On 7/31/2011 8:46 AM, Chip Bearden wrote:
Personally, I try to avoid implying that
any one person's life is more or less important than any other life
(or lives), or that incurring a risk for a few weeks is OK compared to
being protected forever. At least to that person's face, figuratively
speaking. But maybe I simply don't have the same absolute conviction.

I don't recall anyone suggesting pilot A's life was worth more than
pilot B's, but only that 1) the Uvalde contest pilot's life was at much
greater risk for that 2 or 3 week period than most other pilots, even if
their FLARM was delayed for months), and 2) pilot A would get a much
larger benefit from FLARM because most of the other pilots near him
would also have FLARM, unlike pilot B.

It's only as good as PCAS. But...wasn't
that the most recent if-you-don't-buy-it-you're-negligent, must-have
gadget? Or was that a transponder? Doesn't matter, you should have
installed them both years ago. Shame on you.

And same for this: I do not think most people recommending PCAS or
transponders did it with religious fervor, but used a balanced,
risk-based approach to it, along the lines of "if you are being
surprised by transponder equipped aircraft, get one of each".


In engineering school, we learned an expression: "First you draw the
curve, then you plot the points." To religion and politics, I would
add technology as an area of life where the true believers are
sometimes so zealous and certain that they lose the ability to reason
with perspective. iPhone vs. Android, anyone?

FLARM is NOT new technology (nor are transponders), and we have years of
experience to base our opinions on.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)