Roy,

Most of us routinely fly with multiple loggers and trackers. All of that data is just as subject to subpoena as the proposed video data. Logger and tracker data is just as useful in each of your examples: FAA airspace, crazy ladies, insurance companies and divorce lawyers. Yet, I've not heard about anyone being plagued by subpoenas. I'll agree that it's a potential issue; but not one of much concern considering the practical equivalence of what we are already all doing routinely. In fact, most guys are now posting each and every flight to the internet for all to see.

Your point about not being easy to mandate was acknowledged at the onset. It's doable; but only if there were the corporate will to know why the accidents are happening. It's not necessarily an easy sell since the amount that people care about such things does vary.

You wanted to make comparison with PowerFlarm adoption; but that's not a great counter-example since we have achieved virtually 100% adoption of Flarm now at SSA race events. Such things are achievable. My club is getting pretty small these days, but around here almost everyone flies with PowerFlarm. The contemplated video logger would be a much smaller, simpler and cheaper device than PowerFlarm.

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 6:06:54 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
"I'm only talking about giving up my privacy when I have a reportable accident."

Sorry Steve -but life and litigation don't work that way. Once you "mandate" the creation and maintenance of the data source it is out there for anybody to subpoena:

The insurance company that doesn't want to pay a claim, The FAA when it wants to revoke your license for busting airspace, the divorce lawyer who wants to see if you really were on a gliding vacation that weekend, the crazy lady who bought a house on airport road but doesn't like towplane noise, . . . they all can get the videos.

And how do we do it? What percentage of the glider fleet now has FLARM (which makes infinitely more sense if something must be "mandated")? 1% maybe? My A&I has to take a course in video installation? CDs have to check video samples before a contest like ENLs? And to what end? Do you really need a video to diagnose a stall spin in? Would a video explain the Arcus/Nephi accident that an experienced pilot who watched and felt it happen can't explain? Is a guy screwing around before his (unexpected) fatal accident not going to disable the camera? Is it coincidence that police and military body cameras have a remarkable failure rate in the field?

Let's all get behind this idea and push it out the window . . .

ROY