Mark,

An alarm like FLARM that reduces the risk of collisions
- an accident type that carries a high risk of death
- and doesn't inadvertently increase another type of
accident - is clearly a good thing.

An gear alarm that may or may not prevent lots of trivial
accidents that result only in minor (pilot's own)
property damage damage but that has been implicated
in a smaller number of accidents of a type known to
be a potential cause of serious injury surely can't
have a clear cut safety case.

Perhaps:

for private single seaters where the only risk is to
the pilot/owner then fit one if you want to.

for club retractable 2 seaters where there is a risk
of second party injury then don't fit an gear alarm.




At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
In article ,
John Galloway wrote:

At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
What would this thread have looked like if the BGA
had released a position paper which said that collision
warning devices were discouraged because pilots should
be looking
out, and if they're not looking out the last thing
we want to do is surprise them and distract them in
the high-stress
environment they get when another glider is in the
final moments of a collision course?

People die in collisions.
Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up
on a runway but many have from approach control failures.

Oh, one more thing:

You've drawn a distinction between accidents in which
people
die, and accidents in which property is damaged, in
support
of a point of view which says that warning devices
intended
to prevent property damage shouldn't be fitted.

Just clarify for me: Does that mean you're arguing
that
accidents which result in property damage are 'less
unacceptable'
than accidents which result in injury or death?

Aviation safety has progressed to its present manageable
levels
due to a history of participants determining that *no*
accident
is acceptable, and that predictable accidents ought
to be
managed before they occur. From a safety management
point of
view it makes no difference whether an accident results
in an
injury or not; An accident is an accident, and its
risk ought
to be managed to the best of our abilities regardless.

A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have
an
undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident.
Why is
there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming,
yawn
about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it?
I mean,
you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much
as you
want, but we've built up a track record which says
those things
DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building
up a
simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings
DO work.
So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings?

- mark