Paul, As I pointed out in my previous post, flying with flarm in company of others who are not equipped with flarm is *not* utterly useless --- it's just not as useful as it could be.
If half the gliders you are flying with have them, your risk is still reduced. This mis-conception is spurious logic and it discourages some people from adopting Flarm because they think "Either we all have it or no-one has it". For a start, no-one at GFA is going to mandate Flarm for general use unless they see demand for it, and there won't be demand unless a certain proportion of us adopt the technology voluntarily. This elusive figure of 100% adoption is not realistic, and furthermore it encourages people to think that they have 100% collision risk reduction if they have 100% of gliders Flarm equipped, which is not true. There will always be paragliders, hanggliders, ultralights etc as well as normal GA that we have to keep look out for. Now, Flarm is certainly a technology that those aircraft could take up as well, but we will never achieve 100% of traffic to be equipped with Flarm. John Wharington On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 00:28 +1000, ppb2 wrote: > I have started this post pointing out that a parachute and a Flarm are > quite similar, in that they may improve our odds. But there is one > important difference. If I put on a parachute I improve my chances of > survival irrespective of what anyone else might choose to do. This is > not the case with Flarm. Flying with Flarm in company of others who are > not equally equipped is utterly useless. _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
