Pilots with weakening vision - please install Powerflarm

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:00:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:20:38 AM UTC-5, GC wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 6:48:32 PM UTC+1, son_of_flubber wrote:







I understand that you want to fly for a few more years.







Please install Powerflarm (so that I can see you coming). You can



turn the volume down. You don't have to learn how to use it.







I understand that you're more scared of dying than I am. I don't have



Flarm so keep a really good lookout.







In all age rugby, players over a certain age have patches on their



shorts so the 80-year-olds don't get tackled as hard. In the same



spirit, I've painted a small pirate-style eye patch below my cockpit to



give you fair warning. Watch out for it!







GC



That's really funny GC - until you are being warned by PFlarm of a target heading right at you that you had no idea was there. Your lookout is just not good enough and at your age (I honestly have no idea) you probably cannot turn your head far enough to see what's going on behind you.

I'm also really weary of people not afraid of dying...

Herb

Funny though, the risk averse society we have become.

Your risk of dying in a car accident on the drive to the airport is far greater than a glider-glider midair, and yes, you can do something about it: It has been proven that you are far more likely to survive an automobile accident wearing a crash helmet. And given that your hours of exposure in a car are many times greater than in a glider, wearing a crash helmet anytime you drive would have an even greater effect on your life expectancy.

And so my question is, how many PowerFlarm users bought a crash helmet for the car first? It is more effective and at the same time much cheaper and easier to use.

Maybe it is time to revisit Bruno Gatenbrink's essay on soaring safety, which begins
"The most dangerous part of gliding is the trip to the glider field"
is the dumbest, most ignorant saying that has found a home in our sport.

gkemp

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:01:26 AM UTC-7, gkemp wrote:
Maybe it is time to revisit Bruno Gatenbrink's essay on soaring safety, which begins

"The most dangerous part of gliding is the trip to the glider field"

is the dumbest, most ignorant saying that has found a home in our sport.



gkemp

But the thread is about glider-to-glider mid air collisions. And the statistics support the idea that an auto accident on the way to the airfield is more probable than a mid air collision once there. Again, no one here is suggesting that soaring is not dangerous (certainly not me), just that mid air collisions in general and glider-to-glider mid air collisions in particular are a negligible part of that danger. 99% of the fatalities are collisions with terrain - not involving other aircraft. Flarm could eliminate the remaining 1%, but soaring will not be much safer as a result.

Hey, jfitch.

You get it. I get it. Significant money and angst being lavished on gee wiz technology that does not address the most likely risks in soaring. They don't want to hear you.


But the thread is about glider-to-glider mid air collisions. And the statistics support the idea that an auto accident on the way to the airfield is more probable than a mid air collision once there. Again, no one here is suggesting that soaring is not dangerous (certainly not me), just that mid air collisions in general and glider-to-glider mid air collisions in particular are a negligible part of that danger. 99% of the fatalities are collisions with terrain - not involving other aircraft. Flarm could eliminate the remaining 1%, but soaring will not be much safer as a result.

How about spending some time, money, and angst on an AOA instrument?



But the thread is about glider-to-glider mid air collisions. And the statistics support the idea that an auto accident on the way to the airfield is more probable than a mid air collision once there. Again, no one here is suggesting that soaring is not dangerous (certainly not me), just that mid air collisions in general and glider-to-glider mid air collisions in particular are a negligible part of that danger. 99% of the fatalities are collisions with terrain - not involving other aircraft. Flarm could eliminate the remaining 1%, but soaring will not be much safer as a result.

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:22:32 PM UTC+2, wrote:
How about spending some time, money, and angst on an AOA instrument?

Sure, and the same bozos who are planting their ships will continue planting them. These are the guys who don't fly all winter, then drag their gliders to the local race and have at it - gee, what a surprise when they crash!

Yes, you don't need high tech thingies to prevent most glider accidents - but you do need the will to actually go out and get current and practice stall & spins & spiral dive recoveries.

Lets face it - we have so many crashes because we are, on the whole, non-current, ****ty pilots! But we all think we are Sierra Hotel jocks who never have to crack a book about basic aerodynamics, or go out and spend a tow or two just playing with slow speed unusual attitudes, or doing some acro, or or or...

If midair are such a low risk - why do we wear parachutes? BECAUSE IF YOU NEED IT, YOU CAN'T PRACTICE LANDING WITHOUT IT! It's the same thing with Flarm - sure you probably will never actually need it (although I already doubt that, from personal experience) but when you do need it you better have it!

Cars? Have you ever really used your seat belts or airbags? So why wear them or have them?

All you non-believers really need to go up in a flarm equipped glider on a busy day sometime - it just might change your mind. It also, although statistically unlikely, also save your life.

After all, the probability of a midair is really 50% - either you have one or you don't.

Kirk
66

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:25:34 PM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:

After all, the probability of a midair is really 50% - either you have one or you don't.



Kirk

66

" After all, the probability of a midair is really 50% - either you have one or you don't."

Unfortunately, this speaks to the statistical innumeracy of the population.

I am not arguing for removing the Flarm you have, I am not arguing that you shouldn't install one. I have one, a transponder too. And I wear a parachute, and always a seatbelt in the car and a helmet on the motorcycle. I am arguing against an irrational hysteria about a nearly non-problem while large problems crowd around us, ignored.

Some of you guys need to take a deep breath, step back, and consider the actual risks in flying and what can be done to minimize them.

Fuzzy math, Kirk. If P(mid-air) was really 0.5 none of us would be in the
air.

Do you use that kind of logic to back up all your arguments?


"kirk.stant" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:22:32 PM UTC+2, wrote:
How about spending some time, money, and angst on an AOA instrument?

Sure, and the same bozos who are planting their ships will continue planting
them. These are the guys who don't fly all winter, then drag their gliders
to the local race and have at it - gee, what a surprise when they crash!

Yes, you don't need high tech thingies to prevent most glider accidents -
but you do need the will to actually go out and get current and practice
stall & spins & spiral dive recoveries.

Lets face it - we have so many crashes because we are, on the whole,
non-current, ****ty pilots! But we all think we are Sierra Hotel jocks who
never have to crack a book about basic aerodynamics, or go out and spend a
tow or two just playing with slow speed unusual attitudes, or doing some
acro, or or or...

If midair are such a low risk - why do we wear parachutes? BECAUSE IF YOU
NEED IT, YOU CAN'T PRACTICE LANDING WITHOUT IT! It's the same thing with
Flarm - sure you probably will never actually need it (although I already
doubt that, from personal experience) but when you do need it you better
have it!

Cars? Have you ever really used your seat belts or airbags? So why wear them
or have them?

All you non-believers really need to go up in a flarm equipped glider on a
busy day sometime - it just might change your mind. It also, although
statistically unlikely, also save your life.

After all, the probability of a midair is really 50% - either you have one
or you don't.

Kirk
66

Do you know anyone who has been in car accident on his way to
the airport?
Do you know anyone who has been in midair collision?
We had this discussion at our club, and result was that no-one
knew anyone who has been in car accident on the way to the
airfield, but many people knew pilots who had been in mid-air
collision. Some survived, some did not.

FLARM people, please provide a low cost FLARM transmitter-only
variant for these who do not want to see other gliders nearby,
but politely would like to disclose their position and heading to
other (childish ;^) pilots using FLARM. Please, you have
something like this available for paragliders.

At 20:21 10 July 2013, wrote:
Hey, jfitch.

You get it. I get it. Significant money and angst being
lavished on gee
w=
iz technology that does not address the most likely risks in
soaring.
They=
don't want to hear you.


But the thread is about glider-to-glider mid air collisions. And
the
stat=
istics support the idea that an auto accident on the way to the
airfield
is=
more probable than a mid air collision once there. Again, no
one here is
s=
uggesting that soaring is not dangerous (certainly not me), just
that mid
a=
ir collisions in general and glider-to-glider mid air collisions in
particu=
lar are a negligible part of that danger. 99% of the fatalities are
collisi=
ons with terrain - not involving other aircraft. Flarm could
eliminate the
=
remaining 1%, but soaring will not be much safer as a result.

Do you know anyone who has been in car accident on his way to
the airport?
Do you know anyone who has been in midair collision?
We had this discussion at our club, and result was that no-one
knew anyone who has been in car accident on the way to the
airfield, but many people knew pilots who had been in mid-air
collision. Some survived, some did not.

FLARM people, please provide a low cost FLARM transmitter-only
variant for these who do not want to see other gliders nearby,
but politely would like to disclose their position and heading to
other (childish ;^) pilots using FLARM. Please, you have
something like this available for paragliders.

At 20:21 10 July 2013, wrote:
Hey, jfitch.

You get it. I get it. Significant money and angst being
lavished on gee
w=
iz technology that does not address the most likely risks in
soaring.
They=
don't want to hear you.


But the thread is about glider-to-glider mid air collisions. And
the
stat=
istics support the idea that an auto accident on the way to the
airfield
is=
more probable than a mid air collision once there. Again, no
one here is
s=
uggesting that soaring is not dangerous (certainly not me), just
that mid
a=
ir collisions in general and glider-to-glider mid air collisions in
particu=
lar are a negligible part of that danger. 99% of the fatalities are
collisi=
ons with terrain - not involving other aircraft. Flarm could
eliminate the
=
remaining 1%, but soaring will not be much safer as a result.