RC madness

Strong arguement that more time is required to study this question...........

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:37:32 AM UTC-5, Bob Whelan wrote:
Other significant info snipped...

We cannot uninvent FLARM, we are stuck with what it is. The only
logical move is to accept that it will provide information that it was
not intended to. If everyone has FLARM it is still a level playing field,
the only people who miss out are those who do not.

Recognizing that (arguably) *every* (not merely U.S./contest/etc.) glider
pilot is (potentially) affected by the appearance of (P-)FLARM on the stage
(e.g. by the presence of choice, peer pressure, contest rules,
potential/actual legal fallout, etc.), factual anality compels me to take
issue with the statement "...the only people who miss out are those who do not
[have FLARM]." Consider...

Let's say I choose to go the no-FLARM route. Where do I get my legally binding
affidavit protecting me from outside human pressure, said pressure
fundamentally based on the implied additional risk my choice "forces" on the
FLARM-carrying crowd.

I have little doubt that some lawyer, somewhere (probably in the U.S., sad to
non-cynically admit), will eventually - after some sort of crunch - argue in
court that some unfortunate glider pilot's failure to have/use a FLARM unit
constituted (willful negligence, assault, etc.). (I also hope this sort of
sweeping, overreaching rationale will quickly be swept into the dustbin of
legal trash reserved for "laughable nuisance suits," just in case anyone wonders.)

Human nature - boy it can be messy to have to deal with.

For the record, in my ideal world, use (or not) of FLARM would be simply
another life-risk-choice we get/have to make without the specter of
doomsayers/lawyers trying to ram it down our throats, just as (for one
example) motorcycle helmets. Life itself is a risk, and attempts to try and
force it to be otherwise are - at minimum - wishful thinking.

Bob W.

P.S. Merry Christmas (to all who choose to participate!)