Gary,
I did not miss PS's point. If you refer to my 3rd para I did suggest
that there may be a better compromise system.
MB picked up on this.
The flawed logic that I am referring to is; If only one aircraft is
fitted with a safety device that relies on other aircraft having it fitted
is downright stupid.
I am all for extra risk reduction, but that it all it is; A Risk
reduction device. As JM has stated he had a very interesting tow in which
the Flarms did not function.
At least when I put on a seat belt I have a physical reminder that
it's on and hopefully likely to reduce my injuries should the worst happen.
There are many examples out there in the engineering world of multi
million dollars solutions to a simple problem.
Empty tooth paste packets being one of them.
At present a 750 Euro device is approx $1000. While on the face of
it this seems a very reasonable price to pay there will be a small number of
people who will not pay, back to the flawed logic discussion.
Making people pay for a solution is one option, but is there a
cheaper and better option.
My argument is that these devices COULD prevent a collision but
cannot be relied on to ENSURE it does not happen, that is up to the pilots.
How many examples are there out there of aircraft colliding when
fitted with such devices, in these cases killing 10s of people.
Perhaps FLARM people need to provide us with a test cell that can be
used every morning to check that the FLARM and aerial work correctly through
the air, aka have good comms.
May have (please note the use of may) prevented the issue JM raised
earlier due to possible issues with the ariels.
This may in fact be one of those cheap solutions, at the time the
pilot launches they have a good chance that their FLARM is working.
Sean
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2012 9:36 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Mid Air collision risk
Sean,
With respect, I posit that you totally miss PS 's point. What he is
suggesting is that EVERY recreational aircraft (GA, RAAus, Gliding), be
fitted with flarm. No flawed logic there! I earlier drew comparison with the
mandating of compulsory use of seat belts in motor vehicles -somewhat
controversial at the time; today an accepted fact. Mandate flarm, and
immediately its benefits compound.
Let me say that given the pace of technological development, I would expect
that in the years to come , flarm will be regarded as a rather quaint
chapter in collision avoidance. In the meantime it is the best we have, and
it is bloody good system in comparison with nothing at all!
Do however keep in mind the primary directive: LOOKOUT, LOOKOUT, LOOKOUT!
Gary
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
