PowerFlarm rentals

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.

Since when does the rules committee have the "duty" to mandate anything,
just because a group of people suggest that they do????

--
Mike Schumann

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.

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?

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

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

Not sure that overall soaring statistics are as useful as just looking
at contest stats, which are more grim. A lot more grim.

Otherwise couldn't agree more.

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

Do you people realize that this continuous venomous conversation has long passed the phase of being constructive? In fact it is getting to the point that it is actually impeding instead of fostering the acceptance of the PowerFLARM.

Respectfully, an old guy who flies homebuilt gliders.

Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


"brianDG303" wrote in message ...


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

Not sure that overall soaring statistics are as useful as just looking
at contest stats, which are more grim. A lot more grim.

Otherwise couldn't agree more.

"Wayne Paul" wrote

Do you people realize that this continuous venomous conversation has long
passed the phase of being constructive? In fact it is getting to the
point that it is actually impeding instead of fostering the acceptance of
the PowerFLARM.

I have to agree. I now skip most threads with flarm involved.
--
Jim in NC

On Nov 22, 6:50*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
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

$3m to save one life would be a little high by the standards of those
who decide where to spend money on road safety improvements etc
(though it's incredibly low compared to, say, mandatory swimming pool
fencing).

But bear in mind that the $3m is a one-off, but the safety extends for
many years. I would think a unit could be reasonably expected to work
for 10 - 15 years, so it's $200k to $300k per life saved.

On Nov 21, 4:20*pm, Bruce Hoult wrote:
I would think a unit could be reasonably expected to work
for 10 - 15 years, so it's $200k to $300k per life saved.

If the economics are so compelling, the insurance companies ought to
be the ones pushing for it. What says Costello?

On 11/21/2010 4:47 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Nov 21, 4:20 pm, Bruce wrote:
I would think a unit could be reasonably expected to work
for 10 - 15 years, so it's $200k to $300k per life saved.

If the economics are so compelling, the insurance companies ought to
be the ones pushing for it. What says Costello?

I'd like to hear an insurance company comment on it, but I suspect an
insurance company may not benefit from something like Flarm. One simple
case: all pilots equip with Flarm, company A's insurance payouts go
down, their competitors offer policies at lower premiums that company A
has to match to keep the customers, and ta-da! their profits are back to
pre-Flarm levels. So, no financial benefit to the insurance company.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl