Over the last 15 years or so our instrument panels
have become much more interesting, displaying vastly
more information than previously. During the same
period there has been a significant increase in the
number of pilots with the skill (and willingness) to
soar very close to other sailplanes.

The accidents are caused by our willingness to fly
in a close proximity to other gliders, that produces
the level of risk that produces the accidents we have.

A gadget that worked, if such were possible, would
probably have us all flying closer and closer together
until we got back up to the same (maximum acceptable)
perceived level of risk.

At 23:54 01 May 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
In article ,
Mike,

The FLARM concept has been painfully obvious, from
a technology point
of view, since the introduction of low-cost GPS. In
fact, it could
even have been partially implemented with LORAN, but
those receivers
were expensive and were never widely deployed.

Unfortunately, FLARM-type collision avoidance is only
going to work if
it's deployed to virtually all aircraft, which would
require the
authorities to insist on it. This won't happen: ADS-B
is the chosen
approach.

Sort of important to this approach is 'is it worth
it?' and
'does the solution cause more death than the problem?'

Kind of like parachutes. If the added weight increases
the
marginal stall speed to the point it causes .001% more
fatal accidents, but only saves .0092% more pilots
in breakups, then it was a bad idea. Of course it's
extremely unlikely anyone can prove the extra 15 pounds
was
the cause of fatality, right?

How many added fatalities will there be because the
pilot
is distracted by the bleepy noise, even though the
aircraft
would have missed by six inches if neither pilot was
aware?
How many will die because of the distraction itself?

This is just too hard to calculate. Huge numbers (hours
of flight)multiplied by tiny estimated numbers (risk
of midair)
makes for a tough comparison. Now instead of risk
use cost in $$$$s to implement, and the true cost vs.
benefit is
very difficult to estimate correctly...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA