there. Again, no one here is suggesting that soaring is not dangerous (certainly not me), just that mid air collisions in general and glider-to-glider mid air collisions in particular are a negligible part of that danger. 99% of the fatalities are collisions with terrain - not involving other aircraft. Flarm could eliminate the remaining 1%, but soaring will not be much safer as a result.

[[email protected]]

Hey, jfitch.

You get it. I get it. Significant money and angst being lavished on gee wiz technology that does not address the most likely risks in soaring. They don't want to hear you.


> But the thread is about glider-to-glider mid air collisions. And the statistics support the idea that an auto accident on the way to the airfield is more probable than a mid air collision once there. Again, no one here is suggesting that soaring is not dangerous (certainly not me), just that mid air collisions in general and glider-to-glider mid air collisions in particular are a negligible part of that danger. 99% of the fatalities are collisions with terrain - not involving other aircraft. Flarm could eliminate the remaining 1%, but soaring will not be much safer as a result.

[[email protected]]

How about spending some time, money, and angst on an AOA instrument?


>
> > But the thread is about glider-to-glider mid air collisions. And the statistics support the idea that an auto accident on the way to the airfield is more probable than a mid air collision once there. Again, no one here is suggesting that soaring is not dangerous (certainly not me), just that mid air collisions in general and glider-to-glider mid air collisions in particular are a negligible part of that danger. 99% of the fatalities are collisions with terrain - not involving other aircraft. Flarm could eliminate the remaining 1%, but soaring will not be much safer as a result.

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:22:32 PM UTC+2, wrote:
> How about spending some time, money, and angst on an AOA instrument?

Sure, and the same bozos who are planting their ships will continue planting them. These are the guys who don't fly all winter, then drag their gliders to the local race and have at it - gee, what a surprise when they crash!

Yes, you don't need high tech thingies to prevent most glider accidents - but you do need the will to actually go out and get current and practice stall & spins & spiral dive recoveries.

Lets face it - we have so many crashes because we are, on the whole, non-current, ****ty pilots! But we all think we are Sierra Hotel jocks who never have to crack a book about basic aerodynamics, or go out and spend a tow or two just playing with slow speed unusual attitudes, or doing some acro, or or or...

If midair are such a low risk - why do we wear parachutes? BECAUSE IF YOU NEED IT, YOU CAN'T PRACTICE LANDING WITHOUT IT! It's the same thing with Flarm - sure you probably will never actually need it (although I already doubt that, from personal experience) but when you do need it you better have it!

Cars? Have you ever really used your seat belts or airbags? So why wear them or have them?

All you non-believers really need to go up in a flarm equipped glider on a busy day sometime - it just might change your mind. It also, although statistically unlikely, also save your life.

After all, the probability of a midair is really 50% - either you have one or you don't.

Kirk
66

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

Do you know anyone who has been in car accident on his way to
the airport?
Do you know anyone who has been in midair collision?
We had this discussion at our club, and result was that no-one
knew anyone who has been in car accident on the way to the
airfield, but many people knew pilots who had been in mid-air
collision. Some survived, some did not.

FLARM people, please provide a low cost FLARM transmitter-only
variant for these who do not want to see other gliders nearby,
but politely would like to disclose their position and heading to
other (childish ;^) pilots using FLARM. Please, you have
something like this available for paragliders.

At 20:21 10 July 2013, wrote:
>Hey, jfitch.
>
>You get it. I get it. Significant money and angst being
lavished on gee
>w=
>iz technology that does not address the most likely risks in
soaring.
>They=
> don't want to hear you.
>
>
>> But the thread is about glider-to-glider mid air collisions. And
the
>stat=
>istics support the idea that an auto accident on the way to the
airfield
>is=
> more probable than a mid air collision once there. Again, no
one here is
>s=
>uggesting that soaring is not dangerous (certainly not me), just
that mid
>a=
>ir collisions in general and glider-to-glider mid air collisions in
>particu=
>lar are a negligible part of that danger. 99% of the fatalities are
>collisi=
>ons with terrain - not involving other aircraft. Flarm could
eliminate the
>=
>remaining 1%, but soaring will not be much safer as a result.
>
>

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

Do you know anyone who has been in car accident on his way to
the airport?
Do you know anyone who has been in midair collision?
We had this discussion at our club, and result was that no-one
knew anyone who has been in car accident on the way to the
airfield, but many people knew pilots who had been in mid-air
collision. Some survived, some did not.

FLARM people, please provide a low cost FLARM transmitter-only
variant for these who do not want to see other gliders nearby,
but politely would like to disclose their position and heading to
other (childish ;^) pilots using FLARM. Please, you have
something like this available for paragliders.

At 20:21 10 July 2013, wrote:
>Hey, jfitch.
>
>You get it. I get it. Significant money and angst being
lavished on gee
>w=
>iz technology that does not address the most likely risks in
soaring.
>They=
> don't want to hear you.
>
>
>> But the thread is about glider-to-glider mid air collisions. And
the
>stat=
>istics support the idea that an auto accident on the way to the
airfield
>is=
> more probable than a mid air collision once there. Again, no
one here is
>s=
>uggesting that soaring is not dangerous (certainly not me), just
that mid
>a=
>ir collisions in general and glider-to-glider mid air collisions in
>particu=
>lar are a negligible part of that danger. 99% of the fatalities are
>collisi=
>ons with terrain - not involving other aircraft. Flarm could
eliminate the
>=
>remaining 1%, but soaring will not be much safer as a result.
>
>

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 16:26:44 UTC-6, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:
> Do you know anyone who has been in car accident on his way to
>
> the airport?
>
> Do you know anyone who has been in midair collision?
>
> We had this discussion at our club, and result was that no-one
>
> knew anyone who has been in car accident on the way to the
>
> airfield, but many people knew pilots who had been in mid-air
>
> collision. Some survived, some did not.
>
>
>
> FLARM people, please provide a low cost FLARM transmitter-only
>
> variant for these who do not want to see other gliders nearby,
>
> but politely would like to disclose their position and heading to
>
> other (childish ;^) pilots using FLARM. Please, you have
>
> something like this available for paragliders.
>
>
>
> At 20:21 10 July 2013, wrote:
>
> >Hey, jfitch.
>
> >
>
> >You get it. I get it. Significant money and angst being
>
> lavished on gee
>
> >w=
>
> >iz technology that does not address the most likely risks in
>
> soaring.
>
> >They=
>
> > don't want to hear you.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> But the thread is about glider-to-glider mid air collisions. And
>
> the
>
> >stat=
>
> >istics support the idea that an auto accident on the way to the
>
> airfield
>
> >is=
>
> > more probable than a mid air collision once there. Again, no
>
> one here is
>
> >s=
>
> >uggesting that soaring is not dangerous (certainly not me), just
>
> that mid
>
> >a=
>
> >ir collisions in general and glider-to-glider mid air collisions in
>
> >particu=
>
> >lar are a negligible part of that danger. 99% of the fatalities are
>
> >collisi=
>
> >ons with terrain - not involving other aircraft. Flarm could
>
> eliminate the
>
> >=
>
> >remaining 1%, but soaring will not be much safer as a result.
>
> >
>
> >

Kimmo it is called a transponder

[Steve Koerner]

> Kimmo it is called a transponder

Wrong!

For glider/glider interaction, the difference between a transponder -- PCAS and a PowerFlarm is the difference between a LED flashlight and a solar flare.

For myself, I don't know anyone who has had an accident on the way to the airport. I know three good friends that have had midair collisions with other gliders; one parachuted to safety, two landed a broken airplane. I've attended several contests where there's been mid-airs and I've personally had a bunch of non-contact swish-bys. The guys here that are asserting that midairs are improbably are full of crap.

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:25:34 PM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> After all, the probability of a midair is really 50% - either you have one or you don't.
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

" After all, the probability of a midair is really 50% - either you have one or you don't."

Unfortunately, this speaks to the statistical innumeracy of the population.

I am not arguing for removing the Flarm you have, I am not arguing that you shouldn't install one. I have one, a transponder too. And I wear a parachute, and always a seatbelt in the car and a helmet on the motorcycle. I am arguing against an irrational hysteria about a nearly non-problem while large problems crowd around us, ignored.

Some of you guys need to take a deep breath, step back, and consider the actual risks in flying and what can be done to minimize them.

[Steve Koerner]

jfitch -- you are misreading something important in the reactions of folks here...

The one flaw of PowerFlarm is that it only works when everybody has it. What you are calling irrational hysteria is not that at all. It is a rational attempt to disuade a few non-believers. This just happens to be one of the those situations where we need everybody onboard. So, of course, the guys that have taken the plunge, spent the money and seen the system work are going to be proponents. Could you expect anything different?

All of us understand that mid-airs are just one of many hazards that exist out there. It just happens to be one that is remarkably well addressed by an inexpensive gizmo.

[jfitch]

"The guys here that are asserting that midairs are improbably are full of crap."

The NTSB database is searchable back to 1983. From then to the present day there are 4 glider-to-glider mid airs reported(1). I suppose it is possible that there are tons of them out there (illegally) not reported - but I doubt it. Can you please list this plethora of unreported collisions for those of us full of crap?

This is beginning to approach urban legend status. We need a Snopes.com entry.


note (1) : I limited the search only to category: glider, and keyword: "mid air". If "mid air" appears anywhere in the title or body text of the preliminary or final report, you will get a hit. The hits were:

2004, Oso, WA
2010, Parawan, UT
2010, Batesville, TX
2012, Sparks, NV

There are two more that do not use the term "mid air" but are nonetheless (neither were fatal):

2008, Bracketville, TX
2012, Uvalde, TX

This by searching the entire category: glider accident record for the last 20 years, which returned 676 records. Less than 1% of accidents are glider-to-glider mid air collisions.

[Steve Koerner]

I know of two separate glider midairs in Phoenix AZ where I live (one of which had multiple fatalities) and one in the Central Valley of CA (also had a fatality). So the database is incomplete for certain or you're misreading it. The one I remember from the Central Valley I think was before 1983 however. I suspect that reporting of glider accidents was a lot more spotty in years past than it is now.

Many of us have more than enough data in our own realm of experience that government records are impertinent to our reckoning on the matter. How many close calls does it take before one believes?

Fatalities are not the criterion that is most relavent to me anyway. I verily do not want to climb out of my glider when it's still moving nor deal with landing a broken aircraft.

[Steve Koerner]

You need to search glider to towplane collisions also. They are preventable with PowerFlarm too. One of the accidents that I reference above in Phoenix was glider to aircraft.

[[email protected]]

Go, jfitch, GO !!!

[Bill D]

While I agree with the premise that mid-airs are rare a quick search did find 7 glider-glider mid-air's since 1983 in the NTSB accident database.

They're rare enough it's easiest to just search the glider category with the work "collision" in event details. Gliders collide with a lot of things besides each other but if two gliders are listed for the same date and place, it's probably a mid-air. That can be verified by reading the probable cause or "factual".

I didn't take the time to look for glider-airplane collisions.


On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:42:52 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
> "The guys here that are asserting that midairs are improbably are full of crap."
>
>
>
> The NTSB database is searchable back to 1983. From then to the present day there are 4 glider-to-glider mid airs reported(1). I suppose it is possible that there are tons of them out there (illegally) not reported - but I doubt it. Can you please list this plethora of unreported collisions for those of us full of crap?
>
>
>
> This is beginning to approach urban legend status. We need a Snopes.com entry.
>
>
>
>
>
> note (1) : I limited the search only to category: glider, and keyword: "mid air". If "mid air" appears anywhere in the title or body text of the preliminary or final report, you will get a hit. The hits were:
>
>
>
> 2004, Oso, WA
>
> 2010, Parawan, UT
>
> 2010, Batesville, TX
>
> 2012, Sparks, NV
>
>
>
> There are two more that do not use the term "mid air" but are nonetheless (neither were fatal):
>
>
>
> 2008, Bracketville, TX
>
> 2012, Uvalde, TX
>
>
>
> This by searching the entire category: glider accident record for the last 20 years, which returned 676 records. Less than 1% of accidents are glider-to-glider mid air collisions.

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:26:13 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> I know of two separate glider midairs in Phoenix AZ where I live (one of which had multiple fatalities) and one in the Central Valley of CA (also had a fatality). So the database is incomplete for certain or you're misreading it. The one I remember from the Central Valley I think was before 1983 however. I suspect that reporting of glider accidents was a lot more spotty in years past than it is now.
>
>
>
> Many of us have more than enough data in our own realm of experience that government records are impertinent to our reckoning on the matter. How many close calls does it take before one believes?
>
>
>
> Fatalities are not the criterion that is most relavent to me anyway. I verily do not want to climb out of my glider when it's still moving nor deal with landing a broken aircraft.

Certainly fatalities in a mid air glider collision are captured in the NTSB database. There are only 2 in the searchable section (since 1983). There are a few more glider to towplane mid airs (I thing maybe 3 or 4) and a very small number of other light aircraft. The one you refer to in Phoenix was a collision with another light plane that inadvertently entered the aerobatic box.

Flarm is not going to help these unless towplanes and other light planes are also equipped with it. This does not appear to be on the agenda or budget of most gliderports I know, and not even on the horizon of light aviation in general. EVEN SO, if all of that happened, you would reduce soaring accidents by less than 2%.

To say that you have in your realm of experience sufficient information to contradict fairly diligently kept government records is not persuasive. Personal experience and impression is always subject to quite a bit of distortion. I would be persuaded by a long list of unreported mid air collisions. As others have pointed out, a mid air collision is a particularly traumatic fear, since little can be done to prevent it in the situations that it seems to occur. It is a lightening bolt out of the blue. If it happens to you, the improbability is irrelevant. And it is comforting that an elegant piece of technology is available to remove that fear.

I should point out that of the 6 that I found (Bill found seven - which one did I miss?) I think 4 were during competition. That makes the statistical likelihood during competition perhaps several times higher, and the need for Flarm there more pressing - though still a low probability event.

There is another aspect of Flarm which goes more unsung, and that is increased situational awareness, which always reduces pilot workload. This is what I refer to as the in-flight entertainment value, and while hard to quantify, it is certainly a real value.

[Bill D]

(Bill found seven - which one did I miss?)

Medina, TX 03/09/1993

I also found 4 glider - tug collisions.

If one wanted to make a big impact on safety, improving landing skills would be high on the list. The best opportunity for technology to make an impact would be an angle of attack indicator with stall warning which I think would be far cheaper than PowerFLARM and save maybe 10x as many.

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:59:01 PM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:
> (Bill found seven - which one did I miss?)
>
>
>
> Medina, TX 03/09/1993
>
>
>
> I also found 4 glider - tug collisions.
>
>
>
> If one wanted to make a big impact on safety, improving landing skills would be high on the list. The best opportunity for technology to make an impact would be an angle of attack indicator with stall warning which I think would be far cheaper than PowerFLARM and save maybe 10x as many.

For reasons not fully explained, this does not show up on any NTSB query I make.

However from the compilation, it would appear that your chances of a mid air are greatly increased in Texas. 4 of 7 in the last 20 years occurred there. Maybe everyone flying in Texas should have Flarm.

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 1:59:05 AM UTC+2, jfitch wrote:

> " After all, the probability of a midair is really 50% - either you have one or you don't."
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, this speaks to the statistical innumeracy of the population.

It's called sarcasm - which speaks to the lack of humor of the population....

I'm fully aware of the statistical chance of a midair. However, in my flying career so far, I've had enough really close calls that I am not willing to just say "don't worry, statistics say that it won't happen". Especially when there is a cheap tool that will reduce that probability even more.

Airliners fly in tightly controlled airspace and have an even lower probability of a midair - yet they are all required to have TCAS. We fly uncontrolled in a manner that encourages close encounters, yet there are still people who say "I don't need or want flarm, my eyes and transponder will keep me safe". Those people do not understand risk, confusing it with statistical safeness.

> I am not arguing for removing the Flarm you have, I am not arguing that you shouldn't install one. I have one, a transponder too. And I wear a parachute, and always a seatbelt in the car and a helmet on the motorcycle. I am arguing against an irrational hysteria about a nearly non-problem while large problems crowd around us, ignored.
>
The irrational hysteria is coming from those who are unwilling to consider a tool like flarm, instead burying their heads in the sands of statistics and "I fly alone, don't race, have a transponder, and look out the window so I cant have a midair."
>
> Some of you guys need to take a deep breath, step back, and consider the actual risks in flying and what can be done to minimize them.

There are risks you can control personally (skills, decisions, knowledge, practice) and risks you have no control over. We used to have the "big sky theory" to control midair risks. And only killed a few people. Now we have a cheap technology that might save a few people. How wanting that technology to be universally adopted is an "irrational hysteria" escapes me!

Kirk
66

[Sean F (F2)]

This is compelling data (1% and the NTSB database, etc). Nonetheless, mid airs, towplane collisions, collisions with other aircraft, etc are fundamentally less likely to occur with strong Flarm adoption. Without it, we will continue to have fatal mid airs in the USA. A bit like Russian Roulette. Flarm tells you if the chamber is loaded.

1% could easily be 2% if not for Flarm being in the US for the last 2 years.. Numerous pilots with Flarm have avoided near certain collisions because of Flarm. I am one of them. See a couple of my videos.

I'm not going to attack old people and their eyesight. Lets keep our eye on the ball here. Flarm is going to save lives. Perhaps your own life. Perhaps the life of a friend or a loved one. We need Flarm in the gliders, in the towplanes if we are to reduce the needless and steady occurrence of mid airs, especially in contests. Flarm works (PERIOD)!

Please consider budgeting for one. For the fun of it, for the safety of it and for the greater good of our sport.

I think FLARM will become required for contests soon for what it's worth. I fully support that concept if it is implemented.

Sean
F2/7T

[[email protected]]

We're almost there. Invent a thermal detection instrument and we won't have to look out the window anymore. Soon we will get to fly around watching TV same as our powered airplane heroes.

[Dan Marotta]

Fuzzy math, Kirk. If P(mid-air) was really 0.5 none of us would be in the
air.

Do you use that kind of logic to back up all your arguments?


"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:22:32 PM UTC+2, wrote:
> How about spending some time, money, and angst on an AOA instrument?

Sure, and the same bozos who are planting their ships will continue planting
them. These are the guys who don't fly all winter, then drag their gliders
to the local race and have at it - gee, what a surprise when they crash!

Yes, you don't need high tech thingies to prevent most glider accidents -
but you do need the will to actually go out and get current and practice
stall & spins & spiral dive recoveries.

Lets face it - we have so many crashes because we are, on the whole,
non-current, ****ty pilots! But we all think we are Sierra Hotel jocks who
never have to crack a book about basic aerodynamics, or go out and spend a
tow or two just playing with slow speed unusual attitudes, or doing some
acro, or or or...

If midair are such a low risk - why do we wear parachutes? BECAUSE IF YOU
NEED IT, YOU CAN'T PRACTICE LANDING WITHOUT IT! It's the same thing with
Flarm - sure you probably will never actually need it (although I already
doubt that, from personal experience) but when you do need it you better
have it!

Cars? Have you ever really used your seat belts or airbags? So why wear them
or have them?

All you non-believers really need to go up in a flarm equipped glider on a
busy day sometime - it just might change your mind. It also, although
statistically unlikely, also save your life.

After all, the probability of a midair is really 50% - either you have one
or you don't.

Kirk
66

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:49:00 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:59:01 PM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:
>
> > (Bill found seven - which one did I miss?)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Medina, TX 03/09/1993
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I also found 4 glider - tug collisions.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If one wanted to make a big impact on safety, improving landing skills would be high on the list. The best opportunity for technology to make an impact would be an angle of attack indicator with stall warning which I think would be far cheaper than PowerFLARM and save maybe 10x as many.
>
>
>
> For reasons not fully explained, this does not show up on any NTSB query I make.

Try NTSB investigation ID's FTW91FA131A and FTW91FA131B
>
>
> However from the compilation, it would appear that your chances of a mid air are greatly increased in Texas. 4 of 7 in the last 20 years occurred there. Maybe everyone flying in Texas should have Flarm.

Noticed that.

As many here have noted, humans suck at evaluating and managing risk. Mid-air's are rare but dramatic so they scare the crap out of everybody so tons of money get spent on avoiding them. Besides it's a cool tech problem to solve.

Mundane things like hitting stationary objects on landing or stall/spins are so common nobody pays much attention anymore even though they kill far more people.

[jfitch]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:21:24 AM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:49:00 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:59:01 PM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > (Bill found seven - which one did I miss?)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Medina, TX 03/09/1993
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I also found 4 glider - tug collisions.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If one wanted to make a big impact on safety, improving landing skills would be high on the list. The best opportunity for technology to make an impact would be an angle of attack indicator with stall warning which I think would be far cheaper than PowerFLARM and save maybe 10x as many.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > For reasons not fully explained, this does not show up on any NTSB query I make.
>
>
>
> Try NTSB investigation ID's FTW91FA131A and FTW91FA131B
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > However from the compilation, it would appear that your chances of a mid air are greatly increased in Texas. 4 of 7 in the last 20 years occurred there. Maybe everyone flying in Texas should have Flarm.
>
>
>
> Noticed that.
>
>
>
> As many here have noted, humans suck at evaluating and managing risk. Mid-air's are rare but dramatic so they scare the crap out of everybody so tons of money get spent on avoiding them. Besides it's a cool tech problem to solve.
>
>
>
> Mundane things like hitting stationary objects on landing or stall/spins are so common nobody pays much attention anymore even though they kill far more people.

Oh, Ok, Event date is what I was quoting, for this one 1991 so reaching back into another decade. So still 6 in 20 years. But 4 in the last 3 years so one could say the incidence is increasing. Still, so infrequent that no conclusion on that can be drawn.

[Mike the Strike]

The occurrence of rare events like mid-airs tend to follow the Poisson distribution. If you assume an average of 0.3 per year, you'd expect 74% of years to have none, 22% to have one, 3.3% to have two and 0.3% to have three. Four events in three years is within the expected statistical distribution, albeit with a probability of around 1%.

Mike

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 4:16:16 PM UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Fuzzy math, Kirk. If P(mid-air) was really 0.5 none of us would be in the
> air.

> Do you use that kind of logic to back up all your arguments?

Uh Dan? Hello? Remember Sarcasm and Ridicule? Traditional way to win any argument...

Jeez, you guys REALLY need to get a life!

OTOH, I stand by my (admittedly non-conformist) math. You either have a mid-air or you don't. If you have one, pointing out to all around as you plummet to your death that what just happened is statistically improbable isn't going to make the sudden stop any less painful!

No one - I mean NO ONE - complains about buying and wearing an expensive seat cushion - It's been required for so long nobody thinks about it anymore. But for what other reason than a mid-air do we wear chutes? Oh yeah, it separates us from the local twirly birds and adds to the chick-magnet persona we all strive for.

Cheers!

Kirk
66

[Dan Marotta]

Uh, Kirk, my post was before yours claiming sarcasm.

For the record, I complain bitterly about spending $2,700 for a "seat
cushion", though I paid the price. Everyone with plenty of money seems to
think that $2,000 for an inexpensive piece of electronics that, according to
what I've read, is still in development, is reasonable, but to some of us,
it's significant and can be better spent elsewhere.

I will take a position now. If someone will buy me everything needed for a
PFlarm installation, and ship it to me, I'll install it. I don't give two
****s about peer pressure so cry all you want.

Anyone who doesn't want to fly near non-PFlarm equipped gliders can simply
avoid the areas where I fly. And, to be fair, I won't fly in any contests
without renting one.


"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 4:16:16 PM UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Fuzzy math, Kirk. If P(mid-air) was really 0.5 none of us would be in the
> air.

> Do you use that kind of logic to back up all your arguments?

Uh Dan? Hello? Remember Sarcasm and Ridicule? Traditional way to win any
argument...

Jeez, you guys REALLY need to get a life!

OTOH, I stand by my (admittedly non-conformist) math. You either have a
mid-air or you don't. If you have one, pointing out to all around as you
plummet to your death that what just happened is statistically improbable
isn't going to make the sudden stop any less painful!

No one - I mean NO ONE - complains about buying and wearing an expensive
seat cushion - It's been required for so long nobody thinks about it
anymore. But for what other reason than a mid-air do we wear chutes? Oh
yeah, it separates us from the local twirly birds and adds to the
chick-magnet persona we all strive for.

Cheers!

Kirk
66

[jfitch]

I am surprised so far no one has noticed a serious flaw in my statistical argument. Didn't think of it myself until yesterday. There were 6 incidents of glider-to-glider mid air in the last 20 years, of 676 incidents involving gliders. That is less than 1%. However, it takes two to tango - so that accounts for 12 gliders involved in mid airs. That makes the probability for an individual glider historically greater than 1%, but a bit less than 2%, that an accident will involve a mid air with another glider. And of course the absolute probability on a particular flight nearly vanishingly small: if there are 2500 flights per reported accident (a reasonable guess), P = 8 x 10^-6.

[Bill D]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 8:50:50 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
> I am surprised so far no one has noticed a serious flaw in my statistical argument. Didn't think of it myself until yesterday. There were 6 incidents of glider-to-glider mid air in the last 20 years, of 676 incidents involving gliders. That is less than 1%. However, it takes two to tango - so that accounts for 12 gliders involved in mid airs. That makes the probability for an individual glider historically greater than 1%, but a bit less than 2%, that an accident will involve a mid air with another glider. And of course the absolute probability on a particular flight nearly vanishingly small: if there are 2500 flights per reported accident (a reasonable guess), P = 8 x 10^-6.

Figure 130,000 - 150,000 glider flights per year.

[bumper[_4_]]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 7:50:50 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> And of course the absolute probability on a particular flight nearly vanishingly small: if there are 2500 flights per reported accident (a reasonable guess), P = 8 x 10^-6.


Nobody counts "near misses". Guess that's 'cause near misses are almost never fatal (assuming no one has a heart attack), they just scare the crap out of people and make fodder for hangar talk. I've had a couple over the years, just one of them in the glider. Like jfitch, I have 20-15 distance vision (with glasses) and do my best to keep my head outside the cockpit.

I don't like near misses. PowerFlarm helps prevent them.

bumper

[Soartech]

> I've had a couple over the years, just one of them in the glider.
> bumper

I am curious what experienced pilots ratio of near-misses is between competition and non-competition situations. Any comments on that?

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 4:06:40 AM UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Uh, Kirk, my post was before yours claiming sarcasm.
>
>
>
> For the record, I complain bitterly about spending $2,700 for a "seat
>
> cushion", though I paid the price. Everyone with plenty of money seems to
>
> think that $2,000 for an inexpensive piece of electronics that, according to
>
> what I've read, is still in development, is reasonable, but to some of us,
>
> it's significant and can be better spent elsewhere.
>
>
>
> I will take a position now. If someone will buy me everything needed for a
>
> PFlarm installation, and ship it to me, I'll install it. I don't give two
>
> ****s about peer pressure so cry all you want.
>
>
>
> Anyone who doesn't want to fly near non-PFlarm equipped gliders can simply
>
> avoid the areas where I fly. And, to be fair, I won't fly in any contests
>
> without renting one.

So let me get this straight: You complain bitterly about having to buy an expensive parachute but don't fly in competition - which is the only time you have to wear one in the US (unless you do acro). You strongly believe a transponder makes you safer, but think a PowerFlarm is just a bit of unreliable, overpriced electronic smoke and mirrors.

Ok, whatever...

Please keep your transponder on - that way at least I'll know you are around, even if you don't know where I am.

Cheers,

Kirk

[[email protected]]

The operating limits for my glider require that the pilot wear a chute.

[[email protected]]

Although Son of Flubber's post displayed a bit of youthful arrogance, it did start an important dialogue. I would like to share a bit of subjective data that could add to the discussion. Regarding parachutes as expensive seat cushions. I have had 5 friends and acquaintances bail out of crippled gliders and survive. Ghaham Thompson, Jim Indebro, Roy Cundiff, and Dick Johnson among those lucky souls. Regarding mid air collisions as highly unlikely events. In 1985 at a 15m nationals there were three mid air collisions, with one fatality. That represented about the same odds as Russian roulette. Graham Thompson's bail out in Minden was the result of a mid air. Gary Kemp referred to Bruno's Gantebrink's essay on sailplane safety. I had a conversation with Bruno in New Zealand and he told me that he was the only surviving member, of five, of a previous German national team. Although, as I recall, one of the germans was killed after exiting the glider on the ground by a piece of equipment. I have had two near misses (literally inches) where one of the pilots did not see the other before, during or after the near miss. I have had numerous close calls over the years, so I am not impressed with those that say collision avoidance systems are a waste of money. Statistics are easy to skew and make this sport look safer than it is. The common thread with most the pilots mentioned above is that they fly, or flew, a lot, which, of course puts them at higher risk.
I have O, none, no friends or acquaintances that have been killed in automobile accidents. I would hate to count the number of glider pilots that I have known that have been killed flying gliders. Any! procedure or device that increases sailplane safety should be taken seriously.

DLB

[[email protected]]

So I think I will go and get my eyes checked.

DLB

[Dan Marotta]

You got it, Kirk!

BTW, have you practiced with your 'chute? I have. I paid $2,700 for a ram
air square because it's so far superior to a round 'chute. Then I paid
another $1,000 for training jumps.

I wear a parachute because I *want* to. Likewise a helmet on my motorcycle.
Neither is required, yet I use them. That is my whole argument, choices,
yet so many of you are so full of your own fears that you refuse to hear the
logic of those who disagree with your set of priorities. And that's all it
is in the end. Priorities. Mine differ from yours and you you have
difficulty accepting it.

BTW, my transponder is always turned on before take off and turned off after
clearing the runway on landing.

Now I won't mention any names, but what do you say to the pilot who's
installed a PFlarm but refuses to install a transponder? Sure, he can see
PFlarm equipped gliders, but neither TCAS nor PCAS equipped aircraft, nor
ATC can see him. To him I say, "Fine, I respect your choice, now please
respect mine." Even though I think my choice is better.

Dan


"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
On Friday, July 12, 2013 4:06:40 AM UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Uh, Kirk, my post was before yours claiming sarcasm.
>
>
>
> For the record, I complain bitterly about spending $2,700 for a "seat
>
> cushion", though I paid the price. Everyone with plenty of money seems to
>
> think that $2,000 for an inexpensive piece of electronics that, according
> to
>
> what I've read, is still in development, is reasonable, but to some of us,
>
> it's significant and can be better spent elsewhere.
>
>
>
> I will take a position now. If someone will buy me everything needed for
> a
>
> PFlarm installation, and ship it to me, I'll install it. I don't give two
>
> ****s about peer pressure so cry all you want.
>
>
>
> Anyone who doesn't want to fly near non-PFlarm equipped gliders can simply
>
> avoid the areas where I fly. And, to be fair, I won't fly in any contests
>
> without renting one.

So let me get this straight: You complain bitterly about having to buy an
expensive parachute but don't fly in competition - which is the only time
you have to wear one in the US (unless you do acro). You strongly believe a
transponder makes you safer, but think a PowerFlarm is just a bit of
unreliable, overpriced electronic smoke and mirrors.

Ok, whatever...

Please keep your transponder on - that way at least I'll know you are
around, even if you don't know where I am.

Cheers,

Kirk

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dan Marotta wrote, On 7/12/2013 12:14 PM:
> Now I won't mention any names, but what do you say to the pilot who's
> installed a PFlarm but refuses to install a transponder? Sure, he can
> see PFlarm equipped gliders, but neither TCAS nor PCAS equipped
> aircraft, nor ATC can see him.

His PFlarm ought to be able to detect transponder equipped aircraft,
whether they have TCAS or not. ATC often can see a glider without a
transponder, if the pilot takes the time to contact ATC. In our area,
the primary radar seems very good, or maybe it's the ATC people that are
good, but the towers seem happy to help, even alerting one glider to the
presence of another glider. Our area is not a busy area, either.

So, he's not necessarily invisible, and the % of equipped gliders is
much higher than it was 10 years ago (thanks in part to the Trig units).
Even so, I'd suggest that a pilot in an area where the towers are too
busy to help, that pilot is in a area where installing a transponder
should be a high priority.

--
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

[[email protected]]

That'sOn Friday, July 12, 2013 12:14:11 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> Now I won't mention any names, but what do you say to the pilot who's
> installed a PFlarm but refuses to install a transponder? Sure, he can see
> PFlarm equipped gliders, but neither TCAS nor PCAS equipped aircraft, nor
> ATC can see him. To him I say, "Fine, I respect your choice, now please
> respect mine." Even though I think my choice is better.
>
> Dan

I think that's easy - the number of fatal collisions between transport-category aircraft and gliders is...drum roll...zero. So a Transponder is a less valuable choice than PF for the average glider pilot.

People are terrible at estimating low probability events - especially catastrophic ones.

9B

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote, On 7/12/2013 4:54 PM:
> That'sOn Friday, July 12, 2013 12:14:11 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>
>> Now I won't mention any names, but what do you say to the pilot
>> who's installed a PFlarm but refuses to install a transponder?
>> Sure, he can see PFlarm equipped gliders, but neither TCAS nor PCAS
>> equipped aircraft, nor ATC can see him. To him I say, "Fine, I
>> respect your choice, now please respect mine." Even though I think
>> my choice is better.
>>
>> Dan
>
> I think that's easy - the number of fatal collisions between
> transport-category aircraft and gliders is...drum roll...zero. So a
> Transponder is a less valuable choice than PF for the average glider
> pilot.
>
> People are terrible at estimating low probability events - especially
> catastrophic ones.

Three things:

- perhaps the probability is low because many pilots have already
equipped with transponders in areas where the potential for conflicts is
high. If that's true, we can not use the overall collision rate to
estimate the probability of non-equipped gliders colliding with
airliners and other large aircraft.

- even if we are poor at estimating low probability events, we are
perhaps good at estimating the cost of a catastrophic one. It won't be
just the loss of the pilot's life, but might involve potentially
hundreds of lives in the airliner and perhaps huge restrictions or costs
for all soaring.

- (Low probability) * (huge cost) = (makes transponder seem cheap) is
what a lot of us have calculated.

--
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

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 10:50:50 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> I am surprised so far no one has noticed a serious flaw in my statistical argument.

Perhaps someone who understands statistics better than I do can clarify why the sample size that you use in your analysis is large enough to produce statistically valid conclusions. You've made an effort to gather and use all available data, and it sure would be nice if this were enough data to draw valid statistical conclusions, but do you really have enough data? People who understand statistics know how to answer that question.

And even if I accept your number, what does it mean to my purchase decision? The probability that you calculate would be too low for contest flying, and much too high for gliders flying XC in sparsely populated areas on weekdays. I would expect that the probability of a mid-air would be higher within a few miles of an airport, and much higher on a Saturday afternoon. If I fly in all of those situations, what number should I use? It seems like the probability of PowerFlarm saving my life in the most dangerous situation is the most prudent choice. (Is this why contest pilots feel that PowerFlarm is a bargain?)

My confusion about my personal cost/benefit goes deeper. If I buy a PowerFlarm and it saves my life, I would consider that to be the best $2000 that I ever spent. If I buy a PowerFlarm and it does not save my life, then I have wasted my money? No. If I buy a PowerFlarm as part of a community of glider pilots, and that collective action consequently saves the lives of a handful of glider pilots over a number of years, well hell, I'd still feel pretty dam good about spending that $2000.

We say that we don't want to spend money on something that does not benefit us directly, but then we feel good about being part of something that saves somebody else's life. Go figure.

[son_of_flubber]

Here's another question for our experts in statistics (and epidemiology).

Have you ever heard of 'Herd Immunity'? The idea is that you don't have to vaccinate everyone in order to stop the spread of a person-to-person communicable disease (for example, the flu). So a midair seems to be a lot like a person-to-person communicable disease.

Does Herd Immunity apply to the adoption of PowerFlarm? Surely we don't need everyone to adopt PowerFlarm to take a big bite out of mid-airs. When will competition pilots gain Herd Immunity from mid-airs?

[Bill D]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 8:15:27 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Here's another question for our experts in statistics (and epidemiology).
>
>
>
> Have you ever heard of 'Herd Immunity'? The idea is that you don't have to vaccinate everyone in order to stop the spread of a person-to-person communicable disease (for example, the flu). So a midair seems to be a lot like a person-to-person communicable disease.
>
>
>
> Does Herd Immunity apply to the adoption of PowerFlarm? Surely we don't need everyone to adopt PowerFlarm to take a big bite out of mid-airs. When will competition pilots gain Herd Immunity from mid-airs?

Addressing your two last posts.

Is there a herd immunity? Not unless mid-airs are contagious.

We have pretty good idea of the mid-air risk based on mid-air collision and number of flight data for the last 30 years without PF. In 30 more years, we'll have pretty good data with PF so then we can make a really good statistical statement on how effective PF is. Meanwhile, I take it on faith that the enhanced situational awareness afforded by PF is a very good thing especially in contests - and Texas.

Then there's an economic question of whether spending roughly $2000 to equip each of about 3500 gliders with PF is a sum that might be better spent elsewhere if the only goal is to minimize the overall number of serious accidents or the possibility of one really catastrophic glider-airliner mid-air that adversely impacts the whole sport. Some would suggest transponders are a better overall option in that case.

It is probably fair to say if you typically fly in airspace with a high density of airplane traffic, get a transponder. If you mainly fly in high density glider traffic, get PF. If both, get both. If neither, it's probably OK to wait for better technology. My guess is that when ADS-B is fully rolled out it will be the better option.

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

This posting is very much like the discussion we had at our club.
Our club has lost 4 planes and 3 pilots in mid-airs, 2 pilots have
survived using chutes.

At 18:24 12 July 2013, wrote:
>Although Son of Flubber's post displayed a bit of youthful
arrogance, it
>d=
>id start an important dialogue. I would like to share a bit of
subjective
>=
>data that could add to the discussion. Regarding parachutes
as expensive
>s=
>eat cushions. I have had 5 friends and acquaintances bail out
of crippled
>=
>gliders and survive. Ghaham Thompson, Jim Indebro, Roy
Cundiff, and Dick
>J=
>ohnson among those lucky souls. Regarding mid air collisions as
highly
>unl=
>ikely events. In 1985 at a 15m nationals there were three mid
air
>collisio=
>ns, with one fatality. That represented about the same odds
as Russian
>rou=
>lette. Graham Thompson's bail out in Minden was the result of
a mid air.
>=
>Gary Kemp referred to Bruno's Gantebrink's essay on sailplane
safety. I
>had=
> a conversation with Bruno in New Zealand and he told me that
he was the
>on=
>ly surviving member, of five, of a previous German national
team.
>Although=
>, as I recall, one of the germans was killed after exiting the
glider on
>th=
>e ground by a piece of equipment. I have had two near
misses
>(literally=
> inches) where one of the pilots did not see the other before,
during or
>a=
>fter the near miss. I have had numerous close calls over the
years, so I
>a=
>m not impressed with those that say collision avoidance
systems are a
>waste=
> of money. Statistics are easy to skew and make this sport
look safer
>than=
> it is. The common thread with most the pilots mentioned
above is that
>th=
>ey fly, or flew, a lot, which, of course puts them at higher
risk.=20
>I have O, none, no friends or acquaintances that have been
killed in
>automo=
>bile accidents. I would hate to count the number of glider
pilots that I
>=
>have known that have been killed flying gliders. Any!
procedure or
>device=
> that increases sailplane safety should be taken seriously.=20
>
>DLB
>