Dear Fellow Sailplane Racers

I think I don't agree with you re leeching. It is very much like match
racing sailboats. One guy looks for advantage, the other guy covers. Be
in the top 2 at a good close race and you will see what I mean.
All this said, the Rules Subcommittee is very concerned with how cost
affects participation.
I did not know Flarm was not in US due to liability issues. Interesting
perspective- thanks
UH

wrote:
I think I don't agree with you re leeching. It is very much like match
racing sailboats. One guy looks for advantage, the other guy covers. Be
in the top 2 at a good close race and you will see what I mean.
All this said, the Rules Subcommittee is very concerned with how cost
affects participation.
I did not know Flarm was not in US due to liability issues. Interesting
perspective- thanks

During my limited contact with the FLARM folks in preparation for a
session at the last SSA convention, I got the impression it wasn't
"liability" directly, but that they didn't know what the liability is
likely to be (not surprising - I don't think most of us know, either).
They are familiar with the liability situation in Europe, and it might
be simple now that the countries are tied more closely together.

I think it will take someone in the US to champion the cause, perhaps by
persuading them the liability is manageable, or by licensing (or buying
the design for) the device and manufacturing it here, so FLARM would not
be liable.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:

During my limited contact with the FLARM folks in preparation for a
session at the last SSA convention, I got the impression it wasn't
"liability" directly, but that they didn't know what the liability is
likely to be

I've got no direct contact to the FLARM people, but I know very well how
those liability lawsuits of the USA are percepted here in Europe (be it
correctly or exaggerated). In one word: insane. A claim a million would
be absolutely unthinkable over here, and even 100'000 is usually well
beyond the range. And, most important, end users are supposed to be
intelligent people here, able to read and understand.

So when they write in the manual: FLARM is a help, but it's by no means
reliable, so take it as a help but don't rely on it, then there pretty
safe in Europe. I'm not so sure in the USA.

An excerpt of the FLARM manual (cited from memory): "It is explicitely
forbidden to use FLARM in the USA, in US registered aircraft, when a US
citizen or somebody who lives in the USA is on board, when the departure
or landing point is in the USA or when the aircraft crosses US airspace
during the flight."

Stefan

Hi Stefan,

beside liability it is also a question of patents. These days that is a
very serious issue. The time and money the Flarm people would have to
invest in legal issues might be better invested in the further
development of the product.
But honstly: If you have a look at some discussions about passive
collision avoidance systems in the news groups I am not shure at all if
a european product would have a chance in US. Did you see the quite
natonalistic offences against Proxalert?

Bear

-------------------------------------------------------
Please accept my appologies for my Swiss Alpine English (TM).

Hmm, this sounds like over reaction. The main problem is the fear of
law suite and liability issues, probably more then the law suite
themselves IMHO.
Anyway, there are already similar (but much less effective) collision
avoidance devices in the US such as TPAS, manufactured by small
companies, so there must be a solution to the liability issue.
It will be a big shame if issues like liability will prevent the use of
devices which significantly improve safety. Besides, what prevents US
companies such as Cambridge from manufacturing such devices?

Ramy


Stefan wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:

During my limited contact with the FLARM folks in preparation for a
session at the last SSA convention, I got the impression it wasn't
"liability" directly, but that they didn't know what the liability is
likely to be

I've got no direct contact to the FLARM people, but I know very well how
those liability lawsuits of the USA are percepted here in Europe (be it
correctly or exaggerated). In one word: insane. A claim a million would
be absolutely unthinkable over here, and even 100'000 is usually well
beyond the range. And, most important, end users are supposed to be
intelligent people here, able to read and understand.

So when they write in the manual: FLARM is a help, but it's by no means
reliable, so take it as a help but don't rely on it, then there pretty
safe in Europe. I'm not so sure in the USA.

An excerpt of the FLARM manual (cited from memory): "It is explicitely
forbidden to use FLARM in the USA, in US registered aircraft, when a US
citizen or somebody who lives in the USA is on board, when the departure
or landing point is in the USA or when the aircraft crosses US airspace
during the flight."

Stefan

Stefan:

Unlike the US, most industrialized countries, particularly European
ones, provide universal health coverage and a working social safety
net, largely obviating the need to seek redress privately. Our
(imperfect) system attempts to address this by means of an adversarial,
inefficient and ultimately unfair tort process which tries to resolve
the competing interests of commercial entities, companies, health
insurers, workers' comp insurers, property and liability insurers,
defense and plaintiff attorneys, etc. and those who have been injured.


The result is a complex, uncoordinated and wildly expensive swamp,
which, occasional giant jury awards not withstanding, rarely provides
adequate protection or compensation to the injured.

The paradox is that, while the cost of one of these giant jury awards
can destroy a small firm, the frequency with which they occur is low
and, further, the notion that such settlements represent a significant
cost to the overall US economy is a political myth, fostered by those
(big tobaco is a famous example) seeking to avoid financial liability
for the very real damage they have done.

Perhaps one of the lawyers who attend this forum could comment
(hypothetically, of course and with appropriate disclaimers) on what
the FLARM groups' actual liability exposure in the US might be and
possible strategies for controlling it.

Raphael Warshaw


Stefan wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:

During my limited contact with the FLARM folks in preparation for a
session at the last SSA convention, I got the impression it wasn't
"liability" directly, but that they didn't know what the liability is
likely to be

I've got no direct contact to the FLARM people, but I know very well how
those liability lawsuits of the USA are percepted here in Europe (be it
correctly or exaggerated). In one word: insane. A claim a million would
be absolutely unthinkable over here, and even 100'000 is usually well
beyond the range. And, most important, end users are supposed to be
intelligent people here, able to read and understand.

So when they write in the manual: FLARM is a help, but it's by no means
reliable, so take it as a help but don't rely on it, then there pretty
safe in Europe. I'm not so sure in the USA.

An excerpt of the FLARM manual (cited from memory): "It is explicitely
forbidden to use FLARM in the USA, in US registered aircraft, when a US
citizen or somebody who lives in the USA is on board, when the departure
or landing point is in the USA or when the aircraft crosses US airspace
during the flight."

Stefan

Actually, what would be really cool is if the FAA did something smart
and mandated a FLARM-like transmitter in anything that flies. Maybe
adjust the power output to depend on aircraft speed. If we could
bypass the TSO/STC and other requirements and just let the thing go out
with the notion that it will mostly work, I'll bet the entry price
could be $100 or less for ultralights, and certainly less than $1000
for a top end model with color display.

Should eliminate the need fo Xponder in most sailplanes, and think of
the added safety at uncontrolled airports, where we tend to have too
many incidents in and near the pattern.

But of course, this is too simple and inexpensive a solution.

-Tom

5Z wrote:
Actually, what would be really cool is if the FAA did something smart
and mandated a FLARM-like transmitter in anything that flies. Maybe
adjust the power output to depend on aircraft speed.

This would be called "ADS-B". See:

http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/ADS-B.htm
http://www.ads-b.com/

If we could
bypass the TSO/STC and other requirements and just let the thing go out
with the notion that it will mostly work, I'll bet the entry price
could be $100 or less for ultralights, and certainly less than $1000
for a top end model with color display.

Surely you jest, this is the FAA you're talking about 8^)

Should eliminate the need fo Xponder in most sailplanes, and think of
the added safety at uncontrolled airports, where we tend to have too
many incidents in and near the pattern.

That it would.

But of course, this is too simple and inexpensive a solution.

Indeed they realized this, so they made it complicated and expensive...

Marc

This would be called "ADS-B". See:

http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/ADS-B.htm
http://www.ads-b.com/

FLARM is more than ADS-B!
It also warns when approaching static obstacles. That is the main reason
why REGA (Swiss Air-Rescue) installed FLARM in their helicopters.

I'll bet the entry price
could be $100 or less for ultralights, and certainly less than $1000
for a top end model with color display.

Maybe someone with a bit more electrical knowledge than I have could
marry a cell phone (they all now have GPS chips in them), a PDA,
something like pumped up Blue Tooth or 802.11g, and some Shareware
software to get this done? Some of the new PDAs might be able to get
the job done with nothing more than the software? See:

http://web.palm.com/products/smartph...50/index.jhtml

If it's not actually attached to the plane the FAA can't have too much
to say about it........and if you can piece the system together from
"off the shelf" hardware the lawyers will probably have a hard time as
well.

Of course an Open Source soultion like this may be hard to impliment
here in the US since there isn't much profit involved :-(
================
Leon McAtee
I know someone is going to say cell phones are not legal in planes here
in the US..............but that's another subject.