I'd like to correct a misperception: The success of FLARM in reducing our collision risk does not require all gliders to be fitted with one. For sakes of argument, let's assume that the reduction in risk due to having every glider fitted to be X%.
If 50% of gliders have one, our collision risk is then reduced by X/2 % Just as random breath tests does not cut drink driving by 100%, it reduces it by some proportion of the ideal figure if it did, so too FLARM is useful in reducing the risk in proportion to the uptake. A lot of people have the misconception that FLARM is useless unless everyone has one. This is only true if people rely on FLARM entirely for their lookout, which will not and cannot be done. Certainly though, our risk reduction is maximised if everyone has one, and in a collision-risk intensive environment like a competition, it is logical to mandate it. Secondly, I think that the idea of not installing FLARM on training aircraft is a bad idea. During training, either or both the instructor and student may be overloaded, and this is one way that FLARM may provide an assistance --- think of it as 'training wheels' for lookout. If it is integrated into training programmes (and it should be), then we should make sure that students are trained to fly with and without FLARM safely early on. It could be a challenge by the instructors to the students --- that if the FLARM beeps the student MUST be able to identify the threat quickly. (This could be done with the FLARM display in the back seat so the student isn't given 'hints'). John Wharington _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
