Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: Garamin 196 units - now percieved risks

[International Aerobatic Club] [Communications] [Aerobatics Images]

Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion.

[Usage Statistics]

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: Garamin 196 units - now percieved risks


Thread: [Acro] Re: Garamin 196 units - now percieved risks

Message: [Acro] Re: Garamin 196 units - now percieved risks

Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)

From: "Peter Ashwood-Smith" <petera at>

Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:05:06 UTC


Something similar happened with airbags. You'd expect things to be safer but
I believe the statistics for fatalities works out about the same because
people drive faster.

As you say, people's tolerance for perceived risk is about constant.

So, question, do we fly differently when we know we have a parachute?


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Andrew Boyd [SMTP:aboyd at]
	Sent:	Monday, December 02, 2002 10:21 AM
	To:	Wbfinagin at
	Cc:	acro at
	Subject:	[Acro] Re: Garamin 196 units

	I am reminded of when General Motors, about 10 years ago, made
	ABS brakes standard on one of it's models.  You can understand
	the excitement of the stats guys - here's a test with a great
	big sample size to prove how high tech (in this case, ABS) 
	improves safety.

	Well, guess what, it didn't.  The cars with ABS had the same
	accident rate as the cars that didn't.  In a huff, the stats
	guy packed up their briefcases and went home to sulk, and the 
	head shrinkers took over.

	Turned out, people started to rely on the ABS during braking
	(especially on water and snow) and they started to drive
	faster into the corners.  Tens of thousands of then.

	I don't think all the people who bought the new model year
	of car were necessarily irresponsible.  But the shrinks
	did conclude that people tended to operate at the same risk
	level, and so that margin of safety created by the high 
	tech was absorbed into the operation of the vehicle.

	I won't comment on the risk level tolerated (or even, gasp,
	enjoyed) by pilots who fly aerobatics, because we all know
	that recklessness is the act of perceiving risk, and taking
	it anyways, and none of us are reckless, right?


	On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 Wbfinagin at wrote:

	> The discussion on the Garmin 196, 195 and other GPS instruments
has been very 
	> interesting.  What has been disturbing to me is the inference that
	> instruments can be used in bad weather.  Oh. I know that many of
you are hot 
	> shot pilots and all that, but to infer that this is a safe
procedure is going 
	> to get some unsuspecting person killed!!
	>        I'm not trying to come off as a goody, goody guy, but if
you are using 
	> a GPS of any type in "marginal" to lousy weather, please do me a
favor and 
	> learn a little bit about what it can do and what it MAY NOT DO in
a critical 
	> time.
	>        Talk to a CFI or a CFII or better yet get a little
information about 
	> GPS in general.
	> If you don't know what "RAIM" is you are already in over your
	>        It is more than price that makes one set IFR certified and
another not 
	> certified - - -but do yourself a favor and learn a little more
about them.   
	>              Garmin makes a great instrument, and they are first
rate in 
	> service  - - - -so believe THEM when they say not to use the 196
or the 195 
	> in instrument conditions!!!!!!!
	> You could get yourself killed, and maybe someone else too.
	>        Sorry for my two cents worth, but to perpetuate the
illusion that 
	> these instruments can be used in instrument conditions is WRONG!
The idea of 
	> shooting an approach- - -foolhardy!
	>        My biggest disapointment is that no one else has spoken up.
	>                                                        Bill
Attachement 1: part2.html


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Email Guenther Eichhorn