On 11/21/2010 9:50 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Nov 21, 8:33 am, wrote:


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.

I think "economic sense" doesn't apply very well to PowerFlarm and
contests. It makes no economic sense to one pilot; but far more economic
sense to the 40th pilot. Thus, the usefulness of a mandate; however, the
RC has chosen not to do that, and is relying on a sufficient number of
early adopters and peer pressure (including the rental system) to likely
achieve close to the same result. I think it's a good approach to a
product that is new, and a technology that is new to our contests and
most of our pilots.

There is another factor: unlike a parachute, which protects only the
owner, PowerFlarm also protects people besides the owner, so the
"economic factor" is effectively higher for the group, but not for the
individual that has to purchase one. Again, a situation where a mandate
makes sense.

Since we already mandate a parachute which protects just the owner, I
don't have any problem with mandating a device that costs the same, but
protects the owner AND other pilots.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz