Cockpit video recording -- the time is now.

[Steve Koerner]

I'm sick and tired of reading about glider crashes and never knowing what actually happened. We badly need to be able to learn from the misfortune of our soaring compadres.

The obvious answer is that we all have a camera mounted over our right shoulder that will simultaneously monitor the scene out the front canopy, monitor the panel instruments and monitor the pilot's flight inputs. Such a camera would be effective even if operating at a low frame rate -- perhaps something like 5 frames/sec. With today's technology such a unit could be quite small and the cost would be reasonable. The camera automatically goes on when flight is detected and off when flight stops by any of several easy detection means. Flight video would be logged to a micro SD that is looped over after some number of hours: 10 hours, 24 hours, whatever.

The only technological challenge would be making such a recorder fireproof. The latest horrible crash did ignite an incinerating fire. But fires are a rarity in glider accidents. Step one could be a video logger that does not necessarily address fireproofing.

How can we make this happen? Clearly individuals will not be highly motivated to go out and buy one since they are unlikely to personally benefit from their own camera. It needs to be somehow mandated. I would hate to look to the government for a mandate as it would take too long among other issues.. How about a mandate from SSA? Contests? Clubs? OLC? or tow operators? Every glider needs to have a video logger running on every flight.

One other sociological factor would be that there not be discrimination allowed on the release of the data. The data needs to be available for anyone and everyone to analyze upon its retrieval. Pilots, attorneys, widows, government entities and insurance companies should not have say in that matter. We need to think up a good solution to that. Maybe the pilot doesn't actually own the logger and media. Maybe the SSA owns the logger and leases them on condition of data availability upon any reportable accident.

No more mysteries! We need to know what is causing our accidents so we have a chance to fix the problems.

[AS]

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:06:02 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> I'm sick and tired of reading about glider crashes and never knowing what actually happened. We badly need to be able to learn from the misfortune of our soaring compadres.
>
> The obvious answer is that we all have a camera mounted over our right shoulder that will simultaneously monitor the scene out the front canopy, monitor the panel instruments and monitor the pilot's flight inputs. Such a camera would be effective even if operating at a low frame rate -- perhaps something like 5 frames/sec. With today's technology such a unit could be quite small and the cost would be reasonable. The camera automatically goes on when flight is detected and off when flight stops by any of several easy detection means. Flight video would be logged to a micro SD that is looped over after some number of hours: 10 hours, 24 hours, whatever.
>
> The only technological challenge would be making such a recorder fireproof. The latest horrible crash did ignite an incinerating fire. But fires are a rarity in glider accidents. Step one could be a video logger that does not necessarily address fireproofing.
>
> How can we make this happen? Clearly individuals will not be highly motivated to go out and buy one since they are unlikely to personally benefit from their own camera. It needs to be somehow mandated. I would hate to look to the government for a mandate as it would take too long among other issues. How about a mandate from SSA? Contests? Clubs? OLC? or tow operators? Every glider needs to have a video logger running on every flight.
>
> One other sociological factor would be that there not be discrimination allowed on the release of the data. The data needs to be available for anyone and everyone to analyze upon its retrieval. Pilots, attorneys, widows, government entities and insurance companies should not have say in that matter. We need to think up a good solution to that. Maybe the pilot doesn't actually own the logger and media. Maybe the SSA owns the logger and leases them on condition of data availability upon any reportable accident.
>
> No more mysteries! We need to know what is causing our accidents so we have a chance to fix the problems.

Agree, but as an intermediate step, lets all set our loggers to 1 fix/sec instead of the 1 fix every 12 seconds as it was common years ago. Memory has become cheap! Also, lets make the loggers somewhat crash-worthy. I am not asking for it to survive g-forces, fire and deep ocean immersion like the 'Black-Box' of an airliner but maybe it could be made a bit more intelligent by making it able to detect a spin and then speed up the logging rate.

Uli
'AS'

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Automotive dashcams are pretty decent today and not too expensive.

But, looking over my shoulder, weigh benefit vs. issues.

I am not saying yes or no, what I am saying is run this through SSA and AOPA legal BEFORE jumping up and down too hard.
Let GA aviation legal peeps weigh in first, give us ideas, pluses and minuses.
Let users, weigh in.

Then, and ONLY then, "maybe" involve regulatory/government types.
Think of the comments regarding ADS-B mandate, gliders are currently exempt in most cases. I shudder to think of costs to marginal sites if the FAA said we were no longer exempt in most cases.

Yes, some of us would be safer. Then again, some of that would be because you just lost pilots and clubs/operations.

I am NOT disagreeing.
Yes, it can be fairly cheap per ship.

ADSB is more expensive, but likely to have more positive impact, but still a lot of negative attitude.
Accident investigation is a minor percentage of glider flights.
While nice, and less expensive, please keep regulatory peeps out until aviation legal EXPERTS can weigh I .

What I will say, I would volunteer to send a link to this thread to AOPA Legal. Not only am I a member, but I pay extra for the legal aspect (since I have flown as commercial glider for decades, was CFIG for 8 years, just covering my skinney butt.).
We can see what an aviation legal expert suggests.

HmmmmmK?

[Dan Marotta]

Is it April 1st already?

There is no way a camera will be in my cockpit, car, home, bathroom, you
name it, without my consent.Â* And I don't care what "safety" terms you
couch it in.Â* That's simply idiotic.

You're have the absolutely right to give up your privacy, but not mine.



On 10/1/2018 2:59 PM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Automotive dashcams are pretty decent today and not too expensive.
>
> But, looking over my shoulder, weigh benefit vs. issues.
>
> I am not saying yes or no, what I am saying is run this through SSA and AOPA legal BEFORE jumping up and down too hard.
> Let GA aviation legal peeps weigh in first, give us ideas, pluses and minuses.
> Let users, weigh in.
>
> Then, and ONLY then, "maybe" involve regulatory/government types.
> Think of the comments regarding ADS-B mandate, gliders are currently exempt in most cases. I shudder to think of costs to marginal sites if the FAA said we were no longer exempt in most cases.
>
> Yes, some of us would be safer. Then again, some of that would be because you just lost pilots and clubs/operations.
>
> I am NOT disagreeing.
> Yes, it can be fairly cheap per ship.
>
> ADSB is more expensive, but likely to have more positive impact, but still a lot of negative attitude.
> Accident investigation is a minor percentage of glider flights.
> While nice, and less expensive, please keep regulatory peeps out until aviation legal EXPERTS can weigh I .
>
> What I will say, I would volunteer to send a link to this thread to AOPA Legal. Not only am I a member, but I pay extra for the legal aspect (since I have flown as commercial glider for decades, was CFIG for 8 years, just covering my skinney butt.).
> We can see what an aviation legal expert suggests.
>
> HmmmmmK?

--
Dan, 5J

[Steve Koerner]

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:38:26 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Is it April 1st already?
>
> There is no way a camera will be in my cockpit, car, home, bathroom, you
> name it, without my consent.Â* And I don't care what "safety" terms you
> couch it in.Â* That's simply idiotic.
>
> You're have the absolutely right to give up your privacy, but not mine.
>


Dan,

I'm a bit of a privacy freak too. Yet, I'm only talking about giving up my privacy when I have a reportable accident. Consider that it's already in the natural working of our society that we give up a whole lot of privacy when we have a serious accident.

And as you weigh such things, please consider your overall personal cost to benefit. We really need to start getting to the bottom of all these damn accidents. You may be the very person that has the next Stemme accident because it was never actually determined why Glider Bob crashed his Stemme. It just might have been a mechanical problem or a controllability problem that could have been determined had a video been available.

[Paul Agnew]

Cameras haven't been mandated in airline cockpits, so don't expect them to be mandated for gliders. It's obvious that a rule like that would be enacted to protect the public on airliners long before our miniscule risk to the public is considered.The FAA won't touch it any more than they would require cameras in training aircraft, which do thousands more operations each day than we do in gliders.

Looking for data, the latest I found was for 2015 where there were 378 GA fatalities. Our losses in the glider community just don't reach a threshold that would trigger any action by the FAA like requiring cameras or pseudo-flight recorders (hardened loggers.) Any changes will be voluntary on our part.

Insurance companies could offer discount incentives for better recorders or cameras, but it would be completely voluntary. The pushback reasons are obvious...

Paul A.

[Steve Koerner]

I agree, Paul. There needs to be a mandate from within -- not from the FAA.

I agree also that insurance rate incentives might be a great angle to help make it happen.

[Andrzej Kobus]

Steve you need to move to China or Russia. I am sure they will be happy to implement your idea. If you give away your freedoms in the mame of safety you will end up with neither. You sound like a politician who knows best what’s good for us. It is people like you that we need to protect ourselves from. If you want to give your friedoms away do so but keep your hands off my freedom.

[[email protected]]

I'm not filming my own death so you can delude your coward self into thinking you can avoid the same fate. You can't. Accept the risk or stay home. Must be winter the 'we need this rule to be safe' crowd are at it again.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:56:38 AM UTC+10, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> Steve you need to move to China or Russia. I am sure they will be happy to implement your idea. If you give away your freedoms in the mame of safety you will end up with neither. You sound like a politician who knows best what’s good for us. It is people like you that we need to protect ourselves from. If you want to give your friedoms away do so but keep your hands off my freedom.

Freedom? China or Russia? You do realise that the US National Security Agency spies on every single phone call, email and text message transmitted through your country (and most of the UK's)?

--

This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those
of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of their
organisation.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 10/1/2018 2:06 PM, Steve Koerner wrote:
> I'm sick and tired of reading about glider crashes and never knowing what
> actually happened. We badly need to be able to learn from the misfortune
> of our soaring compadres.

I'm "all-in" on the sentiments of both the above sentences. Have been since
well before I took my first lesson (1972). With the sentiments below...not so
much (and I'm being politely kind, here). :)
- - - - - -

>
> The obvious answer is that we all have a camera mounted over our right
> shoulder that will simultaneously monitor the scene out the front canopy,
> monitor the panel instruments and monitor the pilot's flight inputs. Such
> a camera would be effective even if operating at a low frame rate --
> perhaps something like 5 frames/sec. With today's technology such a unit
> could be quite small and the cost would be reasonable. The camera
> automatically goes on when flight is detected and off when flight stops by
> any of several easy detection means. Flight video would be logged to a
> micro SD that is looped over after some number of hours: 10 hours, 24
> hours, whatever.
>
> The only technological challenge would be making such a recorder fireproof.
> The latest horrible crash did ignite an incinerating fire. But fires are a
> rarity in glider accidents. Step one could be a video logger that does not
> necessarily address fireproofing.

Just because something may be an "obvious answer" doesn't make it universally
good. "Technology as panacea" isn't...as the history of aviation continues to
make abundantly and intrusively and expensively clear.
- - - - - -

> How can we make this happen? Clearly individuals will not be highly
> motivated to go out and buy one since they are unlikely to personally
> benefit from their own camera. It needs to be somehow mandated. I would
> hate to look to the government for a mandate as it would take too long
> among other issues. How about a mandate from SSA? Contests? Clubs? OLC? or
> tow operators? Every glider needs to have a video logger running on every
> flight.
>
> One other sociological factor would be that there not be discrimination
> allowed on the release of the data. The data needs to be available for
> anyone and everyone to analyze upon its retrieval. Pilots, attorneys,
> widows, government entities and insurance companies should not have say in
> that matter. We need to think up a good solution to that. Maybe the pilot
> doesn't actually own the logger and media. Maybe the SSA owns the logger
> and leases them on condition of data availability upon any reportable
> accident.
>
> No more mysteries! We need to know what is causing our accidents so we
> have a chance to fix the problems.

My knee-jerk response to this "flagpole idea" is, "Surely you jest!"...but I'm
pretty certain you don't.

Personally, the engineer in me finds many mysteries are also life's joys, a
philosophical rabbit hole I won't enter just here and how, beyond noting that
sport soaring contains *many* such enjoyable mysteries. Meanwhile, I'm OK with
the risks...known, conjectured, and unknown. Draconian "solutions" (and devils
ALWAYS lurk in the details) have no place in a voluntary, self-funded,
sporting activity containing very little "overall societal risk," and
undertaken by a minuscule percentage of humankind to boot.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Roy B.]

"I'm only talking about giving up my privacy when I have a reportable accident."

Sorry Steve -but life and litigation don't work that way. Once you "mandate" the creation and maintenance of the data source it is out there for anybody to subpoena:

The insurance company that doesn't want to pay a claim, The FAA when it wants to revoke your license for busting airspace, the divorce lawyer who wants to see if you really were on a gliding vacation that weekend, the crazy lady who bought a house on airport road but doesn't like towplane noise, . . . they all can get the videos.

And how do we do it? What percentage of the glider fleet now has FLARM (which makes infinitely more sense if something must be "mandated")? 1% maybe? My A&I has to take a course in video installation? CDs have to check video samples before a contest like ENLs? And to what end? Do you really need a video to diagnose a stall spin in? Would a video explain the Arcus/Nephi accident that an experienced pilot who watched and felt it happen can't explain? Is a guy screwing around before his (unexpected) fatal accident not going to disable the camera? Is it coincidence that police and military body cameras have a remarkable failure rate in the field?

Let's all get behind this idea and push it out the window . . .

ROY

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Steve Koerner wrote on 10/1/2018 1:06 PM:
> I'm sick and tired of reading about glider crashes and never knowing what actually happened. We badly need to be able to learn from the misfortune of our soaring compadres.
>
> The obvious answer is that we all have a camera mounted over our right shoulder that will simultaneously monitor the scene out the front canopy, monitor the panel instruments and monitor the pilot's flight inputs. .
..
..
..
> No more mysteries! We need to know what is causing our accidents so we have a chance to fix the problems.

There is always the possibility of a medical event, which is hard to discern from
examining the flight trace. A camera on the panel or glare shield, aimed at the
pilot, and recording in a, say, 20 minute loop would make it much more likely a
medical event (including oxygen issues) would be discovered.

The camera could start automatically when the panel power was turned on, and a
single push of a button on it could erase the video after landing. That would
allow the pilot to protect privacy in non-accident landings.

Maybe we could all wear Apple Watches (or similar), to monitor our vitals as we
flew? A smartphone could store and process the info, perhaps alerting us to
dangerous situations, like too high or too low pulse rates, low oxygen saturation,
and even EKG events. I suspect this idea is too far-fetched compare to the "pilot
cam".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Roy B. wrote on 10/1/2018 6:06 PM:
> "I'm only talking about giving up my privacy when I have a reportable accident."
> g
> Sorry Steve -but life and litigation don't work that way. Once you "mandate" the creation and maintenance of the data source it is out the there for anybody to subpoena:

Even if privacy was protected, the incentive to use a cockpit camera is almost
entirely altruistic; unlike a FLARM or parachute, it doesn't protect the pilot,
though it might help another pilot, or ease the pain of relatives and friends. So,
I suspect few pilots would bother to use one.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Charlie Quebec]

The mixture of paranoia and stupidity in the responses in this thread beggars belief.
Nowhere did I see the OP mention mandating a camera. Having one present voluntarily
would be just as useful. I don’t fly in a manner that I want or need to hide, do you?

[Scott Williams]

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:26:10 PM UTC-5, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> The mixture of paranoia and stupidity in the responses in this thread beggars belief.
> Nowhere did I see the OP mention mandating a camera. Having one present voluntarily
> would be just as useful. I don’t fly in a manner that I want or need to hide, do you?

The OP was pretty clear that a camera mandated by the SSA or others, Not owned by the pilot be used for every glider flight. also that the data would be open sourced. He even used the phrase "It needs to be somehow mandated"
At least in the OP I read.

Respectfully

[Jim White[_3_]]

I use a camera in the cockpit. I find it an objective training tool.
Reviewing my flights and landings has led me to make changes in my flying
that have improved performance and safety. Cost under $100. I commend them
to y'all.

Jim

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 18:06:51 -0700, Roy B. wrote:

> And how do we do it? What percentage of the glider fleet now has FLARM
> (which makes infinitely more sense if something must be "mandated")? 1%
> maybe?
>
Speaking of which, and not wishing to side track this discussion, but I
thought this video was interesting:

https://flarm.com/learning-series-basel-flight-school/

..... its a Swiss power instructor talking about how and why he uses FLARM
and, as an instructor, why some he has a portable unit.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Dan Marotta]

I think it's been pretty well established that the vast majority of
accidents are the result of pilot error.Â* A few examples:

Weather did not cause that accident; the pilot's decision to take off
into it or continue into it was the real cause.

That stall/spin was not the cause of the pilot's death, it was his poor
manipulation of the controls and his inability to recover from the
results of his actions that caused the stall/spin that killed him.

Mechanical failure was not the cause of that accident, it was the
pilot's decision to fly too close or into that thunder storm that caused
the in flight breakup.

I could go on but I won't.Â* Folks are simply too quick to place blame
anywhere but on themselves when the stuff hits the fan.Â* I won't likely
be crashing my Stemme due to flying up a box canyon under a decaying
cumulus (big down draft).Â* It's my firm belief that it was not the
weather that killed Bob Saunders, but his decision to fly his aircraft
into a situation from which there was little prospect of recovery.

On 10/1/2018 5:05 PM, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:38:26 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Is it April 1st already?
>>
>> There is no way a camera will be in my cockpit, car, home, bathroom, you
>> name it, without my consent.Â* And I don't care what "safety" terms you
>> couch it in.Â* That's simply idiotic.
>>
>> You're have the absolutely right to give up your privacy, but not mine.
>>
>
>
> Dan,
>
> I'm a bit of a privacy freak too. Yet, I'm only talking about giving up my privacy when I have a reportable accident. Consider that it's already in the natural working of our society that we give up a whole lot of privacy when we have a serious accident.
>
> And as you weigh such things, please consider your overall personal cost to benefit. We really need to start getting to the bottom of all these damn accidents. You may be the very person that has the next Stemme accident because it was never actually determined why Glider Bob crashed his Stemme. It just might have been a mechanical problem or a controllability problem that could have been determined had a video been available.

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

You should get your head out of your ass and read before you open your
mouth.Â* Just for you, here's a paragraph from the original post:

"How can we make this happen?Â* Clearly individuals will not be highly
motivated to go out and buy one since they are unlikely to personally
benefit from their own camera. It needs to be somehow mandated. I would
hate to look to the government for a mandate as it would take too long
among other issues. How about a mandate from SSA? Contests? Clubs? OLC? or
tow operators? Every glider needs to have a video logger running on every
flight. "

Note the word "mandated" in the above.Â* You seem to take pleasure in
tossing garbage at any discussion rather than contributing useful
information.Â* Go back to bed.

On 10/1/2018 10:26 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> The mixture of paranoia and stupidity in the responses in this thread beggars belief.
> Nowhere did I see the OP mention mandating a camera. Having one present voluntarily
> would be just as useful. I don’t fly in a manner that I want or need to hide, do you?

--
Dan, 5J

[Tom BravoMike]

All the situations described in the interview are not glider-specific, but rather general-traffic-specific. A transponder and/or ADS-B Out and ADS-B In will work better with a much bigger range in similar cases.

My opinion is that we don't need two systems in the gliders, and my great hope is in the recently started cooperation between the Flarm people and companies like uAvionix.


> >
> Speaking of which, and not wishing to side track this discussion, but I
> thought this video was interesting:
>
> https://flarm.com/learning-series-basel-flight-school/
>
>
> .... its a Swiss power instructor talking about how and why he uses FLARM
> and, as an instructor, why some he has a portable unit.
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[John Foster]

I agree that filming flights would greatly help solve many of these mysteries. However, the objections to MANDATING it are valid.

I am reminded of the detailed final accident report that was issued for Balleka's accident a few years ago. He had a lot of video footage the investigators were able to sift through, which clearly showed the cause of the accident, and was very instructive for those of us who read it. I learned a lot from it. Next year I plan to film as many of my flights as possible.

[George Haeh]

My Air Glide S feeds data to my Oudie which is recorded in the IGC file at 1Hz. Supplementary data is TAS, GS, TRK, VAR. You can determine gusts in the x and z axes from that data (without heading, you cannot determine gusts in the y axis).

I would like to see a 5 minute buffer with the attitude and 3-axis acceleration data which the Air Glide Sensor Unit produces at 20 Hz.

We are seeing a number of unexplained accidents and are conjecturing among control problems, structural failures, incapacitation and gusts (my own experience).

My take on incapacitation as a possibility is that while quite possible, it seems more conjectured with gliders than the record shows with powered aircraft.

That said any degree of hypoxia can degrade capacity and lead to a suspected loss of control or structural failure.

[Waveguru]

John Foster, is the stuff you read on Balleka's accident a few years ago available to the rest of us?

Boggs

[George Haeh]

AAIB report on Balleka accident

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-schleicher-asw-24-g-cfng

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dan Marotta wrote on 10/2/2018 8:17 AM:
> I think it's been pretty well established that the vast majority of accidents are
> the result of pilot error.* A few examples:
>
> Weather did not cause that accident; the pilot's decision to take off into it or
> continue into it was the real cause.
>
> That stall/spin was not the cause of the pilot's death, it was his poor
> manipulation of the controls and his inability to recover from the results of his
> actions that caused the stall/spin that killed him.
>
> Mechanical failure was not the cause of that accident, it was the pilot's decision
> to fly too close or into that thunder storm that caused the in flight breakup.
>
> I could go on but I won't.* Folks are simply too quick to place blame anywhere but
> on themselves when the stuff hits the fan.* I won't likely be crashing my Stemme
> due to flying up a box canyon under a decaying cumulus (big down draft).* It's my
> firm belief that it was not the weather that killed Bob Saunders, but his decision
> to fly his aircraft into a situation from which there was little prospect of
> recovery.

"Vast majority" - does that apply to glider accidents? We can all think of
accidents where the investigators could not definitely select the cause of the
accident. For example, how does one determine what caused the mishandling - a
medical event, poor training, panic, dehydration, glasses slipping in turbulence,
suicide?

Here's an example: a friend had his ailerons partially jam in flight, but he was
able to unjam them, and land normally. Eventually, the cause was determined to be
a small bit of excess epoxy that squeezed out during the joining of the wing
halves, broke loose at some point over the years, and worked it's way to the
aileron circuit during rigging or turbulence. You'd never find a cause like that
after an accident, but a camera on the pilot might show him struggling with the stick.

The camera isn't there to give the pilot an excuse (if you are right, it will do
just the opposite), it's to help the living sort out what really happened.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Steve Koerner]

Roy,

Most of us routinely fly with multiple loggers and trackers. All of that data is just as subject to subpoena as the proposed video data. Logger and tracker data is just as useful in each of your examples: FAA airspace, crazy ladies, insurance companies and divorce lawyers. Yet, I've not heard about anyone being plagued by subpoenas. I'll agree that it's a potential issue; but not one of much concern considering the practical equivalence of what we are already all doing routinely. In fact, most guys are now posting each and every flight to the internet for all to see.

Your point about not being easy to mandate was acknowledged at the onset. It's doable; but only if there were the corporate will to know why the accidents are happening. It's not necessarily an easy sell since the amount that people care about such things does vary.

You wanted to make comparison with PowerFlarm adoption; but that's not a great counter-example since we have achieved virtually 100% adoption of Flarm now at SSA race events. Such things are achievable. My club is getting pretty small these days, but around here almost everyone flies with PowerFlarm. The contemplated video logger would be a much smaller, simpler and cheaper device than PowerFlarm.

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 6:06:54 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
> "I'm only talking about giving up my privacy when I have a reportable accident."
>
> Sorry Steve -but life and litigation don't work that way. Once you "mandate" the creation and maintenance of the data source it is out there for anybody to subpoena:
>
> The insurance company that doesn't want to pay a claim, The FAA when it wants to revoke your license for busting airspace, the divorce lawyer who wants to see if you really were on a gliding vacation that weekend, the crazy lady who bought a house on airport road but doesn't like towplane noise, . . . they all can get the videos.
>
> And how do we do it? What percentage of the glider fleet now has FLARM (which makes infinitely more sense if something must be "mandated")? 1% maybe? My A&I has to take a course in video installation? CDs have to check video samples before a contest like ENLs? And to what end? Do you really need a video to diagnose a stall spin in? Would a video explain the Arcus/Nephi accident that an experienced pilot who watched and felt it happen can't explain? Is a guy screwing around before his (unexpected) fatal accident not going to disable the camera? Is it coincidence that police and military body cameras have a remarkable failure rate in the field?
>
> Let's all get behind this idea and push it out the window . . .
>
> ROY

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 4:16:24 PM UTC-7, George Haeh wrote:
> AAIB report on Balleka accident
>
> https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-schleicher-asw-24-g-cfng

Accident less than two years ago, and report seven months ago.

"a few years ago"

[Roy B.]

Steve:
let me briefly respond to your points - but in reverse order.

FLARM is an active and useful accident avoidance device - albeit at a cost. Yet everybody still resisted making it mandatory. Although it is useful in the air to avoid collisions it has achieved less than 1% penetration into gliders operating and flights being conducted. Competition flying (where FLARM is well accepted now) is a microscopic subset of glider flying in the US and the accidents that you want to learn about are not happening for the most part in SSA sanctioned contests.

But your camera idea does not even qualify as an accident avoidance device - it's a post accident diagnostic device that might "possibly" assist in some types of accident investigations if it captures useful diagnostic information and if it survives the crash. And it also has a cost particularly if it is to be made crash-worthy. To use a silly illustration of the comparison with FLARM - it's the difference between Health insurance (that keeps you or gets you healthy) and private autopsy insurance (that tells others why you are dead). Of course nobody buys or sells autopsy insurance - there is little perceived value in it and the government does a generally acceptable job doing it free. The same will be true of your cameras and any attempt to make them mandatory: Little perceived value for the cost and the government does a generally acceptable job at accident investigation.

I also disagree that an electronic stream of GPS data points that requires an intermediary program to collate and present into what is essentially a cartoon presentation of the flight (like SeeYou) is the same type of invasion of privacy as a video which is immediately usable, publishable and understandable. Yes- we all fly with multiple GPS trackers but I retain the option (even in a SSA contest) of refusing to submit my flight log and accepting the penalty for that. And need I mention that none of the tracking devices I use carry the problem of being focused on the control stick area while I am fitting and using the catheter in flight? And if you say "OK - we can turn it off then" - you have just made it non mandatory and ruined your whole argument.

In the end Steve, your strongest argument is "We gotta do something." That maybe true and I respect the feeling - but it's not this mandatory camera idea that we should do.

All the best,
ROY

[Ramy[_2_]]

Roy, where the “less than 1%� powerflarm adoption came from? Are you in the US?
In my region (region 11) most gliders have powerflarm, in some areas the adoption is close to 90%. I am not talking contests.
It is hard to take seriously anything else you write when you make such an absurd claim.

Ramy

[Roy B.]

Hi Ramy:
Your issue about my data is a little besides the point I was making - but to answer your question I am in New England where I am a former SSA director and the Chief Pilot for the largest club. In Region 1 there are exactly zero club gliders (counting all clubs) with FLARM, zero tow planes with it, and only about 16-18 privately owned gliders that have it. Particularly considering that the club gliders are doing the most flights and hours - that's pretty poor penetration. I am not saying that is a good thing - and I am a FLARM supporter - but outside the competition scene it just has not penetrated.

My point however - was (and is) that if you can't get people to mandate use of an accident prevention device - how are you going to mandate a accident diagnostic device?

[[email protected]]

Safety Nazis, mandating this and that. I think I threw up a little.

[Steve Koerner]

Roy,

This will be an over-the-shoulder view; so nobodies plumbing parts are in the picture. Let's not worry about that.

Again, I understand that it doesn't sell well as a strictly voluntary thing for folks to want to buy individually. I like your autopsy insurance analogy. We're looking for the best idea to solve that. The miracle of collaboration happens when a lot of people think about the problem. I think the best idea so far has come from Paul Agnew yesterday. Paul suggested that the incentive come from insurance discounts. That could do the trick. Sort of like when car insurance is cheaper if you purchase airbags.

Let's say the camera cost is $200. Let's say your glider insurance costs $100 more if you don't use a video logger. That would do a good job of motivating the unit without the need of a mandate per se. Most people would buy one and install it for the economic benefit and not worry much about their privacy concerns. Furthermore, there would then be a built-in mechanism to motivate its proper usage if the insurance is in some degree jeopardized if your logger is not being used or not operating when an accident happens..

Clearly the insurance idea requires a bit of distortion field around the insurance pricing. As we've noted, having a camera won't actually reduce the insurance risk. So the rate difference isn't strictly rational as it is in the case of airbags. The good news is that there are only about 3 companies in the US that insure gliders. If those few players could each be convinced or incentivized to enter the distortion field, then we're golden.

Steve Koerner

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 7:33:50 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
> Steve:
> let me briefly respond to your points - but in reverse order.
>
> FLARM is an active and useful accident avoidance device - albeit at a cost. Yet everybody still resisted making it mandatory. Although it is useful in the air to avoid collisions it has achieved less than 1% penetration into gliders operating and flights being conducted. Competition flying (where FLARM is well accepted now) is a microscopic subset of glider flying in the US and the accidents that you want to learn about are not happening for the most part in SSA sanctioned contests.
>
> But your camera idea does not even qualify as an accident avoidance device - it's a post accident diagnostic device that might "possibly" assist in some types of accident investigations if it captures useful diagnostic information and if it survives the crash. And it also has a cost particularly if it is to be made crash-worthy. To use a silly illustration of the comparison with FLARM - it's the difference between Health insurance (that keeps you or gets you healthy) and private autopsy insurance (that tells others why you are dead). Of course nobody buys or sells autopsy insurance - there is little perceived value in it and the government does a generally acceptable job doing it free. The same will be true of your cameras and any attempt to make them mandatory: Little perceived value for the cost and the government does a generally acceptable job at accident investigation.
>
> I also disagree that an electronic stream of GPS data points that requires an intermediary program to collate and present into what is essentially a cartoon presentation of the flight (like SeeYou) is the same type of invasion of privacy as a video which is immediately usable, publishable and understandable. Yes- we all fly with multiple GPS trackers but I retain the option (even in a SSA contest) of refusing to submit my flight log and accepting the penalty for that. And need I mention that none of the tracking devices I use carry the problem of being focused on the control stick area while I am fitting and using the catheter in flight? And if you say "OK - we can turn it off then" - you have just made it non mandatory and ruined your whole argument.
>
> In the end Steve, your strongest argument is "We gotta do something." That maybe true and I respect the feeling - but it's not this mandatory camera idea that we should do.
>
> All the best,
> ROY

[[email protected]]

How y'all going to feel when your buddies, or your self's, footage of spinning in ends up on the news and interwebs. Don't kid yourself with any chain of custody BS. Gory footage gets 'released' all the time. Never mind policy/law to the contrary.

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 02:33 03 October 2018, Roy B. wrote:
>But your camera idea does not even qualify as an accident avoidance
device
>=
I have found my camera to be an excellent diagnostic device that may
prevent me having an accident in future by showing me what daft behaviours
I can display in field landings etc.

Also, in UK competition, it is very rare for any pilot to be called before
the safety committee. This has a lot to do with buddies not wanting to
sneak on each other but also because there is no real objective evidence of
miscreant flying which could lead to all sorts of unpleasantness in
discussion. Poor discipline in racing gaggles shows up very well on my
camera.

Jim

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 12:19:17 AM UTC+2, George Haeh wrote:
> My Air Glide S feeds data to my Oudie which is recorded in the IGC file at 1Hz. Supplementary data is TAS, GS, TRK, VAR. You can determine gusts in the x and z axes from that data (without heading, you cannot determine gusts in the y axis).
>
> I would like to see a 5 minute buffer with the attitude and 3-axis acceleration data which the Air Glide Sensor Unit produces at 20 Hz.
>
> We are seeing a number of unexplained accidents and are conjecturing among control problems, structural failures, incapacitation and gusts (my own experience).
>
> My take on incapacitation as a possibility is that while quite possible, it seems more conjectured with gliders than the record shows with powered aircraft.
>
> That said any degree of hypoxia can degrade capacity and lead to a suspected loss of control or structural failure.


All good and well to have 1Hz logging and a buffer or whatever, but most (all?) loggers keep this in volatile memory/RAM and only periodically flush to non-volatile storage, so just about no crash ever gets recorded. It's a tricky problem as volatile storage has write limits that would (possibly) be hit too early in their life if every fix was written out.

[Dan Marotta]

On 10/2/2018 9:32 PM, Roy B. wrote:
> My point however - was (and is) that if you can't get people to mandate use of an accident prevention device - how are you going to mandate a accident diagnostic device?
I was, am, and will always be against mandating FLARM, cameras, or any
other devices in the cockpit, yet I have it installed in my current
glider and had it in my previous glider, as well (and I'm very pleased
with its performance).Â* I took a lot of heat quite a few years back when
I took a position against mandating FLARM.Â* It's the mandating part that
I object to, not the device itself.

By all means, make your proposal, support it with arguments, and
congratulate all the adopters, but count me out on this one.
--
Dan, 5J

[Mike Oliver[_2_]]

What about straps Dan? I believe they are mandated. Should that be
removed?




At 14:29 03 October 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>
>On 10/2/2018 9:32 PM, Roy B. wrote:
>> My point however - was (and is) that if you can't get people to
mandate
>use of an accident prevention device - how are you going to mandate
a
>accident diagnostic device?
>I was, am, and will always be against mandating FLARM, cameras, or
any
>other devices in the cockpit, yet I have it installed in my current
>glider and had it in my previous glider, as well (and I'm very pleased
>with its performance).Â* I took a lot of heat quite a few years back
when
>I took a position against mandating FLARM.Â* It's the mandating part
that
>I object to, not the device itself.
>
>By all means, make your proposal, support it with arguments, and
>congratulate all the adopters, but count me out on this one.
>--
>Dan, 5J
>

[Dan Marotta]

That hardly requires an answer, Mike.Â* I had seat belts in my car long
before they were mandated; it was my choice, not the government's, and
I'd still have them without the mandate. Likewise, I've flown legacy
aircraft which didn't have shoulder straps without wetting my pants over
the hazards.

For the last time:Â* Choose what works for you and let me choose for
myself.Â* Try to force me and we'll have a problem.

On 10/3/2018 8:50 AM, Mike Oliver wrote:
> What about straps Dan? I believe they are mandated. Should that be
> removed?
>
>
>
>
> At 14:29 03 October 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>
>> On 10/2/2018 9:32 PM, Roy B. wrote:
>>> My point however - was (and is) that if you can't get people to
> mandate
>> use of an accident prevention device - how are you going to mandate
> a
>> accident diagnostic device?
>> I was, am, and will always be against mandating FLARM, cameras, or
> any
>> other devices in the cockpit, yet I have it installed in my current
>> glider and had it in my previous glider, as well (and I'm very pleased
>> with its performance).ÂÂ* I took a lot of heat quite a few years back
> when
>> I took a position against mandating FLARM.ÂÂ* It's the mandating part
> that
>> I object to, not the device itself.
>>
>> By all means, make your proposal, support it with arguments, and
>> congratulate all the adopters, but count me out on this one.
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
>>

--
Dan, 5J

[Tom BravoMike]

Garmin Virb cameras might be a perfect choice perfect for the purpose indicated in this thread. They record their own GPS data parallel to the video, plus you can add several useful sensors like inside/outside temperature and heartbeat rate, which will also be recorded on the microSD card.

[Mike Oliver[_2_]]

This is going off the original topic but actually Dan I'm not sure that
'the government' anywhere here in Europe (still in at the moment,UK)
has mandated Flarm. It's mandated in France certainly but I'm fairly
sure it was the FFVV, the gliding community that mandated it after an
accident in which I believe 3 but possibly even 4 people lost their lives.

The risks may be different in that in parts of France ie The Alps, on a
busy day you can have several hundred gliders in a relatively small
area.

At 15:50 03 October 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>That hardly requires an answer, Mike.Â* I had seat belts in my car long
>before they were mandated; it was my choice, not the government's,
and
>I'd still have them without the mandate. Likewise, I've flown legacy
>aircraft which didn't have shoulder straps without wetting my pants
over
>the hazards.
>
>For the last time:Â* Choose what works for you and let me choose for
>myself.Â* Try to force me and we'll have a problem.
>
>On 10/3/2018 8:50 AM, Mike Oliver wrote:
>> What about straps Dan? I believe they are mandated. Should that
be
>> removed

[George Haeh]

"All good and well to have 1Hz logging and a buffer or whatever, but most (all?) loggers keep this in volatile memory/RAM and only periodically flush to non-volatile storage, so just about no crash ever gets recorded. It's a tricky problem as volatile storage has write limits that would (possibly) be hit too early in their life if every fix was written out. "

The Oudie is self contained and has a buffer in non volatile memory. Naviter has retrieved this data from Oudies that have been in an accident.

[Wit Wisniewski]

I too am against any mandated surveillance. We can help by voluntarily recording flight info. If we survive a flight (ugh, better choice of words?) we can maintain privacy by erasing the recording(s), if unlucky, they may solve the cause and save lives.

The problem is that recorders we can readily use will likely not produce a recording that will survive an accident. We need data storage that will endure extreme Gs including shock, smashing against rocks after plummeting, becoming wet for a long time, and scorching in a hot fire. Would creating a glider black box lead to usage mandates?

Yes, please log GPS 1/second or faster if possible.

I don't use PowerFlarm because almost all of my close calls were with powered civilian an military aircraft, and would have done no good. We need a truly universal solution.

Wit, HZ.

[Magnetar]

Just to be clear, the FFVV (now FFVP) never mandated anything. It is asked for any pilot to be responsible and use Flarm to be visible to other pilots when flying the Alps. It is therefore common practice to use this tool and nobody in a sane condition would fly there without it. Like having anti-collision decals on your glider to be more visible against a snow cap for instance. You won't be fined if you don't have it, you would just be a complete jerk.

When you are flying the Parcours with probably several dozens of gliders in the vicinity, it is a VERY useful tool to avoid crashing into one another and look for potential collision hazards in the right direction. It would require superhuman capabilities to do this without this tool.
Now, it doesn't stop people from being complete a-holes and charge against other gliders just to get in a thermal or avoid deviating from their 'best energy' routes. Not everybody is a gentleman.

Flying is a privilege that should be preserved, the safer it gets, the more enjoyable it will be. Cameras, Flarms, ADS-B, etc... it's up to every pilot to be responsible in which tool they use to make themselves (and thus the others) safe.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 8:16:08 PM UTC+2, Magnetar wrote:
> Just to be clear, the FFVV (now FFVP) never mandated anything. It is asked for any pilot to be responsible and use Flarm to be visible to other pilots when flying the Alps. It is therefore common practice to use this tool and nobody in a sane condition would fly there without it. Like having anti-collision decals on your glider to be more visible against a snow cap for instance. You won't be fined if you don't have it, you would just be a complete jerk.
>
> When you are flying the Parcours with probably several dozens of gliders in the vicinity, it is a VERY useful tool to avoid crashing into one another and look for potential collision hazards in the right direction. It would require superhuman capabilities to do this without this tool.
> Now, it doesn't stop people from being complete a-holes and charge against other gliders just to get in a thermal or avoid deviating from their 'best energy' routes. Not everybody is a gentleman.
>
> Flying is a privilege that should be preserved, the safer it gets, the more enjoyable it will be. Cameras, Flarms, ADS-B, etc... it's up to every pilot to be responsible in which tool they use to make themselves (and thus the others) safe.

Huh? Everywhere I've read suggests it is in fact mandatory in France - i.e. https://flarm.com/flarm-mandatory-in-france/
I don't speak enough French to verify this via the FFVP website.

[Magnetar]

Should have checked before saying something.. you're absolutely right, indeed FFVP mandated the Flarm but FFVP does not operate the airspace so I would guess that in theory you could fly without it there, which would be consistent with the multiple foreign pilots who go there without it.

I guess basically you wouldn't be able to take-off from an airfield operated by a FFVP affiliated club but you could fly there without this device. Like some power airplanes transiting in the area.

[Wit Wisniewski]

Information we lack with GPS recorders and most video includes control input. We need to know if the pilot was reckless, unknowingly operating the controls in a fatal manner, or doing his best to counter an adverse external input. The details may reveal the cause.

I have mounted cameras behind me only to get 90% of the frame showing wide shoulders, fat neck, and a huge hat. The stick was completely obscured and rudder pedals too far away in a dark corner. I wonder if a tail mounted camera would not be more useful, as it would show positions of aileron and flap, and attitude. Maybe a mirror could also show the rudder. If rigidly mounted, a tail camera could also reveal structural bending of the tail boom and wings in a measurable way.

Wit, HZ.

[Mike Oliver[_2_]]

'................you could fly without it there, which would be consi=
stent with the multiple foreign pilots who go there without it.'


Well I'd be interested in your source for this assertion. Just checked
the website for the one glider field I know which is not affiliated to
FFVP and it clearly states you must have an operable FLARM and it
must be working with the most recent software.







At 18:32 03 October 2018, Magnetar wrote:
>Should have checked before saying something.. you're absolutely
right,
>inde=
>ed FFVP mandated the Flarm but FFVP does not operate the
airspace so I
>woul=
>d guess that in theory you could fly without it there, which would
be
>consi=
>stent with the multiple foreign pilots who go there without it.
>
>I guess basically you wouldn't be able to take-off from an airfield
>operate=
>d by a FFVP affiliated club but you could fly there without this
device.
>Li=
>ke some power airplanes transiting in the area.
>
>

[Roy B.]

Steve:
If you are going to do it (and you know I have my doubts) - a starting point might be to get the commercial ride operators to install video cameras and charge the customers extra for the video as a souvenir. I think may some do it already. Considering the number of recent unexplained tourist ride crashes, that might be a good start at a specific problem area and something that the commercial ride operators would want to do.
ROY

[Tango Whisky]

There is NO legal requirement for Flarm un France. Full stop.

Bert TW
who has flown about 2000h with Flarm un France

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks Mike,

I thought Flarm was mandated in Europe.Â* I'm pretty sure France requires
it in the Alps, but that's neither here nor there.Â* I believe your
gliding community is independent from your government (BGA), but ours is
not.Â* We're under the FAA where their motto is "We're not happy until
you're not happy".Â* In the US Flarm was initially rejected by our FCC
(Federal Communications Commission), and it had to be modified (I don't
know how), to meet our requirements.Â* Flarm is not mandatory in the US
except in SSA sanctioned contests (I think) but, since I don't fly in
contests, I'm not affected by that.

As I said elsewhere, I use Flarm because I wanted to.Â* I often fly past
Santa Fe, New Mexico, where there is a lot of general aviation traffic,
including jets, and I like being able to see them on my Flarm display.

On 10/3/2018 10:45 AM, Mike Oliver wrote:
> This is going off the original topic but actually Dan I'm not sure that
> 'the government' anywhere here in Europe (still in at the moment,UK)
> has mandated Flarm. It's mandated in France certainly but I'm fairly
> sure it was the FFVV, the gliding community that mandated it after an
> accident in which I believe 3 but possibly even 4 people lost their lives.
>
> The risks may be different in that in parts of France ie The Alps, on a
> busy day you can have several hundred gliders in a relatively small
> area.
>
> At 15:50 03 October 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> That hardly requires an answer, Mike.ÂÂ* I had seat belts in my car long
>> before they were mandated; it was my choice, not the government's,
> and
>> I'd still have them without the mandate. Likewise, I've flown legacy
>> aircraft which didn't have shoulder straps without wetting my pants
> over
>> the hazards.
>>
>> For the last time:ÂÂ* Choose what works for you and let me choose for
>> myself.ÂÂ* Try to force me and we'll have a problem.
>>
>> On 10/3/2018 8:50 AM, Mike Oliver wrote:
>>> What about straps Dan? I believe they are mandated. Should that
> be
>>> removed
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

Gee - I'm sorry that I'm not a responsible individual according to your
definition.Â* When you couch your arguments with negative adjectives to
describe people who don't agree with you, you lose all credibility.

On 10/3/2018 12:16 PM, Magnetar wrote:
> Just to be clear, the FFVV (now FFVP) never mandated anything. It is asked for any pilot to be responsible and use Flarm to be visible to other pilots when flying the Alps. It is therefore common practice to use this tool and nobody in a sane condition would fly there without it. Like having anti-collision decals on your glider to be more visible against a snow cap for instance. You won't be fined if you don't have it, you would just be a complete jerk.
>
> When you are flying the Parcours with probably several dozens of gliders in the vicinity, it is a VERY useful tool to avoid crashing into one another and look for potential collision hazards in the right direction. It would require superhuman capabilities to do this without this tool.
> Now, it doesn't stop people from being complete a-holes and charge against other gliders just to get in a thermal or avoid deviating from their 'best energy' routes. Not everybody is a gentleman.
>
> Flying is a privilege that should be preserved, the safer it gets, the more enjoyable it will be. Cameras, Flarms, ADS-B, etc... it's up to every pilot to be responsible in which tool they use to make themselves (and thus the others) safe.

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Pitman]

At 11:28 03 October 2018, Jim White wrote:
>At 02:33 03 October 2018, Roy B. wrote:
>>But your camera idea does not even qualify as an accident avoidanc
>device
>>=
>I have found my camera to be an excellent diagnostic device that ma
>prevent me having an accident in future by showing me what daft
behaviour
>I can display in field landings etc.
>
>Also, in UK competition, it is very rare for any pilot to be called befor
>the safety committee. This has a lot to do with buddies not wanting t
>sneak on each other but also because there is no real objective
evidence o
>miscreant flying which could lead to all sorts of unpleasantness i
>discussion. Poor discipline in racing gaggles shows up very well on m
>camera.
>
>Jim
>

It's OK Jim, we forgive your "inventive" thermal joining. It's only a
problem for one or 2 climbs anyway ;-)

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 08:49 04 October 2018, Dan Pitman wrote:
>It's OK Jim, we forgive your "inventive" thermal joining. It's only a
>problem for one or 2 climbs anyway ;-)
>
Was that you? Shouldn't have such big wings....

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 5:47:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:

> ....Â* Flarm is not mandatory in the US except in SSA sanctioned contests (I > think)....
> --
> Dan, 5J

Nope, not mandatory in US contests. Encouraged, and if you have it, they can tell you in advance of the contest what mode(s) are not permitted or are required. But the device itself is not required. Williams Soaring has been very generously providing a rental pool of portable FLARM units at a very reasonable cost to the user. I think this has helped a few people see the benefits of the device, and may have helped increase market penetration a bit.

Steve Leonard

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks Steve.Â* I have a portable unit mounted to my glare shield and am
happy with its performance except from below (carbon and all that).Â*
Some day I may install ADS-B; just looking for the right device(s).

On 10/4/2018 8:05 AM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 5:47:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>> ....Â* Flarm is not mandatory in the US except in SSA sanctioned contests (I > think)....
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> Nope, not mandatory in US contests. Encouraged, and if you have it, they can tell you in advance of the contest what mode(s) are not permitted or are required. But the device itself is not required. Williams Soaring has been very generously providing a rental pool of portable FLARM units at a very reasonable cost to the user. I think this has helped a few people see the benefits of the device, and may have helped increase market penetration a bit.
>
> Steve Leonard

--
Dan, 5J

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:05:57 AM UTC-6, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 5:47:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> > ....Â* Flarm is not mandatory in the US except in SSA sanctioned contests (I > think)....
> > --
> > Dan, 5J
>
> Nope, not mandatory in US contests. Encouraged, and if you have it, they can tell you in advance of the contest what mode(s) are not permitted or are required. But the device itself is not required. Williams Soaring has been very generously providing a rental pool of portable FLARM units at a very reasonable cost to the user. I think this has helped a few people see the benefits of the device, and may have helped increase market penetration a bit.
>
> Steve Leonard

Ahhhhh......not exactly right.

Example from 2016 Nephi SSA contest......"Per waiver, PowerFlarm is MANDATORY for this contest".

In the USA, if an SSA contest organizer wishes, they can make PowerFlarm mandatory, with a waiver from the rule's committee.

Best. #711.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 8:50:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> That hardly requires an answer, Mike.Â* I had seat belts in my car long
> before they were mandated; it was my choice, not the government's, and
> I'd still have them without the mandate. Likewise, I've flown legacy
> aircraft which didn't have shoulder straps without wetting my pants over
> the hazards.
>
> For the last time:Â* Choose what works for you and let me choose for
> myself.Â* Try to force me and we'll have a problem.
>
> On 10/3/2018 8:50 AM, Mike Oliver wrote:
> > What about straps Dan? I believe they are mandated. Should that be
> > removed?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 14:29 03 October 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/2/2018 9:32 PM, Roy B. wrote:
> >>> My point however - was (and is) that if you can't get people to
> > mandate
> >> use of an accident prevention device - how are you going to mandate
> > a
> >> accident diagnostic device?
> >> I was, am, and will always be against mandating FLARM, cameras, or
> > any
> >> other devices in the cockpit, yet I have it installed in my current
> >> glider and had it in my previous glider, as well (and I'm very pleased
> >> with its performance).ÂÂ* I took a lot of heat quite a few years back
> > when
> >> I took a position against mandating FLARM.ÂÂ* It's the mandating part
> > that
> >> I object to, not the device itself.
> >>
> >> By all means, make your proposal, support it with arguments, and
> >> congratulate all the adopters, but count me out on this one.
> >> --
> >> Dan, 5J
> >>
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

So it's official, Dan has come out against mandating seat belts in cars and presumably in aircraft. Another no compromise analysis. Brilliant.

[John Foster]

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 2:15:30 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 8:50:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > That hardly requires an answer, Mike.Â* I had seat belts in my car long
> > before they were mandated; it was my choice, not the government's, and
> > I'd still have them without the mandate. Likewise, I've flown legacy
> > aircraft which didn't have shoulder straps without wetting my pants over
> > the hazards.
> >
> > For the last time:Â* Choose what works for you and let me choose for
> > myself.Â* Try to force me and we'll have a problem.
> >
> > On 10/3/2018 8:50 AM, Mike Oliver wrote:
> > > What about straps Dan? I believe they are mandated. Should that be
> > > removed?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 14:29 03 October 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 10/2/2018 9:32 PM, Roy B. wrote:
> > >>> My point however - was (and is) that if you can't get people to
> > > mandate
> > >> use of an accident prevention device - how are you going to mandate
> > > a
> > >> accident diagnostic device?
> > >> I was, am, and will always be against mandating FLARM, cameras, or
> > > any
> > >> other devices in the cockpit, yet I have it installed in my current
> > >> glider and had it in my previous glider, as well (and I'm very pleased
> > >> with its performance).ÂÂ* I took a lot of heat quite a few years back
> > > when
> > >> I took a position against mandating FLARM.ÂÂ* It's the mandating part
> > > that
> > >> I object to, not the device itself.
> > >>
> > >> By all means, make your proposal, support it with arguments, and
> > >> congratulate all the adopters, but count me out on this one.
> > >> --
> > >> Dan, 5J
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Dan, 5J
>
> So it's official, Dan has come out against mandating seat belts in cars and presumably in aircraft. Another no compromise analysis. Brilliant.

I didn't get that at all from Dan's posts. I really appreciate the general idea of this thread--encouraging video monitoring in the cockpit. But I too share his (Dan's) apprehension about MANDATING this. I would encourage us to voluntarily do this, but to force someone to do it is a completely different matter.

[Steve Koerner]

Fair enough John. It seems like most guys are reacting along that line. Do look back to my Oct 2 post suggesting that there needn't be a mandate if insurance rates became the motivating mechanism.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 6:30:54 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Fair enough John. It seems like most guys are reacting along that line. Do look back to my Oct 2 post suggesting that there needn't be a mandate if insurance rates became the motivating mechanism.

So you want insurance rates set by the whims of pilots. No way that'll bite you in the ass. lolz

[Dan Marotta]

It's a pretty long stretch to think that since I don't want a mandatory
camera in my cockpit you think that I object to seat belts in cars.Â* Of
course I've come to learn that folks that think like you can't carry on
an objective conversation.

On 10/5/2018 2:15 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 8:50:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> That hardly requires an answer, Mike.Â* I had seat belts in my car long
>> before they were mandated; it was my choice, not the government's, and
>> I'd still have them without the mandate. Likewise, I've flown legacy
>> aircraft which didn't have shoulder straps without wetting my pants over
>> the hazards.
>>
>> For the last time:Â* Choose what works for you and let me choose for
>> myself.Â* Try to force me and we'll have a problem.
>>
>> On 10/3/2018 8:50 AM, Mike Oliver wrote:
>>> What about straps Dan? I believe they are mandated. Should that be
>>> removed?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 14:29 03 October 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/2018 9:32 PM, Roy B. wrote:
>>>>> My point however - was (and is) that if you can't get people to
>>> mandate
>>>> use of an accident prevention device - how are you going to mandate
>>> a
>>>> accident diagnostic device?
>>>> I was, am, and will always be against mandating FLARM, cameras, or
>>> any
>>>> other devices in the cockpit, yet I have it installed in my current
>>>> glider and had it in my previous glider, as well (and I'm very pleased
>>>> with its performance).ÂÂ* I took a lot of heat quite a few years back
>>> when
>>>> I took a position against mandating FLARM.ÂÂ* It's the mandating part
>>> that
>>>> I object to, not the device itself.
>>>>
>>>> By all means, make your proposal, support it with arguments, and
>>>> congratulate all the adopters, but count me out on this one.
>>>> --
>>>> Dan, 5J
>>>>
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> So it's official, Dan has come out against mandating seat belts in cars and presumably in aircraft. Another no compromise analysis. Brilliant.

--
Dan, 5J