Dear Fellow Sailplane Racers

wrote:


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.

Does anyone know of any examples of any successful soaring-related
lawsuits? Their scarcity suggests that liability probably isn't a big
problem.

Greg Arnold wrote:

Does anyone know of any examples of any successful soaring-related
lawsuits? Their scarcity suggests that liability probably isn't a big
problem.

Statistics doesn't work on small numbers. It only takes one reckless
attorney finding one desperate relative and just one crazy jury honoring
an eorbitant claim to ruin a whole enterprize.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
Greg Arnold wrote:

Does anyone know of any examples of any successful soaring-related
lawsuits? Their scarcity suggests that liability probably isn't a big
problem.


Statistics doesn't work on small numbers. It only takes one reckless
attorney finding one desperate relative and just one crazy jury honoring
an eorbitant claim to ruin a whole enterprize.

Stefan

Applebay Aviation producer of the Zuni sailplane was forced into
bankruptcy after a law suit was filed against it. The Law suit was
filed by the estate of a Zuni owner/pilot that was killed in a Zuni
Sailplane. The extensive accident investigation ascertained that the
structural failure was clearly caused by pilot error.

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.

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.

Greg:
Does anyone know of any examples of any successful soaring-related
lawsuits? Their scarcity suggests that liability probably isn't a
big problem.

Stefan:
Statistics doesn't work on small numbers. It only takes one reckless
attorney finding one desperate relative and just one crazy jury
honoring an eorbitant claim to ruin a whole enterprize.

Paul
Applebay Aviation producer of the Zuni sailplane was forced into
bankruptcy after a law suit was filed against it. The Law suit was
filed by the estate of a Zuni owner/pilot that was killed in a Zuni
Sailplane. The extensive accident investigation ascertained that the
structural failure was clearly caused by pilot error.

Setting up a company to make FLARM style units available in the US
should be a lot easier and less risky than sailplane production,
especially if the design can be obtained from FLARM. Production of the
units can be done by fabrication companies here or abroad, so the
"USLARM" entity would only manage the promotion and sales of the units.
The assets of the company would be small, making them unattractive to
sue and little lost if they were sued.

With several companies (Monroy, Surecheck, Proxalert) selling
transponder detectors without going bankrupt from law suits, it seems
there is precedent for selling warning devices without fear of financial
ruin. Maybe it's because proving the transponder detector was the cause
of an accident is really difficult? Or maybe since we are supposed to
fly VFR using "see and avoid", the performance of a warning device is
completely irrelevant?

So, with a low start-up cost and a very small liability risk, is all we
need are some champions to "just do it"?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Bear wrote:
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.

No, you got it backwards, ADS-B is much more than FLARM. ADS-B has
always had provision for fixed transmitters for obstacle avoidance.
Ground stations have the capability to broadcast locations of known
obstacles using datalink capability, along with real-time weather data,
etc. Plus, ground stations will retransmit traffic data derived from
ATC radar, allowing ADS-B equipped aircraft to receive traffic warnings
for mode C/S transponder equipped aircraft.

That said, ADS-B is horribly over-designed, and the current units are
large, power-hungry, and expensive. Hopefully, this will not be true in
5 years or so...

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:

No, you got it backwards, ADS-B is much more than FLARM. ADS-B has
always had provision for fixed transmitters for obstacle avoidance.

Different design. FLARM contains an obstacle database. No ground
transmitters.

Stefan