On Nov 21, 8:33*am, brianDG303 wrote:
On Nov 21, 8:30*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:



On 11/21/2010 11:20 AM, brianDG303 wrote:

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

--
Mike Schumann

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

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

I don't see the problem myself.
MID-AIR COLLISIONS
Since when does the rules committee have the "duty" to mandate anything,
just because a group of people suggest that they do????

--
Mike Schumann

When people die at an unacceptable rate?

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

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

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

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

Mike