Dear Fellow Sailplane Racers

[g l i d e r s t u d]

Good Day fellow sailplane racers,

Unfortunately this is not the email saying I have found a coed
volleyball team that will be traveling around to different glider
contests to help run wings. Nor is this an email to say I found a new
sponsor for soaring contest. I am trying to gain support for my
election in the Rules Committee, so if you have already voted for me
then you can hit delete and get back to work, if you voted for someone
else you still have time you can change your vote.

By voting for me the only thing I can promise that I will do
is....lower the average age. But enough with the things I promise to
do, I hope that I can influence the committee and look at things
slightly differently. I feel that with my experience in flying in 2
World Junior Championships, 1 Australian contest (I hope you enjoyed
the article from last month), 7 US Nationals and 2 Regional contests. I
have a very well rounded view on contests. I have won a few days and I
have been the only pilot to not make it home on others.

I feel the sports class should look at selecting pilots to fly club
class world championships. I feel that the open class could not
sacrifice loosing its Nimbus 3 pilots by allowing a weight change. If
there are only 4 pilots that are willing to travel their large winged
beasts then let them race and get sanctioned, that way there are no
rushed struggles trying to get more pilots volunteering at the last
minute. We will continue to struggle at the world level if we do not
task our pilots on a similar field.

I am concerned that the rules committee will continue to waste time
with legislation intended to compensate for a pilot's lack of
judgment. I know it's not a spectator sport, but there is a crew
down there, waiting and watching, and the finish line is symbolic to
their hard work and devotion to the sport. A pilot is not judged by the
altitude of his finish or the lack there of, but rather by his ability
to make safe judgments in all r=E9gimes of flight. Making rules that
force us to stare in the cockpit and cross-check: altimeter, GPS,
flight computer, altimeter... for some imaginary boarder in the sky,
cannot be considered safer.

If nothing else I will be a new face to point the blame at when you
complain about the rules.

http://206.168.3.4/survey/surveys.php

Best Regards
Garret Willat
927

[BB]

OK, I'll bite. Maybe it's a good idea to have a better airing of
views involving the RC election.

I don't think you can "legislate safety" either, in that nothing
we do will eliminate all accidents. But I sure do think that rules can
contribute to a safe or dangerous flying environment. I think that
rules should be thoughtfully structured so that pilots don't have to
choose between safety and points as much as is possible.

The proposition "you can't legislate safety" is ludicrous. Does
anyone honestly think that seat belt laws, speed limits, crash-safety
standards and so forth have had NO effect on the car accident rate? Of
course they have. Do you think we should get rid of the rule mandating
a parachute, get rid of the 2 minutes before start (a "safety
legislation to avoid 130 mph in the start gate), get rid of the 50 foot
minimum for gate finishes, get rid of the ban on blind-flying
instruments, the 25 point airport bonus, etc., etc., all rules that
"compensate for pilots' lack of judgment"? Of course not. We
quite wisely "legislated safety" in all these areas and it helped.

Any rule has effects on fun, costs, practically, fairness, and safety.
They all need to be considered together. We can't abdicate
responsibility and just hide behind a slogan. And we cannot ignore that
safety is an important issue. Masak, Carpetyan, Bowman... We lose one
every other year or so. Is this inevitable? Do we just throw up our
hands, blame their "judgment" and go on as usual? Is this really a
"waste of time?" Or is carefully thinking through the safety
implications of our rules about the most important thing we can do?

The pros and cons of both sides of the finish line vs. gate have been
argued at length, and I don't think this is the place to start it up
again. We have a long winter ahead! Both have safety pros and cons, as
well as other pros and cons.

Where do I stand? As an individual pilot, I prefer the cylinder for
reasons made pretty clear in my articles and posts over the years. (My
current favorite is a cylinder followed by an optional "show
finish" for fun and spectators.)

As a potential RC member though, I don't think one should campaign
with a dead-set opinion on issues like this - as well as the other
issues facing us like the nature of sports class.

I think the RC job is to represent pilot's opinions, analyze the
issues in more depth than most pilots have the time for, and conduct a
thoughtful discussion, listening carefully. If I think X is right but
90% of pilots think X is wrong, my job is to convince them, and listen
carefully and perhaps be convinced myself, not try to get elected and
then ram it down their throats. That's the attitude I will bring to the
RC, and I hope it is the attitude that prevails no matter who is
elected.

John Cochrane
BB

[Kilo Charlie]

OK I'll "bite back" BB.

I would prefer the statement to be "you cannot legislate good judgement".
There is a huge difference between rules and laws that protect life by
protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes and those that make
an attempt to force people into making the "correct" choice.

Casey Lenox
Phoenix
KC

[Eric Greenwell]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> OK I'll "bite back" BB.
>
> I would prefer the statement to be "you cannot legislate good judgement".
> There is a huge difference between rules and laws that protect life by
> protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes and those that make
> an attempt to force people into making the "correct" choice.

OK, I'll bite: what is this huge difference, and how does it apply to
contest rules? We also make traffic rules about stopping at traffic
lights and driving on the right side of the rule, which seem to be
safety related.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Andy Blackburn]

At 05:48 03 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Kilo Charlie wrote:
>> OK I'll 'bite back' BB.
>>
>> I would prefer the statement to be 'you cannot legislate
>>good judgement'.
>> There is a huge difference between rules and laws
>>that protect life by
>> protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes
>>and those that make
>> an attempt to force people into making the 'correct'
>>choice.
>
>OK, I'll bite: what is this huge difference, and how
>does it apply to
>contest rules? We also make traffic rules about stopping
>at traffic
>lights and driving on the right side of the rule, which
>seem to be
>safety related.
>

To push the auto analogy, I think KC is referring to
rules like 'you have to stop your car to answer your
cell phone', or 'motorists over 65 must take a road
driving test twice per year', or 'the interstate speed
limit should be set at 35 miles per hour'. I'm not
sure about the last one, but the first two have been
passed or proposed in many states in the interest of
safety. And I bet some on this forum would agree that
one or the more of them is actually worth the inconvenience
it would cost.

It's all a matter of where you draw the line - KC and
many others draw the line at trying to use rulemaking
compensate for judgement - a bit of a semantic line
drawing in itself.

9B

[Eric Greenwell]

Andy Blackburn wrote:
> At 05:48 03 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>Kilo Charlie wrote:
>>
>>>OK I'll 'bite back' BB.
>>>
>>>I would prefer the statement to be 'you cannot legislate
>>>good judgement'.
>>>There is a huge difference between rules and laws
>>>that protect life by
>>>protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes
>>>and those that make
>>>an attempt to force people into making the 'correct'
>>>choice.
>>
>>OK, I'll bite: what is this huge difference, and how
>>does it apply to
>>contest rules? We also make traffic rules about stopping
>>at traffic
>>lights and driving on the right side of the rule, which
>>seem to be
>>safety related.
>>
>
>
> To push the auto analogy, I think KC is referring to
> rules like 'you have to stop your car to answer your
> cell phone', or 'motorists over 65 must take a road
> driving test twice per year', or 'the interstate speed
> limit should be set at 35 miles per hour'. I'm not
> sure about the last one, but the first two have been
> passed or proposed in many states in the interest of
> safety. And I bet some on this forum would agree that
> one or the more of them is actually worth the inconvenience
> it would cost.
>
> It's all a matter of where you draw the line - KC and
> many others draw the line at trying to use rulemaking
> compensate for judgement - a bit of a semantic line
> drawing in itself.

I'm still curious about what the "huge difference" is. Why isn't wearing
a parachute a "judgment"? KC seems to make the judgment that rules that
try to legislate "judgment" are inherently bad and shouldn't even be
discussed. I think either type rule should discussed so their value
(will it work? what will it cost?) can be determined, especially since
we'll differ on where to draw the line.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

I agree, KC and 9B. I hate it when traffic laws are made on the
assumption that I'm not capable of making my own judgements. The cell
phone analogy is a good one.

~ted/2NO

[Andy Blackburn]

At 15:42 03 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>I'm still curious about what the 'huge difference'
>is. Why isn't wearing
>a parachute a 'judgment'? KC seems to make the judgment
>that rules that
>try to legislate 'judgment' are inherently bad and
>shouldn't even be
>discussed. I think either type rule should discussed
>so their value
>(will it work? what will it cost?) can be determined,
>especially since
>we'll differ on where to draw the line.

I think as a matter of philosophy the gap is quite
large, as a matter of pure utlitarianism there will
always be room for debate.

The philosophical point, I think, is that there are
rules that protect us from systemic versus individual
risk factors. Systemic risks stem from the nature of
the system or environment and aren't significantly
controllable by any one individual. Turning in the
same direction in a thermal or passing to the inside
and turning away from the ridge are examples of rules
that address these types of risks. Individual risk
factors such as how slow to fly in a thermal and how
steep to bank are the domain of individual judgements.
To the extent that we put rules against these individual
risks the silliest, most paternalistic of them simply
get ignored much of the time, or perhaps at the margin
drive people from the sport.

I know some perfer the mechanistic, utilitarian calculation:
# lives saved x value of a life - total cost of the
rule. If you set the parameters right you can make
an argument for most any kind of restriction - without
regard to whether you are trying to save people from
risks beyond their control, or simply from themselves.

Hope that helps,

9B

[BB]

This discussion is going in precisely the direction I was hoping to
stop. It's like the supreme court where we go on and on about Big
Constitutional Issues of "privacy" and "federalism" rather than talk
about what we really know is at stake.

KC, Garret: you guys like the finish line. Good. As the RC considers
the issue, let's have a good discussion over the pros and cons,
including safety pros and cons, of finish lines and finish gates. The
main point of my post is that the RC and RC candidates should be having
and listening to such discussions, rather than go to a political system
where people campaign on promises to vote one way or another on
specific issues.

But phrasing this as a discussion over the grand philosophical issue
of "should rules encourage/legislate/consider safety" is just silly.
The rules do it all the time, and they should, while taking into
consideration cost, convenience, complexity, fun and all the other
things that matter as well.

Two of the finish line advocates' main complaints are that a circle
requires some looking at the GPS, and they have trouble transitioning
out of a 1 mile ciurcle into a well-sequenced landing pattern, a
transition they find easier from a line. These are important arguments
that need careful thought. But they are safety arguments, and people
sound mighty silly making them while at the same time saying rules
shouldn't "legislate safety" at all!

John Cochrane
BB

[[email protected]]

I guess the flying season is coming to a close. :)

I agree we can't legislate good judgment. But situations where a pilot
must choose between points and safety are, in my experience, much less
common than many would have us think. And good judgment prevails in
most cases even where these do arise (e.g., when the task would require
flying directly through a thunderstorm). Just like anxieties over
technology taking over the cockpit, fears that safe pilots will lose
out to dangerous ones who are willing to take unusual risks in order to
win don't seem well founded. KS and DJ will beat most of us no matter
what equipment is allowed, no matter what the rules are, and no matter
how recklessly the other pilots fly.

That said, rules that encourage safe flying are often welcomed even
when they come at the price of a little liberty (e.g., left turns in
the start cylinder). What concerns many is a possible trend towards
"dumbing down" contest flying by eliminating certain skills that place
a premium on experience and good judgment. One example is the finish
gate vs. finish cylinder debate. The arguments I've heard so far aren't
compelling on either side. But I will admit that I also enjoy the
mastery, sense of achievement, and--yes--thrill of a high-speed pass at
the conclusion of a good flight.

It's the same satisfaction I had after a flight through unlandable
terrain at the New Castle Regionals two weeks ago. CD Doug Jacobs
called a task into an area most of us hadn't encountered--except to
avoid--before. With a big circle around the turn, no one had to take
chances so long as they got high, kept an "out", and exercised good
judgment. Picking our way carefully through the forested valleys, we
discovered the area around the TP itself was quite benign. Sometimes
things just look dangerous from the outside. If one is attempting them
without proper skills or good judgment, they often are. Yet mastering
them is one of life's pleasures.

I don't agree that it's wrong to campaign on the basis of "if elected,
I will..." There are few one-issue elections and this isn't one of
them. But if a candidate has an established position and wants to use
it to garner votes, why not? If it's not important to most pilots, it
won't matter. If it really is critical, why not vote for the guy who
tells you exactly where he stands?

I will observe that the current committee slot is only one of five.
Based on my experience on various boards (including the SSA's), it's
desirable to have a mix of opinions rather than a bunch of people who
think alike. One dissenter can't sway the voting unless his arguments
are so persuasive and compelling that the other four members see the
wisdom of his position. And that would be a good thing.

Chip Bearden

[[email protected]]

"And we cannot ignore that
safety is an important issue. Masak, Carpetyan, Bowman... We lose one
every other year or so. "

Is there any rule issue that would have had any concievable impact on
the three fatal accidents you reference? I know that's not the point
you were trying to make, but I am curious.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> "And we cannot ignore that
> safety is an important issue. Masak, Carpetyan, Bowman... We lose one
> every other year or so. "
>
> Is there any rule issue that would have had any concievable impact on
> the three fatal accidents you reference? I know that's not the point
> you were trying to make, but I am curious.

Let's look at a few events that have prompted rules or procedures to
avoid another occurrance.
Note that we don't easily keep score of accidents that did not happen
as a result of safety related rule changes. It is hard to measure the
absence of something like this.

1)Masak(and Mcquigg before him who we luckily did not lose)- Prompting
attention to currently proposed ELT rule.
2)Carpetyan- We don't know what happened to Gene.
3)Bowman-Out of this loss came the procedure for critical assembly
check.
4)Pilot Unnamed(he knows who he is) Low finish with wingtip toughing
the ground leading to "50 foot rule".
5)Open Class Pilot Unnamed- Landed in blinding rainstorm using GPS
because he "had to get a finish". This led to the safety finish that
permits CD to put temporary large finish cylinder in place so pilot can
get a safe finish and leave the area.
6)Countless pilots making redline plus starts(writer included) This, in
part led to current low energy cylinder start.

There are many more like this as you would imagine.
UH

[Stewart Kissel]

Not sure if this question is considered thread drift...but
I figure someone smarter then I is watching the thread
and can answer.

The reason given for keeping contest numbers on gliders
in the era of no start/finish gate is for safety while
thermalling and having a means to identify the others
sharing the core. I imagine leeches fullly support
this concept as well.

If this is the case...why the need for the large numbers/letters?
I would think a more discretelly sized race number
would be plainly visible while thermalling, but much
harder to see at a distance by leeches.

[Kilo Charlie]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Kilo Charlie wrote:
>> OK I'll "bite back" BB.
>>
>> I would prefer the statement to be "you cannot legislate good judgement".
>> There is a huge difference between rules and laws that protect life by
>> protecting the human body e.g. seat belts and parachutes and those that
>> make an attempt to force people into making the "correct" choice.
>
> OK, I'll bite: what is this huge difference, and how does it apply to
> contest rules? We also make traffic rules about stopping at traffic lights
> and driving on the right side of the rule, which seem to be safety
> related.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

Interesting response Eric. My statement had no underlying meaning as you
appear to imply. I am pretty certain having spent a fair amount of time
talking to John at a contest in Uvalde several years ago that he and I would
agree on more than we disagree. One thing for sure is that I agree with his
point that I don't wish this to degenerate into another arguement over
finish lines.

Re the specific complaint....BB used some examples that included things that
help protect our pink little bodies from the elements of destruction....my
point was that they are very different from pure rules whose only purpose
are to prevent you from doing something stupid and provide no benefit in and
of themselves beyond that.

I'd be the first to say that there are PLENTY of traffic laws (since that
seems to be the theme here) that attempt to force people into making the
correct judgements......speed limits, DUI laws, etc. If everyone would
always have good judgement we wouldn't need them......that's your point
right?

Where we disagree is that the traffic rules are a poor analogy. Basically
everyone drives. It is required to be employed or to get to school, buy
food, etc. Nobody is forcing not even a single pilot into racing. It is
not necessary to get a job or to obtain food and I'm still looking for the
girls that think its cool.

All that I am asking and I think that John is asking is that we present both
sides and be reasonable about evaluating each proposal. This format is a
poor one for having these discussions. I would like to think given the
chance to sit down together that we would find common ground much faster
than appears from following these threads.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Kilo Charlie]

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> Not sure if this question is considered thread drift...but
> I figure someone smarter then I is watching the thread
> and can answer.
>
> The reason given for keeping contest numbers on gliders
> in the era of no start/finish gate is for safety while
> thermalling and having a means to identify the others
> sharing the core. I imagine leeches fullly support
> this concept as well.
>
> If this is the case...why the need for the large numbers/letters?
> I would think a more discretelly sized race number
> would be plainly visible while thermalling, but much
> harder to see at a distance by leeches.

Definitely thread drift Stewart but a good question nonetheless.

When I first began racing I shamelessly followed some of the big guns and
came away with this conclusion.....it is pretty much impossible to stay with
someone that knows how to go fast for very long at all. In fact one of the
biggest lessons that I have learned racing that you can't fly another
persons race. Even when trying to stay with a pack these days I find it
only frustrates me. Maybe thats because I'm still not very good at going
fast or maybe its because I'm too independent but when presented the
opportunity to fly with someone much better it seems a good idea to learn as
much as you can about how they fly faster.

From a practical standpoint I can't see everyone taking off their contest
numbers and going with smaller ones anyway. I would even go one better and
say that I'd like to see the US adopt the collision markings that some of
the European gliders have in order to be able to avoid midairs. There are
numerous times that I've heard someone call out that a pilot came close when
they pulled into a thermal out in the middle of course. The response is
always the same..."I didn't even see you".

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[bumper]

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> I would think a more discretelly sized race number
> would be plainly visible while thermalling, but much
> harder to see at a distance by leeches.
>


Hey, now wait just a minute, leeches deserve a fighting chance and to be
safe while leeching. If you have small contest numbers then the leeches
might have to resort to using binoculars. Do you have any idea how hard it
is to fly safely while looking through binoculars?

Next thing you know there'll be a rule banning binoculars.

bumper

[Paul Remde]

OK. That is funny! Thanks bumper.

Better yet. Perhaps (he says - fearing it may actually happen) the SSA
should require the use of FLARM traffic alert devices. They would increase
safety in contests- AND they would allow us leachers to know where all the
nearby gliders are!!! But unfortunately, the FLARM units are not being sold
in the US due to liability issues. I do wish we could use them here in the
US but hope the SSA never mandates them or anything like them.

Actually, I firmly believe that in 10 years we will be able to see all
nearby traffic on our moving map screens. That will (in my opinion) greatly
improve safety and make soaring contests more fun. It would be much more
like a sailboat race where you can see where your competitors are. Is that
a bad thing? I'm sure the traditional contest pilots will say NO WAY, but
I think it would be fun. Leaching is not inappropriate in sailboat racing.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde

"bumper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
> message ...
>> I would think a more discretelly sized race number
>> would be plainly visible while thermalling, but much
>> harder to see at a distance by leeches.
>>
>
>
> Hey, now wait just a minute, leeches deserve a fighting chance and to be
> safe while leeching. If you have small contest numbers then the leeches
> might have to resort to using binoculars. Do you have any idea how hard it
> is to fly safely while looking through binoculars?
>
> Next thing you know there'll be a rule banning binoculars.
>
> bumper
>

[[email protected]]

I think I don't agree with you re leeching. It is very much like match
racing sailboats. One guy looks for advantage, the other guy covers. Be
in the top 2 at a good close race and you will see what I mean.
All this said, the Rules Subcommittee is very concerned with how cost
affects participation.
I did not know Flarm was not in US due to liability issues. Interesting
perspective- thanks
UH

[BB]

Even better. 10 years from now we'll all have doppler radar thermal
detectors. As with GPS it will be impossible to keep them out of racing
once everyone has bought one for their fun flying. Then leeching and
gaggling will completely disappear. No point in leeching if the thermal
is already shown on your heads-up display. Safety will improve
dramatically, except for the danger to personal health of pilots during
rules discussions.

John Cochrane
BB

[BB]

Even better. 10 years from now we'll all have doppler radar thermal
detectors. As with GPS it will be impossible to keep them out of racing
once everyone has bought one for their fun flying. Then leeching and
gaggling will completely disappear. No point in leeching if the thermal
is already shown on your heads-up display. Safety will improve
dramatically, except for the danger to personal health of pilots during
rules discussions.

John Cochrane
BB

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> I think I don't agree with you re leeching. It is very much like match
> racing sailboats. One guy looks for advantage, the other guy covers. Be
> in the top 2 at a good close race and you will see what I mean.
> All this said, the Rules Subcommittee is very concerned with how cost
> affects participation.
> I did not know Flarm was not in US due to liability issues. Interesting
> perspective- thanks

During my limited contact with the FLARM folks in preparation for a
session at the last SSA convention, I got the impression it wasn't
"liability" directly, but that they didn't know what the liability is
likely to be (not surprising - I don't think most of us know, either).
They are familiar with the liability situation in Europe, and it might
be simple now that the countries are tied more closely together.

I think it will take someone in the US to champion the cause, perhaps by
persuading them the liability is manageable, or by licensing (or buying
the design for) the device and manufacturing it here, so FLARM would not
be liable.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Stefan]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> During my limited contact with the FLARM folks in preparation for a
> session at the last SSA convention, I got the impression it wasn't
> "liability" directly, but that they didn't know what the liability is
> likely to be

I've got no direct contact to the FLARM people, but I know very well how
those liability lawsuits of the USA are percepted here in Europe (be it
correctly or exaggerated). In one word: insane. A claim a million would
be absolutely unthinkable over here, and even 100'000 is usually well
beyond the range. And, most important, end users are supposed to be
intelligent people here, able to read and understand.

So when they write in the manual: FLARM is a help, but it's by no means
reliable, so take it as a help but don't rely on it, then there pretty
safe in Europe. I'm not so sure in the USA.

An excerpt of the FLARM manual (cited from memory): "It is explicitely
forbidden to use FLARM in the USA, in US registered aircraft, when a US
citizen or somebody who lives in the USA is on board, when the departure
or landing point is in the USA or when the aircraft crosses US airspace
during the flight."

Stefan

[Bear]

Hi Stefan,

beside liability it is also a question of patents. These days that is a
very serious issue. The time and money the Flarm people would have to
invest in legal issues might be better invested in the further
development of the product.
But honstly: If you have a look at some discussions about passive
collision avoidance systems in the news groups I am not shure at all if
a european product would have a chance in US. Did you see the quite
natonalistic offences against Proxalert?

Bear

-------------------------------------------------------
Please accept my appologies for my Swiss Alpine English (TM).

[Ramy]

Hmm, this sounds like over reaction. The main problem is the fear of
law suite and liability issues, probably more then the law suite
themselves IMHO.
Anyway, there are already similar (but much less effective) collision
avoidance devices in the US such as TPAS, manufactured by small
companies, so there must be a solution to the liability issue.
It will be a big shame if issues like liability will prevent the use of
devices which significantly improve safety. Besides, what prevents US
companies such as Cambridge from manufacturing such devices?

Ramy


Stefan wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> > During my limited contact with the FLARM folks in preparation for a
> > session at the last SSA convention, I got the impression it wasn't
> > "liability" directly, but that they didn't know what the liability is
> > likely to be
>
> I've got no direct contact to the FLARM people, but I know very well how
> those liability lawsuits of the USA are percepted here in Europe (be it
> correctly or exaggerated). In one word: insane. A claim a million would
> be absolutely unthinkable over here, and even 100'000 is usually well
> beyond the range. And, most important, end users are supposed to be
> intelligent people here, able to read and understand.
>
> So when they write in the manual: FLARM is a help, but it's by no means
> reliable, so take it as a help but don't rely on it, then there pretty
> safe in Europe. I'm not so sure in the USA.
>
> An excerpt of the FLARM manual (cited from memory): "It is explicitely
> forbidden to use FLARM in the USA, in US registered aircraft, when a US
> citizen or somebody who lives in the USA is on board, when the departure
> or landing point is in the USA or when the aircraft crosses US airspace
> during the flight."
>
> Stefan

[g l i d e r s t u d]

What I learned from this thread is I need to quit flight instructing
and tinkering with gliders in the evening so I can get a desk job and
keep up with RAS.

I didn't plan on anyone biting, I wasn't baiting, if I was baiting I
would have stated first that we should drop all these classes and only
race PW5s, thats the only true way to determine a better pilot.

I understand that we make rules with the intent of keeping pilots safe,
I was at Ohio with UH, DJ and KM when we were talking about the
different rules that have been made because of stupidity by one or a
few pilots. But if we continue to make more and more rules trying to
make up for judgment, then we are sunk as a sport. Soon there will be
no gaggle flying because it is dangerous. It is I have yet to be at a
contest where I have not feared for being hIt.

The rules are vague enough that it is up to the CD and the rules
committee to decipher what they are saying during each contest. Some
get airspace penalties some don't (that's more a scoring issue). Don't
believe me go into the scoring office some evening, a copy of the rules
are sprawled out over the coffee table, the scorers eyes are bloodshot,
and the CD is loosing hair. I think pilots like simple rules, I know I
do, but maybe that's because I dropped out of college to buy a Discus2,
and I don't have my PhD.

The only thing that I can do if elected is lower the average age of the
RC...That's about it, but trying to gain votes by stating how I feel
about wearing pink bunny suits, is a way I might be able to get some
votes. Don't you elect someone to a committee that you have the same
opinions for? Or is it like voting for King and Queen in High
School....he's cute ill vote for him. Wait we didn't even get to post
our pictures...I like his name it sounds cool. Wait this is the
RC....he's a middle aged white male it will lift his spirits on life if
I vote for him....Oh wait he's an eldery retired male he needs
something to do with his free time, i'll vote for him.

Oh yea and it takes 16 pilots to safely change a light bulb.

Garret

[[email protected]]

OK Stud Boy.
Middle aged white boy (not elderly yet, I hope) speaking.
It is true that many rules refinements are reactive. I see this is
showing we can continue to learn and adapt. Racing changes and we
change with it.
"Simple rules" is a great objective and one we need to continue to
strive for. Writing them so they cover the various possibilities is
much harder than it would seem. Take a couple rules and take a crack at
"simplfying" them. Harder than it looks.
But, yes we can do better.
The guide to the rules is a big help and one we are working on to help
pilots understand how to fly within the rules. Excellent example is
John Seaborn saw this year an opportunity to make it clear how area
tasks and turnpoints are flown. He volunteered to do illustrations of
these to add to the guide. It is an excellent improvement. We need to,
and will keep making these improvements.
Another pilot has found a couple stray penalty causes that no longer
apply. We'll pull those this time around.
I personally am pleased that we have some excellent people running for
the RC. It's hard to find people willing to volunteers for this work
which generally only triggers gripes and abuse after a lot of caring,
hard work.
Thanks to you and John and the others for stepping up to the plate.
UH

[g l i d e r s t u d]

I know things get fixed when issues come up. I also know that there is
a lot of work is put into the rules and simplifiying them. John Good
had a rules guide but I can't seem to find it now. But I know from
Region9 last year there is some real confusion and Billy Hill waited 3
days to get points.

We don't want to tell others how to fly a TAT, i figured those out.

I just would like to see things improve, not go down hill.

Garret

[[email protected]]

Stefan:

Unlike the US, most industrialized countries, particularly European
ones, provide universal health coverage and a working social safety
net, largely obviating the need to seek redress privately. Our
(imperfect) system attempts to address this by means of an adversarial,
inefficient and ultimately unfair tort process which tries to resolve
the competing interests of commercial entities, companies, health
insurers, workers' comp insurers, property and liability insurers,
defense and plaintiff attorneys, etc. and those who have been injured.


The result is a complex, uncoordinated and wildly expensive swamp,
which, occasional giant jury awards not withstanding, rarely provides
adequate protection or compensation to the injured.

The paradox is that, while the cost of one of these giant jury awards
can destroy a small firm, the frequency with which they occur is low
and, further, the notion that such settlements represent a significant
cost to the overall US economy is a political myth, fostered by those
(big tobaco is a famous example) seeking to avoid financial liability
for the very real damage they have done.

Perhaps one of the lawyers who attend this forum could comment
(hypothetically, of course and with appropriate disclaimers) on what
the FLARM groups' actual liability exposure in the US might be and
possible strategies for controlling it.

Raphael Warshaw


Stefan wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> > During my limited contact with the FLARM folks in preparation for a
> > session at the last SSA convention, I got the impression it wasn't
> > "liability" directly, but that they didn't know what the liability is
> > likely to be
>
> I've got no direct contact to the FLARM people, but I know very well how
> those liability lawsuits of the USA are percepted here in Europe (be it
> correctly or exaggerated). In one word: insane. A claim a million would
> be absolutely unthinkable over here, and even 100'000 is usually well
> beyond the range. And, most important, end users are supposed to be
> intelligent people here, able to read and understand.
>
> So when they write in the manual: FLARM is a help, but it's by no means
> reliable, so take it as a help but don't rely on it, then there pretty
> safe in Europe. I'm not so sure in the USA.
>
> An excerpt of the FLARM manual (cited from memory): "It is explicitely
> forbidden to use FLARM in the USA, in US registered aircraft, when a US
> citizen or somebody who lives in the USA is on board, when the departure
> or landing point is in the USA or when the aircraft crosses US airspace
> during the flight."
>
> Stefan

[5Z]

Actually, what would be really cool is if the FAA did something smart
and mandated a FLARM-like transmitter in anything that flies. Maybe
adjust the power output to depend on aircraft speed. If we could
bypass the TSO/STC and other requirements and just let the thing go out
with the notion that it will mostly work, I'll bet the entry price
could be $100 or less for ultralights, and certainly less than $1000
for a top end model with color display.

Should eliminate the need fo Xponder in most sailplanes, and think of
the added safety at uncontrolled airports, where we tend to have too
many incidents in and near the pattern.

But of course, this is too simple and inexpensive a solution.

-Tom

[Marc Ramsey]

5Z wrote:
> Actually, what would be really cool is if the FAA did something smart
> and mandated a FLARM-like transmitter in anything that flies. Maybe
> adjust the power output to depend on aircraft speed.

This would be called "ADS-B". See:

http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/ADS-B.htm
http://www.ads-b.com/

> If we could
> bypass the TSO/STC and other requirements and just let the thing go out
> with the notion that it will mostly work, I'll bet the entry price
> could be $100 or less for ultralights, and certainly less than $1000
> for a top end model with color display.

Surely you jest, this is the FAA you're talking about 8^)

> Should eliminate the need fo Xponder in most sailplanes, and think of
> the added safety at uncontrolled airports, where we tend to have too
> many incidents in and near the pattern.

That it would.

> But of course, this is too simple and inexpensive a solution.

Indeed they realized this, so they made it complicated and expensive...

Marc

[Greg Arnold]

wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps one of the lawyers who attend this forum could comment
> (hypothetically, of course and with appropriate disclaimers) on what
> the FLARM groups' actual liability exposure in the US might be and
> possible strategies for controlling it.

Does anyone know of any examples of any successful soaring-related
lawsuits? Their scarcity suggests that liability probably isn't a big
problem.

[Stefan]

Greg Arnold wrote:

> Does anyone know of any examples of any successful soaring-related
> lawsuits? Their scarcity suggests that liability probably isn't a big
> problem.

Statistics doesn't work on small numbers. It only takes one reckless
attorney finding one desperate relative and just one crazy jury honoring
an eorbitant claim to ruin a whole enterprize.

Stefan

[Paul M. Cordell]

Stefan wrote:
> Greg Arnold wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of any examples of any successful soaring-related
>> lawsuits? Their scarcity suggests that liability probably isn't a big
>> problem.
>
>
> Statistics doesn't work on small numbers. It only takes one reckless
> attorney finding one desperate relative and just one crazy jury honoring
> an eorbitant claim to ruin a whole enterprize.
>
> Stefan

Applebay Aviation producer of the Zuni sailplane was forced into
bankruptcy after a law suit was filed against it. The Law suit was
filed by the estate of a Zuni owner/pilot that was killed in a Zuni
Sailplane. The extensive accident investigation ascertained that the
structural failure was clearly caused by pilot error.

[[email protected]]

>>I'll bet the entry price
could be $100 or less for ultralights, and certainly less than $1000
for a top end model with color display. <<

Maybe someone with a bit more electrical knowledge than I have could
marry a cell phone (they all now have GPS chips in them), a PDA,
something like pumped up Blue Tooth or 802.11g, and some Shareware
software to get this done? Some of the new PDAs might be able to get
the job done with nothing more than the software? See:

http://web.palm.com/products/smartphones/treo650/index.jhtml

If it's not actually attached to the plane the FAA can't have too much
to say about it........and if you can piece the system together from
"off the shelf" hardware the lawyers will probably have a hard time as
well.

Of course an Open Source soultion like this may be hard to impliment
here in the US since there isn't much profit involved :-(
================
Leon McAtee
I know someone is going to say cell phones are not legal in planes here
in the US..............but that's another subject.

[Bear]

> This would be called "ADS-B". See:
>
> http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/ADS-B.htm
> http://www.ads-b.com/

FLARM is more than ADS-B!
It also warns when approaching static obstacles. That is the main reason
why REGA (Swiss Air-Rescue) installed FLARM in their helicopters.

[Eric Greenwell]

>> Greg:
>>> Does anyone know of any examples of any successful soaring-related
>>> lawsuits? Their scarcity suggests that liability probably isn't a
>>> big problem.

>> Stefan:
>> Statistics doesn't work on small numbers. It only takes one reckless
>> attorney finding one desperate relative and just one crazy jury
>> honoring an eorbitant claim to ruin a whole enterprize.

> Paul
> Applebay Aviation producer of the Zuni sailplane was forced into
> bankruptcy after a law suit was filed against it. The Law suit was
> filed by the estate of a Zuni owner/pilot that was killed in a Zuni
> Sailplane. The extensive accident investigation ascertained that the
> structural failure was clearly caused by pilot error.

Setting up a company to make FLARM style units available in the US
should be a lot easier and less risky than sailplane production,
especially if the design can be obtained from FLARM. Production of the
units can be done by fabrication companies here or abroad, so the
"USLARM" entity would only manage the promotion and sales of the units.
The assets of the company would be small, making them unattractive to
sue and little lost if they were sued.

With several companies (Monroy, Surecheck, Proxalert) selling
transponder detectors without going bankrupt from law suits, it seems
there is precedent for selling warning devices without fear of financial
ruin. Maybe it's because proving the transponder detector was the cause
of an accident is really difficult? Or maybe since we are supposed to
fly VFR using "see and avoid", the performance of a warning device is
completely irrelevant?

So, with a low start-up cost and a very small liability risk, is all we
need are some champions to "just do it"?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Marc Ramsey]

Bear wrote:
>> This would be called "ADS-B". See:
>>
>> http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/ADS-B.htm
>> http://www.ads-b.com/
>
> FLARM is more than ADS-B!
> It also warns when approaching static obstacles. That is the main reason
> why REGA (Swiss Air-Rescue) installed FLARM in their helicopters.

No, you got it backwards, ADS-B is much more than FLARM. ADS-B has
always had provision for fixed transmitters for obstacle avoidance.
Ground stations have the capability to broadcast locations of known
obstacles using datalink capability, along with real-time weather data,
etc. Plus, ground stations will retransmit traffic data derived from
ATC radar, allowing ADS-B equipped aircraft to receive traffic warnings
for mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft.

That said, ADS-B is horribly over-designed, and the current units are
large, power-hungry, and expensive. Hopefully, this will not be true in
5 years or so...

Marc

[Stefan]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> No, you got it backwards, ADS-B is much more than FLARM. ADS-B has
> always had provision for fixed transmitters for obstacle avoidance.

Different design. FLARM contains an obstacle database. No ground
transmitters.

Stefan