Dear Fellow Sailplane Racers

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

What I learned from this thread is I need to quit flight instructing
and tinkering with gliders in the evening so I can get a desk job and
keep up with RAS.

I didn't plan on anyone biting, I wasn't baiting, if I was baiting I
would have stated first that we should drop all these classes and only
race PW5s, thats the only true way to determine a better pilot.

I understand that we make rules with the intent of keeping pilots safe,
I was at Ohio with UH, DJ and KM when we were talking about the
different rules that have been made because of stupidity by one or a
few pilots. But if we continue to make more and more rules trying to
make up for judgment, then we are sunk as a sport. Soon there will be
no gaggle flying because it is dangerous. It is I have yet to be at a
contest where I have not feared for being hIt.

The rules are vague enough that it is up to the CD and the rules
committee to decipher what they are saying during each contest. Some
get airspace penalties some don't (that's more a scoring issue). Don't
believe me go into the scoring office some evening, a copy of the rules
are sprawled out over the coffee table, the scorers eyes are bloodshot,
and the CD is loosing hair. I think pilots like simple rules, I know I
do, but maybe that's because I dropped out of college to buy a Discus2,
and I don't have my PhD.

The only thing that I can do if elected is lower the average age of the
RC...That's about it, but trying to gain votes by stating how I feel
about wearing pink bunny suits, is a way I might be able to get some
votes. Don't you elect someone to a committee that you have the same
opinions for? Or is it like voting for King and Queen in High
School....he's cute ill vote for him. Wait we didn't even get to post
our pictures...I like his name it sounds cool. Wait this is the
RC....he's a middle aged white male it will lift his spirits on life if
I vote for him....Oh wait he's an eldery retired male he needs
something to do with his free time, i'll vote for him.

Oh yea and it takes 16 pilots to safely change a light bulb.

Garret

OK Stud Boy.
Middle aged white boy (not elderly yet, I hope) speaking.
It is true that many rules refinements are reactive. I see this is
showing we can continue to learn and adapt. Racing changes and we
change with it.
"Simple rules" is a great objective and one we need to continue to
strive for. Writing them so they cover the various possibilities is
much harder than it would seem. Take a couple rules and take a crack at
"simplfying" them. Harder than it looks.
But, yes we can do better.
The guide to the rules is a big help and one we are working on to help
pilots understand how to fly within the rules. Excellent example is
John Seaborn saw this year an opportunity to make it clear how area
tasks and turnpoints are flown. He volunteered to do illustrations of
these to add to the guide. It is an excellent improvement. We need to,
and will keep making these improvements.
Another pilot has found a couple stray penalty causes that no longer
apply. We'll pull those this time around.
I personally am pleased that we have some excellent people running for
the RC. It's hard to find people willing to volunteers for this work
which generally only triggers gripes and abuse after a lot of caring,
hard work.
Thanks to you and John and the others for stepping up to the plate.
UH

I know things get fixed when issues come up. I also know that there is
a lot of work is put into the rules and simplifiying them. John Good
had a rules guide but I can't seem to find it now. But I know from
Region9 last year there is some real confusion and Billy Hill waited 3
days to get points.

We don't want to tell others how to fly a TAT, i figured those out.

I just would like to see things improve, not go down hill.

Garret

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