A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Anti Collision Warning



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #19  
Old May 2nd 04, 08:12 AM
Chris Rollings
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Keith Willshaw... robert arndt Military Aviation 253 July 6th 04 05:18 AM
Anti collision lights mods for Arrow 1968?? Frode Berg Piloting 3 May 20th 04 05:42 AM
Anti collision light mod for Piper Arrow 1968 model? Frode Berg Owning 4 May 20th 04 05:16 AM
New anti collision system for aircrafts, helicopters and gliders Thierry Owning 10 February 14th 04 08:36 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.