PowerFlarm rentals

Before everyone gets thier shorts in a knot, give peace a chance.
There WILL be a rental program for contest gliders. There are 4
months to get this up and active. Dale has elected to abdicate the
effort to MIRA but that does not mean that the rental effort is dead.
We are very busy with other priorities at this time.
Lee

abdicate = Fail to fulfill or undertake (a responsibility or duty)

First of all there was no duty, on my part, involved in the formation
of the FLARM Fund other than to my stated goals.

Failure to fulfill the original stated MIRA goals of the FLARM Fund
was beyond my control.

The Rules Committee failed to undertake a duty and responsibility to
the contest pilots that elected them when they completely roadblocked
a specific MIRA direction presented to them by a large majority of
those contest pilots.

I suggest that MIRA was defeated, other people abdicated.

Dale Kramer

On Nov 21, 6:26*am, DaleKramer wrote:

The Rules Committee failed to undertake a duty and responsibility to
the contest pilots that elected them when they completely
roadblocked a specific MIRA direction presented to them by a
large majority of those contest pilots.

Interesting. How do you support your assertion regarding the "large
majority"?

Thanks, Bob K.

68%, see FLARM Fund submission to Rules Committee:
http://www.FlarmFund.com/RC_Submission_1.pdf

Dale

On 11/21/2010 9:26 AM, DaleKramer wrote:
abdicate = Fail to fulfill or undertake (a responsibility or duty)

First of all there was no duty, on my part, involved in the formation
of the FLARM Fund other than to my stated goals.

Failure to fulfill the original stated MIRA goals of the FLARM Fund
was beyond my control.

The Rules Committee failed to undertake a duty and responsibility to
the contest pilots that elected them when they completely roadblocked
a specific MIRA direction presented to them by a large majority of
those contest pilots.

I suggest that MIRA was defeated, other people abdicated.

Dale Kramer

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

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.

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.