Robert Hart wrote:
We would like every glider and tug to be FLARM equipped, but gliders without FLARM will be permitted to fly in the Easter comp. For what its worth, I'm of the view that *recommendation* to use FLARM in comps is good and fine, and non-contentious. However, I feel that an ultimate shift to making a FLARM *mandatory* for competition flying is a very significant decision that should not be taken lightly (or potentially, at all), for reasons including: - Added cost to a sport which is already non-income-producing and suffering from cost and 'other things in life' pressures in terms of bringing in new blood - especially but not only (a) juniors (b) people with older aircraft and potentially limited budgets as well (at any age of pilot!). - The potential to generate reliance on a technology which, I am sure, is excellent, but which (in its current form) is *not* a certified technology for locating other aircraft, unlike radios (which are licensed and produced to defined standards) and the other flight instruments (similarly). While none of us feel like the extra money paid for 'certified' instruments is pleasant, it does come with some level of assurance that the certified instruments are the survivors of a test regime which is adequate, and a regime of checking and verifying future changes in firmware which will then be fully tested to ensure they continue to maintain the appropriate level of demonstrated accuracy and reliability. And if the response to all of this is (I would argue, correctly) that its irrelevant because FLARM is only a secondary/backup to the correct primary approach, see-and-avoid ... then sincerely, this is the key argument in my mind *against* mandating it. Don't mandate something safety related that you (on the other hand) won't yet bet your life on. Think about it like cameras vs GPS. Sure, noone turns up at a comp with a camera any more, but for a decade or so, we were in a genuinely mixed environment, as all of us got the hang of GPSs, as they became cheaper, and (most importantly) as we all formed a trust relationship with the data they provided, and learned when to trust them and when not to. I'm not sure if I've explained myself clearly enough here, and whether you will buy my argument, but sincerely I feel that imposing both the cost and the potentially gray area of implict endorsement of FLARM as being a safety-critical device are the right answers at this time for any form of 'mandate' in respect of its use. Please appreciate that I'm the last person to want to hold back the takeup of technology. The reverse of that is in fact my day job as a broadband services provider. And personally, I'm also amply able to afford to buy a FLARM - hell, I'm trading in my Stemme for a new one partly because the new one has a two-screen light-jet standard glass cockpit system in it, and sports a total of four GPS receivers (in various objects) and enough technology to run a small business already :) But... it genuinely makes me feel concerned for the people who aren't as lucky as I am in that regard, and whose Boomerang or Cirrus or Astir may be all they can afford, all they want to fly, and they may already be feeling the pinch in finding the money for the tow tickets, let alone to buy a FLARM as well. Give it a few more years before seriously contemplating making something so new 'mandatory'. Regardless of how good it looks now. I think thats the bottom line. In a few years, we'll all have more experience with it, it'll be cheaper, and our general trust relationship with the technology will be stronger. Recommend? Fine. Strongly recommend, even? Fine. But 'mandate' is a much, much larger step. Step carefully. Please. Regards, Simon |
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
