From Rules Committee:

"This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):

1. For National Contests:
* Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
* Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"


I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.

You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.

Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.

Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

I just bought a new PowerFlarm and already someone is going to make me neuter it.
The ClearNav display shows all of the GA traffic around me via the Flarm. It is fantastic.
The Dynon Skyview in my Phoenix motorglider has ADSB traffic and now that I have it, I feel naked in any aircraft without a traffic display. There is nothing like seeing traffic on the screen too far away to see, and tracking it into visual range without ever having a surprise visitor scare me.
This new rule came about after one contest trial? You have to be kidding me.
Tactical advantage? If you are not looking out the window you are not going to win.
When the first midair occurs with one or both gliders using stealth mode (or worse - with a multi passenger airplane) because it is mandated do you think there will not be lawsuits against the SSA? Good luck with that one.

I agree with Andrzej that these proposed Flarm-related rules are premature. And I agree with Jim that these rules could put pilots, contest organizers, the RC and the SSA BoD under increased liability (Flarm has put in writing that the use of Stealth mode is not recommended).

But also such rules are in my view reactionary (there has been no public evidence presented that Flarm-leeching has occurred), they are inefficient (we should attack the problem, eg, leeching, not an anti-collision device); and they are short sighted (ADS-B will provide the same display that PowerFlarm does, and gliders with ADS-B will not be able to turn it off).

I think we need to discuss these proposed rules much, much more before they are presented to the SSA BoD!

-John, Q3

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 1:22:32 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> From Rules Committee:
>
> "This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):
>
> 1. For National Contests:
> * Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
> * Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"
>
>
> I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.
>
> You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.
>
> Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.
>
> Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 1:22:32 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> From Rules Committee:
>
> "This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):
>
> 1. For National Contests:
> * Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
> * Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"
>
>
> I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.
>
> You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.
>
> Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.
>
> Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

Merry Christmas

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 2:45:37 PM UTC-5, John Carlyle wrote:
<SNIP>
> I think we need to discuss these proposed rules much, much more before they are presented to the SSA BoD!

Yeah, that's what we need. More discussion. :)

That said, I offer a few thoughts:

1. There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it. Others have reported on it in this forum and many of us can confirm it. The REAL question is whether this is antithetical to the objectives of U.S. competitive events. Elderly pilots such as myself who have to be helped into our gliders from our walkers and who couldn't conjure up a weather forecast on our flip phones if our Social Security checks depended on it agree it is. Technophiles who babble on about how unenlightened it is to oppose change--and who are unapologetic about the $4,000 they dropped on their 3D televisions last year when they slavishly embraced THAT stillborn change--give a cautious nod (barely) to soaring over fiddling with their Playstations/Xboxes but would like to see all "platforms" reflect their belief that whomever masters the latest technology should win. The rest are somewhere in the middle.

2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK, it may, but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is that it's a very small amount but who really knows? More worrisome are recent comments that raise questions about whether some pilots are already relying too heavily on graphically displayed FLARM data to maintain situational awareness at the cost of looking out the window. Regardless, anyone who truly opposes mandatory Stealth for safety reasons should also be just as vocal in opposing ANY use of Stealth by ANY pilot. Additionally, they should be campaigning loudly for mandatory FLARM at all contests and perhaps even across the U.S. glider fleet at large, followed closely by mandatory ADS-B out. Not that open FLARM insures against midair collisions; I've read at least one reference on this forum that a midair involving FLARM-equipped aircraft has already occurred.

3. Lastly, those who are truly committed to staying at the leading edge of technology and maximizing safety no matter the cost should be lobbying vociferously for mandatory FES gliders, 1,500' AGL "hard decks", and a no-landout policy for all competitive events. After all, we have the technology to eliminate off-airport landings, still one of the greatest risks of cross-country soaring. Who cares what that would cost? Quit yammering about the liability associated with mandated Stealth and imagine how a jury would react to learning that contest organizers tasked an entire field of pilots of varying abilities with flying 300 miles over populated areas WITHOUT AN ENGINE!!!! Horrors! How irresponsible is that!!!

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

Another point is that the more flarm becomes a tactical device, the more people are tempted to use it sporadically, when it is in their advantage. There were certainly reports of pilots flying with small sheets of aluminium in Europe and the PAGC to "disappear" if they hit a thermal. This is certainly contrary to the safety objectives of the device...

Best Regards,
Daniel

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:01:20 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 2:45:37 PM UTC-5, John Carlyle wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > I think we need to discuss these proposed rules much, much more before they are presented to the SSA BoD!
>
> Yeah, that's what we need. More discussion. :)
>
> That said, I offer a few thoughts:
>
> 1. There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it. Others have reported on it in this forum and many of us can confirm it. The REAL question is whether this is antithetical to the objectives of U.S. competitive events. Elderly pilots such as myself who have to be helped into our gliders from our walkers and who couldn't conjure up a weather forecast on our flip phones if our Social Security checks depended on it agree it is. Technophiles who babble on about how unenlightened it is to oppose change--and who are unapologetic about the $4,000 they dropped on their 3D televisions last year when they slavishly embraced THAT stillborn change--give a cautious nod (barely) to soaring over fiddling with their Playstations/Xboxes but would like to see all "platforms" reflect their belief that whomever masters the latest technology should win. The rest are somewhere in the middle.
>
> 2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK, it may, but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is that it's a very small amount but who really knows? More worrisome are recent comments that raise questions about whether some pilots are already relying too heavily on graphically displayed FLARM data to maintain situational awareness at the cost of looking out the window. Regardless, anyone who truly opposes mandatory Stealth for safety reasons should also be just as vocal in opposing ANY use of Stealth by ANY pilot. Additionally, they should be campaigning loudly for mandatory FLARM at all contests and perhaps even across the U.S. glider fleet at large, followed closely by mandatory ADS-B out. Not that open FLARM insures against midair collisions; I've read at least one reference on this forum that a midair involving FLARM-equipped aircraft has already occurred.
>
> 3. Lastly, those who are truly committed to staying at the leading edge of technology and maximizing safety no matter the cost should be lobbying vociferously for mandatory FES gliders, 1,500' AGL "hard decks", and a no-landout policy for all competitive events. After all, we have the technology to eliminate off-airport landings, still one of the greatest risks of cross-country soaring. Who cares what that would cost? Quit yammering about the liability associated with mandated Stealth and imagine how a jury would react to learning that contest organizers tasked an entire field of pilots of varying abilities with flying 300 miles over populated areas WITHOUT AN ENGINE!!!! Horrors! How irresponsible is that!!!
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 9:01:20 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> 1. There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it. Others have reported on it in this forum and many of us can confirm it. The REAL question is whether this is antithetical to the objectives of U.S. competitive events. Elderly pilots such as myself who have to be helped into our gliders from our walkers and who couldn't conjure up a weather forecast on our flip phones if our Social Security checks depended on it agree it is. Technophiles who babble on about how unenlightened it is to oppose change--and who are unapologetic about the $4,000 they dropped on their 3D televisions last year when they slavishly embraced THAT stillborn change--give a cautious nod (barely) to soaring over fiddling with their Playstations/Xboxes but would like to see all "platforms" reflect their belief that whomever masters the latest technology should win. The rest are somewhere in the middle.

Hyperbole about AI robots becoming US National Soaring Champion notwithstanding, the question on the table is whether attempting to use Flarm to leech helps enough to make any meaningful difference in a contest, and even if it did, does that fact somehow make contests unfair or invalid. The answer, based on the only facts introduced into this discussion so far: nope - leeching at a distance results in poorer, rather than better performance - poorer climbs, poorer daily speeds, poorer placement in contests overall. Even if it did help occasionally - like finding the local pilot who knows where the house thermal or convergence line is - or locating the one pilot who hits the lucky climb that gets him home across a blue hole when the rest of the field faces landouts, I'd argue that it more frequently cancels out luck than skill. In any event, these things happen today where the lucky eagle-eyed pilot sees the wing flash three miles out. Now the geriatric pilot with bifocals won't get occasionally cheated out of getting home by his failing vision.

Again, these sorts of things happen once in a great while - and it's not typically a bad thing when they do. It's certainly not important enough to redirect the time and energies of developers, contest organizers and pilots to fiddle with degraded instrument settings. It's certainly not a reason to freeze the technological advancement of the sport in 1989.

The cost argument in favor of stealth is upside-down - arguably it is slightly more expensive in time and effort to make stealth mandatory. No one is suggesting we get rid of Flarm to save money and no one is suggesting we ban moving-map displays - 2D or 3D.

>
> 2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK, it may, but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is that it's a very small amount but who really knows? More worrisome are recent comments that raise questions about whether some pilots are already relying too heavily on graphically displayed FLARM data to maintain situational awareness at the cost of looking out the window. Regardless, anyone who truly opposes mandatory Stealth for safety reasons should also be just as vocal in opposing ANY use of Stealth by ANY pilot. Additionally, they should be campaigning loudly for mandatory FLARM at all contests and perhaps even across the U.S. glider fleet at large, followed closely by mandatory ADS-B out. Not that open FLARM insures against midair collisions; I've read at least one reference on this forum that a midair involving FLARM-equipped aircraft has already occurred.

One reason for the introduction of ADS-B is because studies have consistently showed that human vision is not up to the task of reliably finding collision threats (the success rate is about 50%). I am not convinced that in a contest where the vast majority of gliders are carrying Flarm and much of the other traffic is carrying ADS-B that looking at a display of traffic isn't better for finding potential collision threats than looking out the window (obviously doing both would be best an no one would suggest that head in the cockpit is a good idea in a crowded thermal - but that's not the situation we are talking about anyway). My own experience tells me that restricting Flarm range to 2 km instead of 6-8km translates to a pilot looking down 3-4 times as much in an effort to maintain situational awareness (whether that be for safety reasons to avoid unpleasant surprises or in a leeching effort). Do you really want guys steaming into your thermal heads down because they only had a few seconds to sort traffic on their display? We all know the display in the cockpit is far more reliable at finding gliders than looking out the window - shortening the range means less time to translate from screen to out the window and on thermal entry that could lead to bad habits getting a bit worse.

>
> 3. Lastly, those who are truly committed to staying at the leading edge of technology and maximizing safety no matter the cost should be lobbying vociferously for mandatory FES gliders, 1,500' AGL "hard decks", and a no-landout policy for all competitive events. After all, we have the technology to eliminate off-airport landings, still one of the greatest risks of cross-country soaring. Who cares what that would cost? Quit yammering about the liability associated with mandated Stealth and imagine how a jury would react to learning that contest organizers tasked an entire field of pilots of varying abilities with flying 300 miles over populated areas WITHOUT AN ENGINE!!!! Horrors! How irresponsible is that!!!

I make a distinction between mandating expensive technology options that increase safety and mandating expensive (in time, effort and development dollars) technology options that (to some as yet unknown extent) decrease safety. Flarm stealth mode is the second category, FES and the other things are in the first. I'm generally not in favor of mandating things that require time, effort and expense unless the requirements are modest and the benefits are clear. Even making Flarm (in any mode) mandatory has not gotten into the rules yet, but we are jumping into a stealth mandatory discussion.

9B

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 7:55:23 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 9:01:20 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> Hyperbole about AI robots becoming US National Soaring Champion notwithstanding, the question on the table is whether attempting to use Flarm to leech helps enough to make any meaningful difference in a contest, and even if it did, does that fact somehow make contests unfair or invalid. The answer, based on the only facts introduced into this discussion so far: nope - leeching at a distance results in poorer, rather than better performance - poorer climbs, poorer daily speeds, poorer placement in contests overall. Even if it did help occasionally - like finding the local pilot who knows where the house thermal or convergence line is - or locating the one pilot who hits the lucky climb that gets him home across a blue hole when the rest of the field faces landouts, I'd argue that it more frequently cancels out luck than skill. In any event, these things happen today where the lucky eagle-eyed pilot sees the wing flash three miles out. Now the geriatric pilot with bifocals won't get occasionally cheated out of getting home by his failing vision.
>
> Again, these sorts of things happen once in a great while - and it's not typically a bad thing when they do. It's certainly not important enough to redirect the time and energies of developers, contest organizers and pilots to fiddle with degraded instrument settings. It's certainly not a reason to freeze the technological advancement of the sport in 1989.
>
>

Andy,

I'd argue that you simply don't have enough data points to make factual statements like the above. The majority of racing pilots in the US have between 1 and 2 years of experience using FLARM and are "hamstrung" by current user-interfaces that are optimized for the original purpose of FLARM - collision avoidance.

It's absolutely foreseeable that one or more of the instrument manufacturers (or more likely the Open Source crew) will put some real thought into "Tactical Information Pages" (TIPS) for 2016. As discussed many times, the main purpose of those pages will be to apply "smart filters" for the raw data which is hard (though not impossible) to interpret on today's screens. Whether it's competitor location data, historical track data, location of the "lead gaggle", whatever, that information WILL be used, and the pilots will be able to configure that information to their liking. So, instead of a single "blip" or two from a target, the screen will show the average top-to-bottom climb rates, number of samples, etc. Another might show you only selected "targets" that you want to keep track of in the start cylinder. Will it drastically alter outcomes at the top? Not likely. Will it further compress the middle? Probably.

If you want an interesting read, have a look at the post from Tom Arscott winner of the Junior Worlds Club Class. In a competition where the start was absolutely paramount, the ability to find (and hide from) competitors was make or break.

Point being: The argument that FLARM is of little use for tactics just doesn't (or won't) hold water. And with ADS-B right around the corner, that line of reasoning may become moot anyway. Let's debate straight up whether we do or don't want "external information" to drive competition. Maybe we allow it in Open Class (traditionally "no holds barred") while limiting it for a couple of seasons in Club/Sports. But whatever we do, wouldn't it be best to focus on the root issue?

Now back to sanding primer...

Erik Mann (P3)
Flarm fan
Stealth fan

At 05:01 21 December 2015, wrote:

SNIP
>2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK,
it may,>but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is
that it's a very small amount but who really knows?

>Chip Bearden
>ASW 24 "JB"
>U.S.A.

If you have read my other posts on other threads you will realise
that it is by no means a "small" amount but that is not the main
issue.

As part of my enquiry into a mandate stealth mode for competitions
in the UK I communicated with Dr Urban Mäder. Below is what I
learned

"I have been in touch with Dr Urban Mäder, CTO at Flarm. He has
informed me that if Stealth mode is set on any Flarm unit there is a
degredation of the data which that unit transmits to all other FLARM
units. Specifically:

1. The range at which the Stealth mode set unit is detected is
significantly reduced
2. Important information useful for situational awareness is not
transmitted by a unit in Stealth Mode
3. If a Flarm unit is set to stealth mode it effects all other FLARM
units irrespective of their setting."

This is from FLARM itself, and they should know just how much.
They very sensibly DO NOT recommended the use of stealth mode.

You might say why should I care if competition pilots in the USA
bang into each other? I do care but that is not the issue. Setting
stealth mode effects all other units, whether they are set to stealth
mode or not. Competition pilots do not operate in protected
airspace, they share it with all sorts of other users in GA and the
military, who may use FLARM and who may not be aware that their
situational awareness is reduced. They expect the service they get
from FLARM to be normal.
Can you really justify degrading the safety for pilots who may not
have any involvement or knowledge of gliding competition rules, for
any reason, or by any amount? I would be very surprised if you
could.
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.

Note: In the UK GA and the Royal Air Force are fitting FLARM to their
aircraft for the specific purpose of avoiding gliders. I accept that
our airspace may be more "crowded"

<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!)

<snic, snic, snic> I love good sarcasm.

Are race car drivers who draft the leader leeching? How about the
sailing captain who maneuvers into the "good air" of his opponent
essentially stalling his "engine"? Aren't they simply making use of
tactics available to them? Are the the above two examples against the
rules of their respective sports? Should they be? Do their
participants whine so much about it?

Does knowing where the current soaring super star is and knowing his
height and rate of climb give you some advantage over him? If you think
that knowing his state vector will give you an advantage I've got a
bridge to sell you.

On 12/20/2015 10:01 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 2:45:37 PM UTC-5, John Carlyle wrote:
> <SNIP>
>> I think we need to discuss these proposed rules much, much more before they are presented to the SSA BoD!
> Yeah, that's what we need. More discussion. :)
>
> That said, I offer a few thoughts:
>
> 1. There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it. Others have reported on it in this forum and many of us can confirm it. The REAL question is whether this is antithetical to the objectives of U.S. competitive events. Elderly pilots such as myself who have to be helped into our gliders from our walkers and who couldn't conjure up a weather forecast on our flip phones if our Social Security checks depended on it agree it is. Technophiles who babble on about how unenlightened it is to oppose change--and who are unapologetic about the $4,000 they dropped on their 3D televisions last year when they slavishly embraced THAT stillborn change--give a cautious nod (barely) to soaring over fiddling with their Playstations/Xboxes but would like to see all "platforms" reflect their belief that whomever masters the latest technology should win. The rest are somewhere in the middle.
>
> 2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK, it may, but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is that it's a very small amount but who really knows? More worrisome are recent comments that raise questions about whether some pilots are already relying too heavily on graphically displayed FLARM data to maintain situational awareness at the cost of looking out the window. Regardless, anyone who truly opposes mandatory Stealth for safety reasons should also be just as vocal in opposing ANY use of Stealth by ANY pilot. Additionally, they should be campaigning loudly for mandatory FLARM at all contests and perhaps even across the U.S. glider fleet at large, followed closely by mandatory ADS-B out. Not that open FLARM insures against midair collisions; I've read at least one reference on this forum that a midair involving FLARM-equipped aircraft has already occurred.
>
> 3. Lastly, those who are truly committed to staying at the leading edge of technology and maximizing safety no matter the cost should be lobbying vociferously for mandatory FES gliders, 1,500' AGL "hard decks", and a no-landout policy for all competitive events. After all, we have the technology to eliminate off-airport landings, still one of the greatest risks of cross-country soaring. Who cares what that would cost? Quit yammering about the liability associated with mandated Stealth and imagine how a jury would react to learning that contest organizers tasked an entire field of pilots of varying abilities with flying 300 miles over populated areas WITHOUT AN ENGINE!!!! Horrors! How irresponsible is that!!!
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

--
Dan, 5J

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 9:01:20 PM UTC-8, wrote:

> <SNIP>
> 1. There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it. Others have reported on it in this forum and many of us can confirm it.

There is no real dispute that open FLARM allows following gliders at a greater and greater distance. Whether that is a tactical advantage leading to faster times is the argument. We have heard from those who claim to have seen others following still others. The GPS traces are public record, yet no one has been able to show a case of advantage due to FLARM leeching. If it were the huge problem we are led to believe, examples would abound. Proponents of stealth need to make their case with evidence, not anecdotes and feelings. Here is a first person report: I have tried very hard to use FLARM to leech. I have the very best tools to do it. I have tried to leech from national champions and regional champions and just friends who were faster. At least in western desert conditions it does not work. You will not fly faster because of it. And Nephi is in the western desert.

In most any form racing, following a competitor at a greater and greater distance is not a path to the podium.

It seems to me pretty ironic that it is the Europeans who are moaning about Flarm and supposed leeching. Yet Flarm is a European invention designed to help avoid midairs and Flarm warns (as has been re reported here) stealth mode seriously reduces the efficiency of Flarm for all other users. Note too that in Europe the gliding rules (IGC) positively encourage leeching, the gaggles there are monstrous. It is only with exceptional exceptions (that blog from the Brit winner of the recent world juniors eg) that deliberately flying anti-gaggle works. But also note from that blog just how much tactical support the pilots got from other team members, who sacrificed their own last day's flying for the team, and ground watchers and advisors -- and that messages had to be increasingly coded to stop others leeching off the advice.
PS: I flew with Flarm here at Moriarty and at Nephi and still am amazed at the input it gave me. It showed me where gliders were a hell of a way from where I could possibly see them by eyeball and in one instance near the start one glider that "just appeared out of nowhere" but in time for me to move course. If I was going to Nephi this year I would be lobbying all and every person with any influence that this was another case where the US should tell the Euros to go play with themselves and leave us the hell alone to do the sensible thing. So there. And yes I am a former Brit.


On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 11:22:32 AM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> From Rules Committee:
>
> "This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):
>
> 1. For National Contests:
> * Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
> * Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"
>
>
> I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.
>
> You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.
>
> Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.
>
> Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:41:33 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> <snic, snic, snic> I love good sarcasm.
>
>
>
> Are race car drivers who draft the leader leeching?* How about the
> sailing captain who maneuvers into the "good air" of his opponent
> essentially stalling his "engine"?* Aren't they simply making use of
> tactics available to them?* Are the the above two examples against
> the rules of their respective sports?* Should they be?* Do their
> participants whine so much about it?


No. No. Yes. No. No. Some do.


>
>
> Does knowing where the current soaring super star is and knowing his
> height and rate of climb give you some advantage over him?* If you
> think that knowing his state vector will give you an advantage I've
> got a bridge to sell you.

Dan, with all due respect, I note that you haven't shown up in a single SSA Sanctioned race (unless your profile on the SSA Website is wrong, in which case I'll apologize for the assumption). So, maybe you haven't had to make some of these decisions in a contest setting.

The short answer is: Flarm information matters. A lot. Not always in the way you are implying. As stated ad-nauseum, races are frequently won/lost at the start. Knowing where everyone is, how high, etc. gives a huge insight as to what is happening and what's about to happen as the gate opens. There are many days in East Coast contests where you can't see guys who are a couple of clouds away. In the start gate. Missing the "hot gaggle" can be the end of your day... before the task even starts.

More importantly, knowing which way the "good guys" are heading 6 miles ahead is hugely valuable. I'm coming to the end of this street. Is the gaggle jogging left to the "obvious" street (at least obvious to me) or is it going right? Stop viewing it as a thermal finder and start thinking of it as tactical situation indicator.

It's interesting though - I'm also seeing some level of divergence of opinion between East Coast and West Coast pilots. Maybe the on-course options out West are so "obvious" or defined (e.g. running the Whites or Sierras - nobody's gonna charge out into the Owens Valley) that Flarm info is less valuable. And obviously, with much higher closing speeds up at high altitude, one can see where any perceived degredation of warning time would raise eyebrows.

Again, to my knowledge, nobody is yet flying with a PowerFlarm setup with dedicated tactical information screens optimized for competition support. If they are, it would be very interesting to see the UI for those systems.

P3

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 10:22:32 AM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> From Rules Committee:
>
> "This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):
>
> 1. For National Contests:
> * Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
> * Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"
>
>
> I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.
>
> You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.
>
> Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.
>
> Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

Oh it's going to get interesting if the FAA mandates TABS devices for gliders (which means those equipped with TABS will be transmitting 1090ES Out position data). Even if the airspace involved in the contest may not require TABS carriage (we'll see what happens above 10,000') I'd expect "if installed must use" regulations similar to transponder regulations today. And PowerFLARM will be able to see them at further distances than just FLARM signals. So does PowerFLARM get modified to degrade inbound ADS-B signals? Require removal of the PowerFLARM ADS-B receiver antenna? Gliders inspected for hidden antennas? Going to strip search glider pilots for a USB stick size 1090ES receiver? Who wants to assume the liability risk there with a collision with a non-glider?

I suspect the cat is out the bag and shoving it back in is not so easy.

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:31:33 AM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> Andy,
>
> I'd argue that you simply don't have enough data points to make factual statements like the above. The majority of racing pilots in the US have between 1 and 2 years of experience using FLARM and are "hamstrung" by current user-interfaces that are optimized for the original purpose of FLARM - collision avoidance.

Perhaps not - but as far as I know I am the only one who bothered to generate several hundred datapoint from actual contests to test several of the theories that were presented for how Flarm leeching benefits competitors: 1) that competitors following by "Flarm non-stealth distances" (i.e. > 2km) can follow the leader and core the thermal faster Data - the opposite is true across multiple contests looked at including dozens of pilots and hundreds of thermals - later to the thermal generates poorer climbs and pilots who with a higher percentage of thermals they found themselves have statistically significant average climb rates over the entire task. 2) That pilots use Flarm to deviate to better course lines or saving thermals that help them speed up (data - dozens of flight traces over several contests show only a handful of cases where pilots changed course within 7 miles (maximum reliable non-Stealth range) to reach a thermal that they would not have come across with stealth on (that is, a course deviation that generates more than 2 km displacement from the closest approach to the thermal without the deviation). Data - only a couple of times per race does this happen - pilots tend not to make big deviations for very far so the stealth range gets you visibility to most thermals anyway, just slightly later and most of the time for very little distance penalty. Additional data - these deviations adhere to the data from 1), above - the climbs make the deviation not worthwhile almost all the time - in one memorable case a pilot deviated 45 degrees for three miles and made a nice clover leaf search pattern exactly where the other gliders had been and found nothing.

Feel free to look at logs and provide your own analysis. Also look up Bayes theory. Based on the results from my (laborious) analysis of flight logs from actual contests I would say we have sufficient data to conclude that there are not big advantages conferred by Flarm leeching.

>
> It's absolutely foreseeable that one or more of the instrument manufacturers (or more likely the Open Source crew) will put some real thought into "Tactical Information Pages" (TIPS) for 2016. As discussed many times, the main purpose of those pages will be to apply "smart filters" for the raw data which is hard (though not impossible) to interpret on today's screens. Whether it's competitor location data, historical track data, location of the "lead gaggle", whatever, that information WILL be used, and the pilots will be able to configure that information to their liking. So, instead of a single "blip" or two from a target, the screen will show the average top-to-bottom climb rates, number of samples, etc. Another might show you only selected "targets" that you want to keep track of in the start cylinder. Will it drastically alter outcomes at the top? Not likely. Will it further compress the middle? Probably.

I dunno Erik - the information is so perishable when you are trying to make time typically by only taking top quartile to top decile thermals and I'm yet to find a race where thermals are continuous columns of lift with no cycling or variation. Not all processing of data yields useful information - and if it is bad more often than it is good information you are better off ignoring it.

>
> If you want an interesting read, have a look at the post from Tom Arscott winner of the Junior Worlds Club Class. In a competition where the start was absolutely paramount, the ability to find (and hide from) competitors was make or break.

Read it - it was a classic gaggle day. I'm not sure it is a superior situation to have winners based on who is able to deploy team spies to find the German team (or hide from theirs). This all happened apparently with Flarm voluntarily in stealth mode - or so they say. The amount of "pickup" team flying that goes on out of the start is considerable - particularly where you don't allow starts out the top and finding a good initial climb is paramount. Pre-start jetting around the start cylinder to find the good pilots and stick with them has always existed if it's going to be a gaggle day - adding stealth makes your ability to do a search for the good gaggle all the more important determinant of the outcome - is cylinder search technique the skill we want to test in contests? I'm not convinced - but clearly people went to some effort to do it at the JWGC.
>

> Now back to sanding primer...

Yo - good luck with that Mr. White! (Erik is in full "Breaking Bad' attire for his refinish project)
>
> Erik Mann (P3)
> Flarm fan
> Stealth fan

Once again, Andy brings the sane and rationale thought to this appropriately titled thread!

I really can't believe that an untested and not even yet in Beta mode software would be mandated in the rules. Let someone else be the guinea pig.

On top of all this, there is no overwhelming majority of contest pilots that want this. Andy shows with the data he studied that flarm leeching is not the problem that it is being made out to be.

This is a solution looking for a problem.

As John (BB) said in the other post, let pilots make the choice!

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 1:12:42 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Typos fixed for clarity - sorry for the long post.

> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:31:33 AM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> > Andy,
> >
> > I'd argue that you simply don't have enough data points to make factual statements like the above. The majority of racing pilots in the US have between 1 and 2 years of experience using FLARM and are "hamstrung" by current user-interfaces that are optimized for the original purpose of FLARM - collision avoidance.
>

Perhaps not - but as far as I know I am the only one who bothered to generate several hundred datapoints from actual contests to test several of the theories that were presented for how Flarm leeching benefits competitors, specifically:

1) that competitors following by "Flarm non-stealth distances" (i.e. > 2km) can follow the leader and core the thermal faster. Data - the opposite is true across multiple contests looked at including dozens of pilots and hundreds of thermals - later to the thermal generates poorer climbs and pilots who with a higher percentage of thermals they found themselves have statistically significant higher average climb rates over the entire task.

2) That pilots use Flarm to deviate to better course lines or saving thermals that help them speed up. Data - dozens of flight traces and hundreds of thermals over several contests show only a handful of cases where pilots changed course within 7 miles (maximum reliable non-Stealth range) to reach a thermal that they would not have come across with stealth on (that is, a course deviation that generates more than 2 km displacement from the closest approach to the thermal without the deviation). Pilots tend not to make big deviations for very far so the stealth range gets you visibility to most thermals anyway, just slightly later and most of the time for very little additional distance penalty. Additional Data - these deviations adhere to the data from 1), above - the below-average climbs make the deviation not worthwhile almost all the time - in one memorable case a pilot deviated 45 degrees for three miles and made a nice clover leaf search pattern exactly where the other gliders had been and found nothing.

Feel free to look at logs and provide your own analysis. Also look up Bayes Theorem. Based on the results from my (laborious - ugh!) analysis of flight logs from actual contests I would say we have sufficient data to conclude that there are not big advantages conferred by Flarm leeching.

>
> >
> > It's absolutely foreseeable that one or more of the instrument manufacturers (or more likely the Open Source crew) will put some real thought into "Tactical Information Pages" (TIPS) for 2016. As discussed many times, the main purpose of those pages will be to apply "smart filters" for the raw data which is hard (though not impossible) to interpret on today's screens. Whether it's competitor location data, historical track data, location of the "lead gaggle", whatever, that information WILL be used, and the pilots will be able to configure that information to their liking. So, instead of a single "blip" or two from a target, the screen will show the average top-to-bottom climb rates, number of samples, etc. Another might show you only selected "targets" that you want to keep track of in the start cylinder. Will it drastically alter outcomes at the top? Not likely. Will it further compress the middle? Probably.
>

I dunno Erik - the information is so perishable when you are trying to make time typically by only taking top quartile to top decile thermals and I'm yet to find a race where thermals are continuous columns of lift with no cycling or variation. Not all processing of data yields useful information - and if it is bad more often than it is good information you are better off ignoring it.

>
> >
> > If you want an interesting read, have a look at the post from Tom Arscott winner of the Junior Worlds Club Class. In a competition where the start was absolutely paramount, the ability to find (and hide from) competitors was make or break.
>

Read it - it was a classic gaggle day. I'm not sure it is a superior situation to have winners based on who is able to deploy team spies to find the German team (or hide from theirs). This all happened apparently with Flarm voluntarily in stealth mode - or so they say. The amount of "pickup" team flying that goes on out of the start is considerable - particularly where you don't allow starts out the top and finding a good initial climb is paramount. Pre-start jetting around the start cylinder to find the good pilots and stick with them has always existed if it's going to be a gaggle day - adding stealth makes your ability to do a systematic search for the good gaggle all the more an important determinant of the outcome. Is cylinder search technique the skill we want to test in contests? I'm not convinced - but clearly people went to some effort to do it at the JWGC.

> >
>
> > Now back to sanding primer...
>

Yo - good luck with that Mr. White! (Erik is in full "Breaking Bad' attire for his refinish project)

9B

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:31:33 AM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
><SNIP>
> Andy,
>
> I'd argue that you simply don't have enough data points to make factual statements like the above. The majority of racing pilots in the US have between 1 and 2 years of experience using FLARM and are "hamstrung" by current user-interfaces that are optimized for the original purpose of FLARM - collision avoidance.
>

I'd argue that it is incumbent upon those proposing a rule change, to come up with data points to support their case, and the silence has been deafening. Andy has presented data that on its face destroys the case for FLARM leeching, and therefore stealth mode. No one has refuted it with anything other than rumor and feelings.

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 4:12:42 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:31:33 AM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:

> Not all processing of data yields useful information - and if it is bad more often than it is good information you are better off ignoring it.
>

Sorry - couldn't resist. I honestly haven't had the time to dissect your results at the level of granularity it would take to form a counter-model I remember thinking that I disagreed with it on first-principles; i.e. the way the model was set up using comparative climb rates in circling flight. I tend to agree that thermals are "perishable" but knowing what others are doing is valuable and may not actually result in a pilot doing the same thing as the others. I'm not sure how you would use the statistics you gathered to model some of those decisions (like the two I mentioned up thread).

P3

To reply directly, Eric, I have only flown in 3 contests and those were
in the 80s and 90s. I did not find the rules and regimentation to my
liking and so I stopped. I simply find it ludicrous that people
actually believe that knowing where the champ is, will give them some
advantage. Maybe it will, I'll bet it won't mean too much, and you
certainly won't overtake and pass him. My experience has been that you
can't often benefit much from a thermal that is "over there" as much as
you can with one "right here".

I will bow out now.

On 12/21/2015 11:28 AM, Papa3 wrote:
> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:41:33 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> <snic, snic, snic> I love good sarcasm.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are race car drivers who draft the leader leeching? How about the
>> sailing captain who maneuvers into the "good air" of his opponent
>> essentially stalling his "engine"? Aren't they simply making use of
>> tactics available to them? Are the the above two examples against
>> the rules of their respective sports? Should they be? Do their
>> participants whine so much about it?
>
> No. No. Yes. No. No. Some do.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Does knowing where the current soaring super star is and knowing his
>> height and rate of climb give you some advantage over him? If you
>> think that knowing his state vector will give you an advantage I've
>> got a bridge to sell you.
> Dan, with all due respect, I note that you haven't shown up in a single SSA Sanctioned race (unless your profile on the SSA Website is wrong, in which case I'll apologize for the assumption). So, maybe you haven't had to make some of these decisions in a contest setting.
>
> The short answer is: Flarm information matters. A lot. Not always in the way you are implying. As stated ad-nauseum, races are frequently won/lost at the start. Knowing where everyone is, how high, etc. gives a huge insight as to what is happening and what's about to happen as the gate opens. There are many days in East Coast contests where you can't see guys who are a couple of clouds away. In the start gate. Missing the "hot gaggle" can be the end of your day... before the task even starts.
>
> More importantly, knowing which way the "good guys" are heading 6 miles ahead is hugely valuable. I'm coming to the end of this street. Is the gaggle jogging left to the "obvious" street (at least obvious to me) or is it going right? Stop viewing it as a thermal finder and start thinking of it as tactical situation indicator.
>
> It's interesting though - I'm also seeing some level of divergence of opinion between East Coast and West Coast pilots. Maybe the on-course options out West are so "obvious" or defined (e.g. running the Whites or Sierras - nobody's gonna charge out into the Owens Valley) that Flarm info is less valuable. And obviously, with much higher closing speeds up at high altitude, one can see where any perceived degredation of warning time would raise eyebrows.
>
> Again, to my knowledge, nobody is yet flying with a PowerFlarm setup with dedicated tactical information screens optimized for competition support. If they are, it would be very interesting to see the UI for those systems.
>
> P3

--
Dan, 5J

What reports at PAGC? I never get these memos! Without disclosing facts to support these reports, they are just rumors. I think we all know all the PAGC pilots. Who was caught or seen with tin foil in their cockpit?

Sean

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 5:31:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Another point is that the more flarm becomes a tactical device, the more people are tempted to use it sporadically, when it is in their advantage. There were certainly reports of pilots flying with small sheets of aluminium in Europe and the PAGC to "disappear" if they hit a thermal. This is certainly contrary to the safety objectives of the device...
>
> Best Regards,
> Daniel
>
> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:01:20 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 2:45:37 PM UTC-5, John Carlyle wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> > > I think we need to discuss these proposed rules much, much more before they are presented to the SSA BoD!
> >
> > Yeah, that's what we need. More discussion. :)
> >
> > That said, I offer a few thoughts:
> >
> > 1. There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching.. Stop arguing about it. Others have reported on it in this forum and many of us can confirm it. The REAL question is whether this is antithetical to the objectives of U.S. competitive events. Elderly pilots such as myself who have to be helped into our gliders from our walkers and who couldn't conjure up a weather forecast on our flip phones if our Social Security checks depended on it agree it is. Technophiles who babble on about how unenlightened it is to oppose change--and who are unapologetic about the $4,000 they dropped on their 3D televisions last year when they slavishly embraced THAT stillborn change--give a cautious nod (barely) to soaring over fiddling with their Playstations/Xboxes but would like to see all "platforms" reflect their belief that whomever masters the latest technology should win. The rest are somewhere in the middle.
> >
> > 2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK, it may, but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is that it's a very small amount but who really knows? More worrisome are recent comments that raise questions about whether some pilots are already relying too heavily on graphically displayed FLARM data to maintain situational awareness at the cost of looking out the window. Regardless, anyone who truly opposes mandatory Stealth for safety reasons should also be just as vocal in opposing ANY use of Stealth by ANY pilot. Additionally, they should be campaigning loudly for mandatory FLARM at all contests and perhaps even across the U.S. glider fleet at large, followed closely by mandatory ADS-B out. Not that open FLARM insures against midair collisions; I've read at least one reference on this forum that a midair involving FLARM-equipped aircraft has already occurred.
> >
> > 3. Lastly, those who are truly committed to staying at the leading edge of technology and maximizing safety no matter the cost should be lobbying vociferously for mandatory FES gliders, 1,500' AGL "hard decks", and a no-landout policy for all competitive events. After all, we have the technology to eliminate off-airport landings, still one of the greatest risks of cross-country soaring. Who cares what that would cost? Quit yammering about the liability associated with mandated Stealth and imagine how a jury would react to learning that contest organizers tasked an entire field of pilots of varying abilities with flying 300 miles over populated areas WITHOUT AN ENGINE!!!! Horrors! How irresponsible is that!!!
> >
> > Chip Bearden
> > ASW 24 "JB"
> > U.S.A.

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!)

<Snips for clarity of musing to be posited below...>

>> Not all processing of data yields useful information - and if it is bad
>> more often than it is good information you are better off ignoring it.
>>
> I honestly haven't had the time to dissect your
> results at the level of granularity it would take to form a counter-model
> I remember thinking that I disagreed with it on first-principles; i.e. the
> way the model was set up using comparative climb rates in circling flight.
> I tend to agree that thermals are "perishable" but knowing what others are
> doing is valuable and may not actually result in a pilot doing the same
> thing as the others. I'm not sure how you would use the statistics you
> gathered to model some of those decisions...

Writing as someone without a dog in this (genuinely interesting) philosophical
contest, I'd guess from the exchange above that I'm not the only interested
side-liner to muse along the lines of, "Just because it (isn't/can't be)
easily measured doesn't mean it's not happening." That's not by way of
expressing an opinion on a preferred outcome, but by way of noting that "stuff
is happening" regardless of if or how easily it may - or may not - be measurable.

I've worked in manufacturing engineering for more than one high-tech
design/manufacturing company in which managerial actions were mostly driven by
apparently unquestioning belief in the concept, "If it (can't be
measured/doesn't show on the books), it's not (real/happening/action-worthy)."
Two such employers subsequently declared bankruptcy. Prior, in both
environments, I'd ultimately concluded that trying to make a case that
"unmeasurable effects are in fact real" (and further arguing that, in the
companies' cases, would sooner or later have significantly deleterious
effects/detectable/measurable outcomes), was a waste of personal energy. (For
those wondering, following those conclusions, on the line-support front I
opted to do what I thought was right/necessary, while avoiding to every extent
possible becoming ensnared in "stupid managerially-driven cluster-f*@%ing
wastes of personal time/energy"...slept better, too.)

The engineer in me seriously wonders if "determining when leeching takes
place" falls into the unmeasurable category...whether the goal is to determine
the presence of "acceptable" leeching or the "unacceptable kind."

Bob - still sleeping well - W.

You're not testing the right hypothesis. Leeching isn't a good way of beating the top guy for the day. Done by a good pilot, however, it CAN be a way to place very high overall in contests and occasionally to win one. Veteran pilots from the 70s and 80s are aware of one and possibly two cases where competent pilots leeched outrageously and managed to finish atop the leader board at national contests. No, I'm not going to name names.

But those are exceptions. More typically, winners don't leech. They often, however, fly in the company of others, leading out when it's their turn or when they think they have a better idea (hint: leeches NEVER lead out). P3 has it right: "Will it drastically alter outcomes at the top? Not likely. Will it further compress the middle? Probably."

In the old days (i.e., after several generations of composite gliders and the Soaring Symposia eliminated significant differences in aircraft performance and tactics), leeching diligently was like true love, demanding total devotion. That translated to following a top pilot...closely...with unerring focus...doing everything the leader did...making few if any other decisions. It's not easy, as one poster admitted here. Back then it required a lot of concentration and good stick-and-rudder and thermaling skills to stay close. The commitment to doing everything the leader did was so total before GPS that there were cases of leeches following top competitors off course, sometimes for many miles, before the leading pilot realized his/her navigation mistake and--minnow pack in tow--scrambled to recover.

So quit arguing about whether FLARM facilitates leeching (it does) or whether leeching offers an advantage. History has shown that leeching is a way for clever pilots who don't have the confidence of their own decisions to place higher than they otherwise might be able to. I agree that's a skill in itself but it's not one we want to measure, in my opinion.

Those of us who aren't privileged to fly in the pure, uncontaminated, apparently oxygen-deprived air of the Western deserts know that falling more a circle or two behind someone on a hazy summer day means you've lost your tow visually. So if leeching is your game, open FLARM is the answer to your anxious prayers.

And, yes, 9B has raised one point that no one has mentioned but has been on my mind; i.e., Stealth mode facilitates leeching, too. I agree most of the help you get from leeching is close range: i.e., within Stealth range. Yeah, we should be able to see that far but pilots don't always. That said, P3 makes an excellent point that there can be tactical advantages to knowing which way the gaggle went a few miles ahead of you. And as he says, the advantage may well be greater here in the East with lower height bands and often worse viz.

Is leeching a "huge" problem anymore? No, but probably only because we're not filling up 65-glider fields at national contests. If you didn't fly during those days, during the the "plague of leeches" in the '70s and 80s, you really can't speak to this.

As for FLARM's public position on Stealth, sadly can you honestly imagine ANYONE in the corporate world NOT putting out a CYA message like the one that's been trumpeted here several times? Especially if you're in Europe looking fearfully at America's penchant for encouraging the lawsuit lottery whenever anything goes wrong and no matter whose "fault" it is? Get real. I'm surprised that FLARM is even being marketed in the U.S. How long will it take after the first FLARM-to-FLARM collision for lawyers to persuade a shattered widow that her husband died because his FLARM was defective? And it won't matter whether Stealth was involved or not.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 4:16:22 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> You're not testing the right hypothesis. Leeching isn't a good way of beating the top guy for the day. Done by a good pilot, however, it CAN be a way to place very high overall in contests and occasionally to win one. Veteran pilots from the 70s and 80s are aware of one and possibly two cases where competent pilots leeched outrageously and managed to finish atop the leader board at national contests. No, I'm not going to name names.

It's generally the exception, not the rule - particularly these days when we never call ATs (chumming the water for Sean Fidler)

>
> But those are exceptions. More typically, winners don't leech. They often, however, fly in the company of others, leading out when it's their turn or when they think they have a better idea (hint: leeches NEVER lead out). P3 has it right: "Will it drastically alter outcomes at the top? Not likely. Will it further compress the middle? Probably."

The essential point here is that regardless of larger tactical decisions, if you want to keep up with somebody you are best off following really, really close - the further back you are the more likely you are going to miss the bubble and get dropped. The other essential point is all the guys in the middle of the pack are the ones who oppose Flarm in large proportions - who are we to tell them their preferences are irrelevant? Why do they like unfiltered Flarm? Perhaps because they think they might over time learn something from seeing what other guys do - even if they do get dropped most of the time. I have asked a lot of pilots new to racing why they don't fly more (or any) contests and one of the more prominent answers is they can't see a path to getting even reasonably competitive. To them, stealth is the kids in the tree fort pulling up the rope ladder.

>
> So quit arguing about whether FLARM facilitates leeching (it does) or whether leeching offers an advantage. History has shown that leeching is a way for clever pilots who don't have the confidence of their own decisions to place higher than they otherwise might be able to. I agree that's a skill in itself but it's not one we want to measure, in my opinion.

Not going to quit - sorry. I love you man, but I disagree and I'm the only one with facts instead of beliefs so you should quit (also, I have the flying spaghetti monster on my side).

> Is leeching a "huge" problem anymore? No, but probably only because we're not filling up 65-glider fields at national contests. If you didn't fly during those days, during the the "plague of leeches" in the '70s and 80s, you really can't speak to this.

I did - I started in 1979 IIRC.

>
>How long will it take after the first FLARM-to-FLARM collision for lawyers to persuade a shattered widow that her husband died because his FLARM was defective? And it won't matter whether Stealth was involved or not.
>

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect in torts there is a difference between not installing some expensive piece of equipment that could potentially help avoid collisions and deliberately deciding to disable part of its functionality. I think it could make a big difference in legal proceedings - particularly with a relatively weak rationale on the motive to do it. This certainly factored into my decision to vote agains this.

9B

" ...There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it.... "

There have been many posters arguing the above in one form or another. While not intending to offend ANYONE, nor intending to quote any particular individual... the above type of argument is akin to a woman arguing that her intuition should be accepted as fact in an argument! :))

It is just as possible to argue that leeching BVR is a losing proposition, stop arguing about it... Andy is a smart guy who has taken the time to actually look at traces and has the skills to do an analysis.

Wait, was this the analysis where you compared results across two contests in different years in completely different geographies with a commonality of about 15 percent in the participating pilot population and using the the highly nebulous "PRL to Performance Metric"? The one where you claimed it was "only 259 data points" (when one could as easily argue it was 2 data points; contest A and contest B). Where I think you used "Bayesian" in a sentence... a tactic I thought only an economist would resort to?? Yes - just poking fun at your expense.

But seriously, the statistics (lies, damned lies) you are citing strike me as only one aspect of the analysis. I think the other is either unmeasurable after-the-fact or would need a much more controlled environment to study conclusively. All I can tell you is what I've observed in ACTUAL contests using Flarm Stealth and not using Flarm Stealth and... more importantly.... what is very achievable in the realm of software development and user interface development in the near future.

I fundamentally believe this is more of a philosophical discussion than a technical one at this point. I'm afraid it may be hard to "win" this one on technical analysis alone.

Back to real work. Q1 revenue estimates are due, and unfortunately I don't have Flarm to use to leech off the other consulting firms.

P3

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:27:51 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
<But seriously, the statistics (lies, damned lies) you are citing strike me as only one aspect of the analysis. I think the other is either unmeasurable...>

So if I read you "argument" correctly, your position is that "Statistic lie, but unmeasureables don't". I will be awaiting your book "I Feel Therefore it is True" followed closely by your second best seller in the Opra book club, "Why Intuition is Fact, No Need for Science". Should be best sellers among the scientific communities.

I have degrees in Microbiology, Chemical Engineering and Law. Statistics was the most useful and practical class I ever took at the University, save one, writing.

Thought the "RC madness" thread would have a link to a crazy Radio Controlled glider contest or DS video.
Jim

Without question, this is a philosophical debate, based on the fear, emotion and perhaps the downright paranoia of few. Well, Andy's analysis and data and the opinions of a huge number of other US pilots notwithstanding. The scars of the 70's/80's leeching "epidemic" are clearly still healing, very slowly. Wow. One would think that period was deadly combat and not a nearly silent leisure sport.

Remember, I support this (barely) from the standpoint of reducing key variables (assuming improved results are possible from Flarm leeching, etc.) but only if it is proven not to impact the safety value of FLARM situational awareness for nearby gliders not yet acquired visually. This situational awareness is critical, especially in an often chaotic pre-start.

To me it simply comes down to a) is the value of BVR leeching or b) above average thermal identification, or c) IDing key competitors in the starting area really capable of regularly improving contest results for pilots that better master FLARM technology. That is a big assumption, and absolutely zero specific evidence is on record that any improved results are occurring.

The funny thing is that nothing today prevents the same supposed leeching epidemic of the 70's and 80's from happening again. And last I checked, "leeching" was not illegal. Its a tactic. A very common tactic. A desperate and uninspired one at times, but staying with your competitors can also be very wise. Perhaps this is why large and numerous gaggles constantly form in US, IGC and World level contests! Perhaps only attitudes about leeching have changed. Supposedly the USA's infamous TIMED (OLC like) tasks, which are roughly 97% of our total annual tasks, reduce leeching. Despite all this, we still have enough "percieved" leeching angst from a loud, influential few today to result in yet another major, complex US rule change.

As I write this, It occurs to me that FLARM leeching does exist (big assumption) those who have been "FLARM leeching" will simply be compelled to stay closer to the pack now. More leeching, not less, is a potential result of this new rule. A tighter, more intense gaggle. Not less leeching, even more! The old law of unintended consequences! Especially true at the world championship level but perhaps significant in US contests.

This whole argument reminds me of a book from my youth, "No Excuse to Lose" by Dennis Conner. True or not, it appears FLARM has developed into a very serious "excuse" for some. Blaming FLARM on their woes and hoping that by eliminating the perceived FLARM demon, the standings will somehow revert to the "proper order." Personally, I look forward to seeing the results of FLARM Competition Mode's on US contest results. I strongly suspect there will be none. But it will also serve to eliminate any remaining "excuses" even though they may be irrational, baseless and ultimately produce a real safety risk. I truly hope the new US mandate doesn't somehow result or contribute to an accident that normal FLARM operation might have otherwise prevented. Regardless, I see lots of serious technical and customer satisfaction challenges ahead for the FLARM team (a company that has clearly advised against this new limited FLARM function path we are now on) and the US RC, the IGC and the BGA...

I can only imagine the long list of public, angry complaints of a) surprise warnings (too late to easily avoid) or b) failed conflict warnings and c) other technical issues we may all experience next season. IMO, this rule is being pushed out WAY too soon for the USA. For a committee that had as a key objective (just this year) "simplify the rules," this aggressive, almost light speed move, is truly fascinating. The weighting of the variables in the decision equation is quite remarkable.

At least, we will all have some fun Xmas break entertainment as this war rages on.

Sean

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 9:27:51 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> Wait, was this the analysis where you compared results across two contests in different years in completely different geographies with a commonality of about 15 percent in the participating pilot population and using the the highly nebulous "PRL to Performance Metric"? The one where you claimed it was "only 259 data points" (when one could as easily argue it was 2 data points; contest A and contest B). Where I think you used "Bayesian" in a sentence... a tactic I thought only an economist would resort to?? Yes - just poking fun at your expense.
>
> But seriously, the statistics (lies, damned lies) you are citing strike me as only one aspect of the analysis. I think the other is either unmeasurable after-the-fact or would need a much more controlled environment to study conclusively. All I can tell you is what I've observed in ACTUAL contests using Flarm Stealth and not using Flarm Stealth and... more importantly.... what is very achievable in the realm of software development and user interface development in the near future.
>
> I fundamentally believe this is more of a philosophical discussion than a technical one at this point. I'm afraid it may be hard to "win" this one on technical analysis alone.
>
> Back to real work. Q1 revenue estimates are due, and unfortunately I don't have Flarm to use to leech off the other consulting firms.
>
> P3

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 8:25:58 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> " ...There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching.. Stop arguing about it.... "
>
> There have been many posters arguing the above in one form or another. While not intending to offend ANYONE, nor intending to quote any particular individual... the above type of argument is akin to a woman arguing that her intuition should be accepted as fact in an argument! :))
>
> It is just as possible to argue that leeching BVR is a losing proposition, stop arguing about it... Andy is a smart guy who has taken the time to actually look at traces and has the skills to do an analysis.


One more time, Jonathan: FLARM facilitates leeching. I believe Andy is not disputing that; he's just saying that it doesn't pay off as a contest tactic. That's different than denying that being able to see gliders around you farther than the naked eye makes it easier to find and follow them.

I don't think gender has anything to do with understanding the difference between these two points but I do find myself empathizing a lot more with women who know they're right and who must deal with men who don't listen very well. Learning that you have a law degree explains a lot. :)

I don't think Andy has "proven" anything with his analysis but it's intriguing not just because he's a smart guy with an analytical bent and his own drone (note to CD: make sure that's locked up at Nephi), but because I confess I improved my performance in the two contests I flew with FLARM on several occasions, both with and without Stealth. Opponents may dismiss this as just more opinions or apocryphal stories, as they have others who have reported the same thing. Call me a liar. I didn't win those contests but I did get some help at critical times, help I wouldn't have gotten without FLARM.

At this point, no one is going to prove anything conclusive. Even those of us who were allegedly traumatized by leeches 30 years ago admit it's unlikely that anyone will win the nationals again with that tactic.

Andy, I noted your carefully parsed words about newer pilots. That they believe Stealth prevents them from tagging along with the big boys doesn't necessarily mean they could stay with them even with open FLARM. But you make a good point, with which I agree. It's been a time-honored technique to follow better pilots for a while to learn from them. But if Stealth hinders this, I'm completely in accord with open FLARM at regional contests, which is where newer pilots have traditionally come up to speed. I still think philosophically that it makes sense for our national contests to try to limit technology and techniques that detract from the individualism that's always been fundamental to soaring in this country. Yes, leeching isn't illegal and it's always been there to some extent. Open FLARM just makes it easier and that's why I--as a midpack pilot most likely to be displaced by leeches--support limiting its effects in a manner consistent with safety.

It's interesting that Stealth is being portrayed as the RC hurtling at light speed into the unknown. That might have been a better argument a year ago.. Maybe the scariest thing to FLARMistas is that Stealth has already been tried and found to work well. As several have observed profoundly: it's tough to fight change. :)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

At 04:47 22 December 2015, JS wrote:
>Thought the "RC madness" thread would have a link to a crazy Radio
>Controlled glider contest or DS video.
>Jim
>

Me too, seeing that the FAA has just mandated that RC Soaring Pilots must
now register themselves and their sailplanes in a national database.

At 04:47 22 December 2015, JS wrote:
>Thought the "RC madness" thread would have a link to a crazy Radio
>Controlled glider contest or DS video.
>Jim
>

Me too, seeing that the FAA has just mandated that RC Soaring Pilots must
now register themselves and their sailplanes in a national database.

At 04:47 22 December 2015, JS wrote:
>Thought the "RC madness" thread would have a link to a crazy Radio
>Controlled glider contest or DS video.
>Jim
>

Me too, seeing that the FAA has just mandated that RC Soaring Pilots must
now register themselves and their sailplanes in a national database.

At 04:47 22 December 2015, JS wrote:
>Thought the "RC madness" thread would have a link to a crazy Radio
>Controlled glider contest or DS video.
>Jim
>

Me too, seeing that the FAA has just mandated that RC Soaring Pilots must
now register themselves and their sailplanes in a national database.

At 06:35 22 December 2015, wrote:
>On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 8:25:58 PM UTC-5, Jonathan
St. Cloud wrote:
>> " ...There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows
greater
>leeching=
>.. Stop arguing about it.... "
>>=20
>> There have been many posters arguing the above in one form or
another.
>W=
>hile not intending to offend ANYONE, nor intending to quote any
particular
>=
>individual... the above type of argument is akin to a woman
arguing that
>he=
>r intuition should be accepted as fact in an argument! :))
>>=20
>> It is just as possible to argue that leeching BVR is a losing
>proposition=
>, stop arguing about it... Andy is a smart guy who has taken the
time to
>a=
>ctually look at traces and has the skills to do an analysis.
>
>
>One more time, Jonathan: FLARM facilitates leeching. I believe
Andy is not
>=
>disputing that; he's just saying that it doesn't pay off as a contest
>tacti=
>c. That's different than denying that being able to see gliders
around you
>=
>farther than the naked eye makes it easier to find and follow them.
>

>Chip Bearden
>ASW 24 "JB"
>U.S.A.

So what. In virtually every other kind of racing, following your
opponent and mugging him on the last lap is the norm. Happens
especially in athletics, cycling and motor cycle racing.
If you want to look at unfair consider the competitor who can afford
to buy the latest 55-1 water wasting glider and competes against
people who do not have that sort of cash to throw around.
Tactics and strategy are part of racing, if so called leeching is a
problem, deal with it. You do not hear other racers whining about it
all the time.

Leeching scenarios

1) I am in the lead going into the final day. If I start at the same time
as the guy in 2nd place and follow him tightly around the task finishing
within a minute or two, I have won the competition. Oh, but he launched
after me, how do I find him? Flarm will do it.

2) I am in second place going in to the last day and do not want the leader
to find me before the start because if I can get away without being
followed I stand a better chance of taking the pot. Place foil over aerial?
Must have been a malfunction!

3) I am reaching the bottom of my soaring band and need to find a climb. Do
I take the 2kt climb I have found here or fly 3kms ~ 300ft to the 5kt climb
that another glider has just taken at my height? Flarm does it again.

4) I am team flying but no longer need to wait at the top of a thermal for
my partner to say he is ready to leave (in order to stay in touch with each
other) as he can follow comfortably at a distance when he is ready.

5) I am in the glide flying at my chosen glide speed for the 4kt thermal I
am expecting to find. I see on the Flarm display that the thermals ahead
are actually producing 6kts not 4. Stick forward!

6) I am in the glide flying at my chosen glide speed for the 4kt thermal I
am expecting to find. I see on the Flarm display that the thermals ahead
are actually only producing 2kts not 4. Ease up.

7) My partner calls that he is in a 6kt thermal somewhere up ahead. I can't
see him. He could give me a code which I could then decode to identify
where but that takes time and effort for both pilots. A glance at the Flarm
display tells me whether I can risk a glide to join him.

8) I am flying an AAT and have entered the first area. I am considering
turning early because the sky ahead looks poor. Wait, let's check the Flarm
display to see what the other guys are doing ahead and verify that
decision.

9) I am flying an AAT and am on the penultimate leg. The last leg is a
reciprocal to the finish. Knowing whether pilots are fat or struggling on
final glide will help me decide my tactics for the remainder of the flight.
I will check with Flarm!

If you do not consider that Flarm and Flarm leeching can improve a pilots'
result (even the winners) then you are unlikely to be an experienced
competition pilot.

Jim

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 1:22:32 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> From Rules Committee:
>
> "This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):
>
> 1. For National Contests:
> * Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
> * Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"
>
>
> I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.
>
> You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.
>
> Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.
>
> Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

i really hope to win a nationals without flarm just to really shake the **** up!...oh, and because i'd be national champion. ;)

At 12:26 22 December 2015, Jim White wrote:
>Leeching scenarios
>
>1) I am in the lead going into the final day. If I start at the same
tim
>as the guy in 2nd place and follow him tightly around the task
finishin
>within a minute or two, I have won the competition. Oh, but he
launche
>after me, how do I find him? Flarm will do it.
>
>2) I am in second place going in to the last day and do not want
the leade
>to find me before the start because if I can get away without bein
>followed I stand a better chance of taking the pot. Place foil over
aerial
>Must have been a malfunction!
>
>3) I am reaching the bottom of my soaring band and need to find
a climb. D
>I take the 2kt climb I have found here or fly 3kms ~ 300ft to the
5kt clim
>that another glider has just taken at my height? Flarm does it
again.
>
>4) I am team flying but no longer need to wait at the top of a
thermal fo
>my partner to say he is ready to leave (in order to stay in touch
with eac
>other) as he can follow comfortably at a distance when he is
ready.
>
>5) I am in the glide flying at my chosen glide speed for the 4kt
thermal
>am expecting to find. I see on the Flarm display that the thermals
ahea
>are actually producing 6kts not 4. Stick forward!
>
>6) I am in the glide flying at my chosen glide speed for the 4kt
thermal
>am expecting to find. I see on the Flarm display that the thermals
ahea
>are actually only producing 2kts not 4. Ease up.
>
>7) My partner calls that he is in a 6kt thermal somewhere up
ahead. I can'
>see him. He could give me a code which I could then decode to
identif
>where but that takes time and effort for both pilots. A glance at
the Flar
>display tells me whether I can risk a glide to join him.
>
>8) I am flying an AAT and have entered the first area. I am
considerin
>turning early because the sky ahead looks poor. Wait, let's check
the Flar
>display to see what the other guys are doing ahead and verify tha
>decision.
>
>9) I am flying an AAT and am on the penultimate leg. The last leg
is
>reciprocal to the finish. Knowing whether pilots are fat or
struggling o
>final glide will help me decide my tactics for the remainder of the
flight
>I will check with Flarm!
>
>If you do not consider that Flarm and Flarm leeching can improve
a pilots
>result (even the winners) then you are unlikely to be an
experience
>competition pilot.
>
>Jim
>
So here is the thing. Why consider a solution as dangerous as
crippling FLARM when there are other solutions. It is not necessary
for TPs to be ground features anymore, they can be any GPS co-
ordinate. So instead of a competition director setting the task with
TPs why not just set the task length and allow pilots to choose their
TP, not restricted to any point except perhaps the last TP before the
airfield. You could even require a finish track without specifying a
point. You could specify the number of TPs to be used and even
minimum leg lengths but the pilots select their own TP, which they
can keep to themselves or share, as long as they file the task with
the competition before launch. This allows team flying but someone
wanting to "hide" is able to do so. It is a sort of AAT set on distance
as opposed to time.
Solves the leeching problem and as an additional benefit means that
gliders will not longer be forced closer to others at TPs.
I know it is not perfect but it is another valid solution, perhaps not
an attractive one but there again crippling FLARM is not particularly
attractive.

That's called OLC. Sadly, the RC is "studying" that as well... ;-)

Probably will be a new US task type by spring. ;-)

Sigh.

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9:46:57 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> That's called OLC. Sadly, the RC is "studying" that as well... ;-)
>
> Probably will be a new US task type by spring. ;-)
>
> Sigh.

Not quite, Sean. To pull a quote from his proposal...

"...as long as they file the task with the competition before launch." So, not really at all like OLC. Task is declared before takeoff. A self assigned task. And every team would likely have a different one. Wouldn't that be fun for the scorer!

At 15:51 22 December 2015, Steve Leonard wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9:46:57 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
>> That's called OLC. Sadly, the RC is "studying" that as well... ;-)
>>
>> Probably will be a new US task type by spring. ;-)
>>
>> Sigh.
>
>Not quite, Sean. To pull a quote from his proposal...
>
>"...as long as they file the task with the competition before launch."
So,
>not really at all like OLC. Task is declared before takeoff. A self
>assigned task. And every team would likely have a different one.
Wouldn't
>that be fun for the scorer!
>
Not really. IGC files have been able to have tasks declared pre-take-off
for many years.

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 10:00:07 AM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 12:26 22 December 2015, Jim White wrote:
> >Leeching scenarios
> >
> >1) I am in the lead going into the final day. If I start at the same
> tim
> >as the guy in 2nd place and follow him tightly around the task
> finishin
> >within a minute or two, I have won the competition. Oh, but he
> launche
> >after me, how do I find him? Flarm will do it.
> >
> >2) I am in second place going in to the last day and do not want
> the leade
> >to find me before the start because if I can get away without bein
> >followed I stand a better chance of taking the pot. Place foil over
> aerial
> >Must have been a malfunction!
> >
> >3) I am reaching the bottom of my soaring band and need to find
> a climb. D
> >I take the 2kt climb I have found here or fly 3kms ~ 300ft to the
> 5kt clim
> >that another glider has just taken at my height? Flarm does it
> again.
> >
> >4) I am team flying but no longer need to wait at the top of a
> thermal fo
> >my partner to say he is ready to leave (in order to stay in touch
> with eac
> >other) as he can follow comfortably at a distance when he is
> ready.
> >
> >5) I am in the glide flying at my chosen glide speed for the 4kt
> thermal
> >am expecting to find. I see on the Flarm display that the thermals
> ahea
> >are actually producing 6kts not 4. Stick forward!
> >
> >6) I am in the glide flying at my chosen glide speed for the 4kt
> thermal
> >am expecting to find. I see on the Flarm display that the thermals
> ahea
> >are actually only producing 2kts not 4. Ease up.
> >
> >7) My partner calls that he is in a 6kt thermal somewhere up
> ahead. I can'
> >see him. He could give me a code which I could then decode to
> identif
> >where but that takes time and effort for both pilots. A glance at
> the Flar
> >display tells me whether I can risk a glide to join him.
> >
> >8) I am flying an AAT and have entered the first area. I am
> considerin
> >turning early because the sky ahead looks poor. Wait, let's check
> the Flar
> >display to see what the other guys are doing ahead and verify tha
> >decision.
> >
> >9) I am flying an AAT and am on the penultimate leg. The last leg
> is
> >reciprocal to the finish. Knowing whether pilots are fat or
> struggling o
> >final glide will help me decide my tactics for the remainder of the
> flight
> >I will check with Flarm!
> >
> >If you do not consider that Flarm and Flarm leeching can improve
> a pilots
> >result (even the winners) then you are unlikely to be an
> experience
> >competition pilot.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> So here is the thing. Why consider a solution as dangerous as
> crippling FLARM when there are other solutions. It is not necessary
> for TPs to be ground features anymore, they can be any GPS co-
> ordinate. So instead of a competition director setting the task with
> TPs why not just set the task length and allow pilots to choose their
> TP, not restricted to any point except perhaps the last TP before the
> airfield. You could even require a finish track without specifying a
> point. You could specify the number of TPs to be used and even
> minimum leg lengths but the pilots select their own TP, which they
> can keep to themselves or share, as long as they file the task with
> the competition before launch. This allows team flying but someone
> wanting to "hide" is able to do so. It is a sort of AAT set on distance
> as opposed to time.
> Solves the leeching problem and as an additional benefit means that
> gliders will not longer be forced closer to others at TPs.
> I know it is not perfect but it is another valid solution, perhaps not
> an attractive one but there again crippling FLARM is not particularly
> attractive.

i'll keep my reply short. because that's silly and it would ruin racing. at that point it's basically justa glider meet-up. what we should do is fly more AST and keep the AAT cyliders smaller than they are.

It's not crippling flarm if you ask me. Now read that twice. If you ask me.... that will be my reply. i think everyone in the "if i can't see everyone camp" are being too conservative. flarm should notify of impending threats, and 1 mile notice is plenty, 2 miles for oncomimg traffic. if my math is righ, at 300 MPH closing speed (both gliders effectively flat out), that still gives you 12 seconds to SEE AND AVOID the traffic. count out 12 seconds and think about how long that is.

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 8:40:49 AM UTC-8, ND wrote:
<SNIP> that still gives you 12 seconds to SEE AND AVOID the traffic. count out 12 seconds and think about how long that is.

Ok now think about the glider going your direction you think might be just above to your left, and the one you think might be just below to your right (they are not threats and are invisible on your tactical display due to stealth). Then get two alarms indicating closing traffic ahead at 12 and 11 seconds to impact. Start counting. You cannot make a sudden turn or swoop, you do not know where the gliders beside you are. You cannot call them, you don't know who they are. Now at 5 seconds spot the third glider also closing from ahead with the other two (warning was buried under the others). You have 5 gliders to miss and 5 seconds to sort it out. Two of them are somewhere alongside, but you don't know where. The three going the other direction are beginning to visually pick up you three and are scattering in random directions as are your two companions. Now you are getting alarms from every direction. Three people have the radio keyed and all you hear is howling. Five, four, three, two one, BANG. Still plenty of time?

With (non-stealth) Flarm, this scenario doesn't even raise your heart rate, you knew where everyone was 7 miles out, made a leisurely 3 deg course change, and don't even see them visually when they pass safely on your left. Believe me, this happens out west.

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:15:06 AM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> At 04:47 22 December 2015, JS wrote:
> >Thought the "RC madness" thread would have a link to a crazy Radio
> >Controlled glider contest or DS video.
> >Jim
> >
>
> Me too, seeing that the FAA has just mandated that RC Soaring Pilots must
> now register themselves and their sailplanes in a national database.

Are you sure this is not limited to drones?
Model airplanes have been flown under an operating agreement between the FAA and AMA for decades.
Models flown under those guidelines have license numbers on them now.
Can you guide to where you got this info?
Thx
UH

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 12:17:14 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:15:06 AM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> > At 04:47 22 December 2015, JS wrote:
> > >Thought the "RC madness" thread would have a link to a crazy Radio
> > >Controlled glider contest or DS video.
> > >Jim
> > >
> >
> > Me too, seeing that the FAA has just mandated that RC Soaring Pilots must
> > now register themselves and their sailplanes in a national database.
>
> Are you sure this is not limited to drones?
> Model airplanes have been flown under an operating agreement between the FAA and AMA for decades.
> Models flown under those guidelines have license numbers on them now.
> Can you guide to where you got this info?
> Thx
> UH

effective yesterday - https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 1:26:07 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 8:40:49 AM UTC-8, ND wrote:
> <SNIP> that still gives you 12 seconds to SEE AND AVOID the traffic. count out 12 seconds and think about how long that is.
>
> Ok now think about the glider going your direction you think might be just above to your left, and the one you think might be just below to your right (they are not threats and are invisible on your tactical display due to stealth). Then get two alarms indicating closing traffic ahead at 12 and 11 seconds to impact. Start counting. You cannot make a sudden turn or swoop, you do not know where the gliders beside you are. You cannot call them, you don't know who they are. Now at 5 seconds spot the third glider also closing from ahead with the other two (warning was buried under the others). You have 5 gliders to miss and 5 seconds to sort it out. Two of them are somewhere alongside, but you don't know where. The three going the other direction are beginning to visually pick up you three and are scattering in random directions as are your two companions. Now you are getting alarms from every direction. Three people have the radio keyed and all you hear is howling. Five, four, three, two one, BANG. Still plenty of time?
>
> With (non-stealth) Flarm, this scenario doesn't even raise your heart rate, you knew where everyone was 7 miles out, made a leisurely 3 deg course change, and don't even see them visually when they pass safely on your left. Believe me, this happens out west.

We routinely have dozens of gliders operating in the Appalachians on good ridge days. We've done this for 30 years without gliders bumping into each other left and right. It's not at all uncommon to have the scenario you describe, only instead of 1 oncoming glider it's 4 or 5. And, we've got two fewer degrees of freedom, since there's rocks and trees to one side and below.

Not making light of it, but sort of wondering how it's possible we survived at all before FLARM with no warning at all?

P3

The answer is that many glider pilots did not survive; read
Bruno Gatenbrink's article.
Installing Flarm is a no brainer.
Seat belts, crash helmets, air bags, NCAP ratings.. modern
nonsense eh?

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 1:26:07 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 8:40:49 AM UTC-8, ND wrote:
> <SNIP> that still gives you 12 seconds to SEE AND AVOID the traffic. count out 12 seconds and think about how long that is.
>
> Ok now think about the glider going your direction you think might be just above to your left, and the one you think might be just below to your right (they are not threats and are invisible on your tactical display due to stealth). Then get two alarms indicating closing traffic ahead at 12 and 11 seconds to impact. Start counting. You cannot make a sudden turn or swoop, you do not know where the gliders beside you are. You cannot call them, you don't know who they are. Now at 5 seconds spot the third glider also closing from ahead with the other two (warning was buried under the others). You have 5 gliders to miss and 5 seconds to sort it out. Two of them are somewhere alongside, but you don't know where. The three going the other direction are beginning to visually pick up you three and are scattering in random directions as are your two companions. Now you are getting alarms from every direction. Three people have the radio keyed and all you hear is howling. Five, four, three, two one, BANG. Still plenty of time?
>
> With (non-stealth) Flarm, this scenario doesn't even raise your heart rate, you knew where everyone was 7 miles out, made a leisurely 3 deg course change, and don't even see them visually when they pass safely on your left. Believe me, this happens out west.

you know what i'm gonna do in that scenario? i'm gonna open my eyes, and look up. then i'm going to pull up and to my right while making sure i'm not going to hit someone above me as i'm doing so. that's gonna reduce the closing speed and give me more time to spot the traffic. if it's really desperate, i'll pull my water (if i happen to be carrying any) to increase my visibility to others until i think the danger has passed. use every resource you can and get creative. no amount of anything besides a forcefield can eliminate two aircraft from rubbing. i accept that every time i get in. I also accept that flarm reduces the risk significantly.

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 4:03:02 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 1:26:07 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 8:40:49 AM UTC-8, ND wrote:
> > <SNIP> that still gives you 12 seconds to SEE AND AVOID the traffic. count out 12 seconds and think about how long that is.
> >
> > Ok now think about the glider going your direction you think might be just above to your left, and the one you think might be just below to your right (they are not threats and are invisible on your tactical display due to stealth). Then get two alarms indicating closing traffic ahead at 12 and 11 seconds to impact. Start counting. You cannot make a sudden turn or swoop, you do not know where the gliders beside you are. You cannot call them, you don't know who they are. Now at 5 seconds spot the third glider also closing from ahead with the other two (warning was buried under the others). You have 5 gliders to miss and 5 seconds to sort it out. Two of them are somewhere alongside, but you don't know where. The three going the other direction are beginning to visually pick up you three and are scattering in random directions as are your two companions. Now you are getting alarms from every direction. Three people have the radio keyed and all you hear is howling. Five, four, three, two one, BANG. Still plenty of time?
> >
> > With (non-stealth) Flarm, this scenario doesn't even raise your heart rate, you knew where everyone was 7 miles out, made a leisurely 3 deg course change, and don't even see them visually when they pass safely on your left. Believe me, this happens out west.
>
> We routinely have dozens of gliders operating in the Appalachians on good ridge days. We've done this for 30 years without gliders bumping into each other left and right. It's not at all uncommon to have the scenario you describe, only instead of 1 oncoming glider it's 4 or 5. And, we've got two fewer degrees of freedom, since there's rocks and trees to one side and below.
>
> Not making light of it, but sort of wondering how it's possible we survived at all before FLARM with no warning at all?
>
> P3

AMEN


────────────────┠€â”€â”€â”€â–‘███░
────────────────┠€â”€â”€â–‘█░░░█░
────────────────┠€â”€â–‘█░░░░░█░
────────────────┠€â–‘█░░░░░█░
──────────░░░───■‘█░░░░░░█░
─────────░███░──■‘█░░░░░█░
───────░██░░░██░■ˆâ–‘░░░░█░
──────░█░░█░░░░█■ˆâ–‘░░░░█░
────░██░░█░░░░░░■ˆâ–‘░░░█░
───░█░░░█░░░░░░░■ˆâ–ˆâ–‘░░█░
──░█░░░░█░░░░░░░■‘█░░░█░
──░█░░░░░█░░░░░░■‘░█░░░█░
──░█░░█░░░█░░░░░■‘░░█░░█░
─░█░░░█░░░░██░░░■‘░░█░░█░
─░█░░░░█░░░░░██░■‘░█░░░█░
─░█░█░░░█░░░░░░█■ˆâ–ˆâ–‘░░░█░
░█░░░█░░░██░░░░░■ˆâ–‘░░░░█░
░█░░░░█░░░░█████■‘░░░░█░
░█░░░░░█░░░░░░░█■‘░░░░█░
░█░█░░░░██░░░░█░■‘░░░█░
─░█░█░░░░░████░░■‘░██░
─░█░░█░░░░░░░█░░■ˆâ–ˆâ–‘█░
──░█░░██░░░██░░█■‘░░█░
───░██░░███░░██░■ˆâ–‘░█░
────░██░░░███░░░■ˆâ–‘░░█░
──────░███░░░░░░■ˆâ–‘░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░■ˆâ–‘░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░■‘░░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░■‘░░░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░■‘░░░░█░

> you know what i'm gonna do in that scenario? i'm gonna open my eyes, and look up. then i'm going to pull up and to my right while making sure i'm not going to hit someone above me as i'm doing so. that's gonna reduce the closing speed and give me more time to spot the traffic. if it's really desperate, i'll pull my water (if i happen to be carrying any) to increase my visibility to others until i think the danger has passed. use every resource you can and get creative. no amount of anything besides a forcefield can eliminate two aircraft from rubbing. i accept that every time i get in. I also accept that flarm reduces the risk significantly.

Consider when programming your brain Andy- Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.
Matching the other guys bank is best obviously. In the real world you will never think about water dumping. The emergency will be over before your brain gets to that.
FWIW
UH

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 1:26:07 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

> Ok now think about the glider going your direction you think might be just above to your left, and the one you think might be just below to your right (they are not threats and are invisible on your tactical display due to stealth).
<SNIP>
> With (non-stealth) Flarm, this scenario doesn't even raise your heart rate, you knew where everyone was 7 miles out,

Not trying to be difficult but I must be missing something. If they're that close to you (i.e., within 2 km), they're visible even with Stealth.

That's for the standard (Portable) FLARM display I use, of course. I can't say how the glide computer tactical displays might present the information in an "improved" fashion.

If, on the other hand, they don't have FLARM at all, then you don't know where everyone is 7 miles out.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 4:45:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
> The answer is that many glider pilots did not survive; read
> Bruno Gatenbrink's article.
> Installing Flarm is a no brainer.
> Seat belts, crash helmets, air bags, NCAP ratings.. modern
> nonsense eh?

Nobody's arguing against using Flarm.

UH,

Its ALL RC aircraft between .5 lbs and 55lbs. A different catagory of rules apply for >55lbs.

The AMA has negotiated drones only, and expected that. This came as a huge shock to many. The FAA, in their wisdom, changed to scope to included ALL RC aircraft between .5 and 55 lbs at the last moments. All limited to below 400 ft. which is comical for RC sailplanes and most high performance jets and electric aircraft.

Sean

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:

> Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.

Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.

> Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.

I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.

Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.

9B

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 7:15:05 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.
>
> Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.
>
> > Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.
>
> I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.
>
> Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.
>
> 9B

I'm starting to wonder if Andy will be able to resist disagreeing with every thing I say.
Quite some time ago I was part of a group discussion on the very topic. The pilots were asked what they would do in just this situation without knowing what the others would say. Virtually every one answered that they would pull and turn.
The fighter pilot in the group said he would push because almost everybody will pull out of instinct.
It ain't 50-50 odds.
Matching bank is basic collision avoidance.
Obviously not something any one of us wants to do.
UH

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
<SNIP> Not trying to be difficult but I must be missing something. If they're that close to you (i.e., within 2 km), they're visible even with Stealth..


From the Flarm documents, V6.0 page 19 (maybe this has changed?):

"Targets with enabled “Stealth Mode� are only displayed.... if they meet at least one of the following requirements:

- target is a threat

- target is within 100m horizontal and 50m vertical
- target is within 2000m horizontal and 300m vertical and within ±45° of own flight track."

So the guys going your way - the ones ND is going to pull up sharply into - you don't even know are there. They aren't a threat because they are paralleling your course. Even if they are close enough to appear, their relative altitude is intentionally wrong.

Now I am going to repeat for the 20th time or so, I don't believe Flarm is a huge increase in safety. It is a big sky and most accidents are spin/stall, not head on. I don't even call my Flarm an anti-collision device, I call it an in-flight entertainment system. But certainly beyond a doubt, it improves situational awareness always, and particularly in the scenario described. On The White Mountains and the Sierra convergence lines, I don't think there have been any head-ons than I can recall. Its a big sky. But plenty of people have had to change their underwear at the end of the day, I can assure you. It was enough of a concern that a rather elaborate procedure was devised in the area, reserving a radio frequency and involving reporting points etc., all of which seemed pretty ineffective, while non-stealth FLARM pretty much solves the problem completely and with no distraction.

Twice, flying the Whites and running under street, I came upon an opposing glider and just had the time to flinch. And I always kept a very close eye out for traffic while flying the Whites.


On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 4:15:05 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.
>
> Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.
>
> > Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.
>
> I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.
>
> Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.
>
> 9B

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:47:27 PM UTC-5, JS wrote:
> Thought the "RC madness" thread would have a link to a crazy Radio Controlled glider contest or DS video.
> Jim

Yeppers, and now we all have to register our RC drones with the FAA...... Well... maybe not.... until we crash it and we get found out... :-(.....

Wait, what is this thread about???

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 3:49:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> UH,
>
> Its ALL RC aircraft between .5 lbs and 55lbs. A different catagory of rules apply for >55lbs.
>
> The AMA has negotiated drones only, and expected that. This came as a huge shock to many. The FAA, in their wisdom, changed to scope to included ALL RC aircraft between .5 and 55 lbs at the last moments. All limited to below 400 ft. which is comical for RC sailplanes and most high performance jets and electric aircraft.
>
> Sean

The 400' rule is the problem at this point. The FAA it seems is trying to make it mandatory in the registration process. You can not register unless you agree to the 400' limit. If you do not agree, you can not register, and can be fined and prosecuted. I am told that this is in direct conflict with the existing "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 HR 658", which states that the FAA can not place additional restrictions on model aircraft.

Mike

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 10:14:22 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 3:49:02 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > UH,
> >
> > Its ALL RC aircraft between .5 lbs and 55lbs. A different catagory of rules apply for >55lbs.
> >
> > The AMA has negotiated drones only, and expected that. This came as a huge shock to many. The FAA, in their wisdom, changed to scope to included ALL RC aircraft between .5 and 55 lbs at the last moments. All limited to below 400 ft. which is comical for RC sailplanes and most high performance jets and electric aircraft.
> >
> > Sean
>
> The 400' rule is the problem at this point. The FAA it seems is trying to make it mandatory in the registration process. You can not register unless you agree to the 400' limit. If you do not agree, you can not register, and can be fined and prosecuted. I am told that this is in direct conflict with the existing "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 HR 658", which states that the FAA can not place additional restrictions on model aircraft..
>
> Mike

This just in:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/12/17/hold-off-on-registering-model-aircraft/
AMA says hold off till appeal
Now we really drifted a thread.
UH

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 7:50:19 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> <SNIP> Not trying to be difficult but I must be missing something. If they're that close to you (i.e., within 2 km), they're visible even with Stealth.
>
>
> From the Flarm documents, V6.0 page 19 (maybe this has changed?):
>
> "Targets with enabled “Stealth Mode� are only displayed..... if they meet at least one of the following requirements:

> - target is a threat

> - target is within 100m horizontal and 50m vertical
> - target is within 2000m horizontal and 300m vertical and within ±45° of own flight track."
>
> So the guys going your way - the ones ND is going to pull up sharply into - you don't even know are there. They aren't a threat because they are paralleling your course. Even if they are close enough to appear, their relative altitude is intentionally wrong.
>
> Now I am going to repeat for the 20th time or so, I don't believe Flarm is a huge increase in safety. It is a big sky and most accidents are spin/stall, not head on. I don't even call my Flarm an anti-collision device, I call it an in-flight entertainment system. But certainly beyond a doubt, it improves situational awareness always, and particularly in the scenario described. On The White Mountains and the Sierra convergence lines, I don't think there have been any head-ons than I can recall. Its a big sky. But plenty of people have had to change their underwear at the end of the day, I can assure you. It was enough of a concern that a rather elaborate procedure was devised in the area, reserving a radio frequency and involving reporting points etc., all of which seemed pretty ineffective, while non-stealth FLARM pretty much solves the problem completely and with no distraction.

i'm not sure.... but think i could miss a glider as i pull if i'm looking right at him dude... you said one glider high left, one low right, so how am i in a position to hit someone if i go high right? especially if i look up in the direction of my pull?? you can't win at hypthetics, because the antagonist can always say, "ok that's fine, but what if..." i'm gonna bow out of this stupid debate now. have the last word if you like. see you dudes! (hopefully) ;)

"no brainer"... Typical.

On 12/22/2015 2:37 PM, Dave Walsh wrote:
> The answer is that many glider pilots did not survive; read
> Bruno Gatenbrink's article.
> Installing Flarm is a no brainer.
> Seat belts, crash helmets, air bags, NCAP ratings.. modern
> nonsense eh?
>

--
Dan, 5J

No agreed to scenario?

*14 CFR 91.113****Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.*

(e)/Approaching head-on./When aircraft are approaching each other
head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to
the right.

Some people are writing their own rules when the rules are already in
effect. So if one of you turns to the left because that seems the best
course, and the other turns to the right because that's what the FARs
require, what happens?

Winter seems the time for everyone to come up with outrageous
scenarios. And BTW, it's snowing here, too.

On 12/22/2015 5:15 PM, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
>> Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.
> Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.
>
>> Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.
> I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.
>
> Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.
>
> 9B

--
Dan, 5J

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 8:23:24 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> No agreed to scenario?
>
>
>
> 14 CFR 91.113*Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
>
>
>
> (e)*Approaching head-on.*When aircraft are
> approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each
> aircraft shall alter course to the right.
>
>
>
> Some people are writing their own rules when the rules are already
> in effect.* So if one of you turns to the left because that seems
> the best course, and the other turns to the right because that's
> what the FARs require, what happens?
>
>
>
> Winter seems the time for everyone to come up with outrageous
> scenarios.* And BTW, it's snowing here, too.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/22/2015 5:15 PM, Andy Blackburn
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
>
>
> Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.
>
>
> Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.
>
>
>
> Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.
>
>
> I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.
>
> Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.
>
> 9B
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J

And if there is already an aircraft to your right?

>I'm starting to wonder if Andy will be able to resist disagreeing with every thing I say.
Quite some time ago I was part of a group discussion on the very topic. The pilots were asked what they would do in just this situation without knowing what the others would say. Virtually every one answered that they would pull and turn.
The fighter pilot in the group said he would push because almost everybody will pull out of instinct.
It ain't 50-50 odds.

We agree on most things, just not all the ones that get the most airtime... :-)

I was simply expanding the fighter pilot analysis to include everybody else since their lives matter as well. You are correct in the scenario as described. The odds are quite good for YOU if everyone else pulls and you push - 100% in fact.

However, the odds for everyone else are poor - 0%. They will all pull together and their fate will be unchanged - at least if that's all they do. Anything else they try, absent good situational awareness, will be similarly randomly distributed between things that help and things that hurt matters. The best you can do to improve this sad state of affairs is 50-50 - by splitting the field in half - between push and pull. Then on some random encounter for a random pilot the odds will be 50% that his maneuver will be complemented versus neutralized by the other pilot. Even those odds suck, so best to come up with something that works for everyone.

9B

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:41:38 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 8:23:24 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > No agreed to scenario?
> >
> >
> >
> > 14 CFR 91.113*Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
> >
> >
> >
> > (e)*Approaching head-on.*When aircraft are
> > approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each
> > aircraft shall alter course to the right.
> >
> >
> >
> > Some people are writing their own rules when the rules are already
> > in effect.* So if one of you turns to the left because that seems
> > the best course, and the other turns to the right because that's
> > what the FARs require, what happens?
> >
> >
> >
> > Winter seems the time for everyone to come up with outrageous
> > scenarios.* And BTW, it's snowing here, too.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/22/2015 5:15 PM, Andy Blackburn
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.
> >
> >
> > Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.
> >
> >
> > I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.
> >
> > Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.
> >
> > 9B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dan, 5J
>
> And if there is already an aircraft to your right?

then i will beg our father for mercy and forgiveness in my remaining moments for being a dumbass who didn't give myself an out....

i told you, i am done arguing about hypothetics. remember this from my last post? "you can't win at hypotheticals, because the antagonist can always say, "ok that's fine, but what if..."

so i wont respond next time bruh.

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:27:51 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> Wait, was this the analysis where you compared results across two contests in different years in completely different geographies with a commonality of about 15 percent in the participating pilot population and using the the highly nebulous "PRL to Performance Metric"? The one where you claimed it was "only 259 data points" (when one could as easily argue it was 2 data points; contest A and contest B). Where I think you used "Bayesian" in a sentence... a tactic I thought only an economist would resort to?? Yes - just poking fun at your expense.
>
> But seriously, the statistics (lies, damned lies) you are citing strike me as only one aspect of the analysis. I think the other is either unmeasurable after-the-fact or would need a much more controlled environment to study conclusively. All I can tell you is what I've observed in ACTUAL contests using Flarm Stealth and not using Flarm Stealth and... more importantly.... what is very achievable in the realm of software development and user interface development in the near future.
>


I'll summarize.

There were three analyses I did across four different regional, national and international (pan-American) contests.

1) Looking at overall results across two 15M Nationals (Elmira and Montague) where stealth was used versus not.

There was plenty of Flarm at a distance in use at Montague - and a protest on the final day that included Flarm use at a distance as supporting evidence and an explicit part of the strategy that was being used - which was to attempt exactly what one poster described - running down the person behind you in the standings and sticking with them. It didn't work out - because it is hard to run people down from a distance even if you can see them - using their thermals rarely helps so you have to catch them on your own. Good pilots aren't run down easily. In this case the last day was a MAT so it should have been an easier task to keep in range.

But I digress. The analysis compared 3-year PRL numbers for each contestant to the PRL component generated from each of the two contests. It was a simple attempt to see if use of Flarm at a distance generated skewed results versus what you'd expect based on the three-year average pilot performance as indicated by the 3-year PRL score. The figure of merit was mean absolute error - that is, the average of the absolute value of the single contest PRL number minus the three-year PRL number for each pilot.

The result was Elmira had a much higher divergence from the expected ranking than did Montague - despite the fact that Montague had standard class gliders flying in 15M without benefit of handicaps. Now both contests has some weather inconsistency - Elmira's was arguably worse and that can account for some of the differences. However, even if you drop the days that forced top pilots to the ground for both contests, Elmira still has more unexplained performance different across pilots than Montague.

You can say this is a single, contest-level example or you can say is is a summation of a bunch of pilot-level data. Regardless of you you want to characterize the volume of data, the conclusion I draw is that there are other factors that create far more chaos in the scores than Flarm leeching - principally landouts based on weather conditions that catch top pilots. Arguably weather-based randomness translates to unfairness since it's the sort of thing we devalue in the scoring formulae.

So (putting on my Bayes hat) - what did we learn? At minimum, there is no strong evidence that Flarm leeching is upsetting the results at the highest level. Also, other factors that we consider luck in our approach to scoring are much more powerful influences. I went looking for Flarm viewing at a distance (and we know there was a lot at Montague) and found none. In talking to pilots at Montague I can say that some were obsessed with trying to get benefit and others were ignoring it almost entirely, so I'd be very her-pressed to say everyone was gaining equal share of the potential benefit. It's a limited dataset based on maybe a dozen contest days, so it doesn't prove that Flarm leeching never benefits anyone, but it does say on average it doesn't make a big enough dent to come anywhere close to overpower all the other random variables that affect how contests turn out different than just the skills of the pilot. In engineering terms, we can say the signal to noise ratio is very low.

2) There was a strong argument made half a dozen threads ago about the main way Flarm leeching works which is basically seeing someone ahead of you who has already gone the the time and effort to find and core a thermal and just popping right into a perfect climb, gaining valuable seconds or minutes.. So I looked at every climb for every pilot on a couple of contest days to see pilots who found their own thermals got better climbs that pilots who took thermals with a market in them. Turns out that the more you borrow other people's climbs the lower your average climb rate is on the same course, same day. Conclusion - there is selection bias in when a pilot stops to climb on his own (you try to stop for above-average climbs and pass up below average climbs). When people borrow thermals from other pilots they tend to ASSUME that it is an above-average climb, but frequently thermal strength varies higher and lower across the vertical profile and if you are following by a great distance you will can easily come in at a different altitude and miss the bubble that is the whole reason the first guy stopped.

3) Not satisfied with averaging across pilots for an entire day, I looked at the problem thermal-by-thermal. Here I plotted climb rate versus entry time into the thermal - first pilot is t=0. For multiple thermals the trend was monotonic decline in strength, E.g. 3.6 knots for the first pilot, 3.4 knots for the second, then 3.2, 2.9, 2.5. 2.4 - you get the picture. The difference between a great climb and a mediocre one can be just a few miles - like 3 or 4. Is that true all the time? No, some thermals are AMAZING and seem to be consistent all day long. Whether pilots find these by skill or luck or local knowledge varies by site and day. If you go to Montague and don't know about Duzel Rock, God help you. If you go to Parowan or Nephi and don't know about Monroe Peak or the convergence lines that set up over mountains or valleys and when, God help you. Local knowledge is far more important than stealing thermals. The simple point is that it seems very difficult to follow someone at a distance if you want to leech - you will likely get dropped. If you want to leech 1/4 to 1/2 mile and the same altitude is preferable.

4) I looked at examples in the thermal-by-thermal analysis where pilots deviated to reach a thermal with other gliders in it and sorted for when the deviation took them to a thermal that they would not have state with stealth mode on (a deviation of greater than 2km and 300m altitude). Again, the results were mostly negative - making a big deviation to get to gliders in a thermal is more often a sucker bet than a good one. There were only a few examples of big deviations so the amount of useful information being acted on from long-range Flarm is quite limited. That in itself is useful data.

Yes, I can imagine people will get better at being selective and not getting suckered into poor climbs like sheep, but guess what happens when you do that and pass up the leeched thermal you can't connect with? You end up pushed out in front of the pack, probably lower. Sean Fidler made an interesting point about stealth and how it could interplay with human behavior. If you are intent on following someone you will need to do it much more closely with stealth mode on. You will need to be more diligent about exploring the start cylinder. This was hardly ever a big issue before Flarm - there's usually a limited number of good places to start so you ought to be able to find people just like before - maybe not quite as well, but the minnows will be glued to the big fish. The difference with stealth on will be closer proximity in following and fewer leeches kicked out in front of the gaggle to mark the next thermal. If they lay back and take the weak climb them may be able to avoid that fate, but their speed will suffer and they will get dropped by the faster pilots.

In any event, the data we have pretty consistently points to the paranoia about Flarm leeching being mostly that - paranoia. Every single datapoint seems to indicate that there are too many variables at play to make Flarm leeching a highly successful strategy and the forces at work would lead me to conclude that seeing even further ahead in time and distance - as you suggest with better computer and communications technology - will be information that you best ignore most of the time because most of the time conditions will be different by the time you get there.

I'm sure people will think up other ways Flarm at a distance can be useful (e.g. being saved from an outlanding - yup, could happen, but I think of that as a good thing as landouts are the biggest random variable in racing, or, e.g. finding the convergence line - yup, could happen, so local knowledge matters less - is that a skill?). All these anecdotes happen once in a great I am sure - it doesn't change the outcome at the top and I doubt it does much in the middle either. Over time seeing the rest of the field may show newer pilots where they made their mistakes when they go one way and another pilot goes another way, sort of the way SeeYou bug racing allows pilots to learn - except in the cockpit. I've watched a group of pilots 3 or 4 miles away on a different line make ground on me - it's too far to do much about most of the time and you never know when fortunes might be reversed so you store it away for next time.

If you give me a scenario of advantage I will try to find a way to detect it in micro or macro-level performance, but if you can't find pilots catching up and you can't find a difference in the expected scores at the end of the day, or week, then I am at a loss what purpose we are trying to serve other than emotion and paranoia.

Sorry for the long post on how I did my homework.

9B

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 8:23:24 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> No agreed to scenario?
>
>
>
> 14 CFR 91.113*Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
>
>
>
> (e)*Approaching head-on.*When aircraft are
> approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each
> aircraft shall alter course to the right.
>
>
>
> Some people are writing their own rules when the rules are already
> in effect.* So if one of you turns to the left because that seems
> the best course, and the other turns to the right because that's
> what the FARs require, what happens?
>
>
>
> Winter seems the time for everyone to come up with outrageous
> scenarios.* And BTW, it's snowing here, too.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/22/2015 5:15 PM, Andy Blackburn
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
>
>
> Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.
>
>
> Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.
>
>
>
> Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.
>
>
> I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.
>
> Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.
>
> 9B
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J

Correct Dan - I was talking about when you don't know exactly whether the glider is slightly right of your course or slightly left or straight and you have 10 seconds to figure out whether you have room to get to his left instead of turning blindly right into each other. It's easy if you have situational awareness, less easy if you only have an approximate indication and little time to make a visual ID that you have only a 50% chance of successfully doing. The Flarm guys don't recommend turning because of the long wings of gliders - everyone turning right can be the exact wring thing to do close-in. That's why we don't automatically say everyone turn right.

As Hank said, pushing and turning gently right is probably not a bad idea, unless too many guys read RAS, in which case you might want to pull and turn right...or left...depending. Probably right.

Bring my brown trousers...

9B

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 10:22:32 AM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> From Rules Committee:
>
> "This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):
>
> 1. For National Contests:
> * Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
> * Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"
>
>
> I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.
>
> You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.
>
> Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.
>
> Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

I don't subscribe to the big sky theory of collision avoidance on the whites. If there is a cloud base, everyone is at it, so altitudes are usually the same. Because it is a long ridge line, everyone tends to fly the best line, so the flight corridor tends to be very tight. Speeds can be near Vne in both directions. Head-on glider profiles are nearly impossible to see until the last minute. That's why procedure Alpha was developed. FLARM is helpful, but not sufficient. not everyone has it. If I collide with one of the few guys that still hasn't installed it, my day is still AFU.

Matt

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

If you're that afraid, why not give it up?

On 12/23/2015 9:41 AM, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 8:23:24 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> No agreed to scenario?
>>
>>
>>
>> 14 CFR 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
>>
>>
>>
>> (e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are
>> approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each
>> aircraft shall alter course to the right.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some people are writing their own rules when the rules are already
>> in effect. So if one of you turns to the left because that seems
>> the best course, and the other turns to the right because that's
>> what the FARs require, what happens?
>>
>>
>>
>> Winter seems the time for everyone to come up with outrageous
>> scenarios. And BTW, it's snowing here, too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/22/2015 5:15 PM, Andy Blackburn
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.
>>
>>
>> Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.
>>
>>
>> I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.
>>
>> Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.
>>
>> 9B
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dan, 5J
> And if there is already an aircraft to your right?

--
Dan, 5J

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 7:50:19 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> <SNIP> Not trying to be difficult but I must be missing something. If they're that close to you (i.e., within 2 km), they're visible even with Stealth.
>
>
> From the Flarm documents, V6.0 page 19 (maybe this has changed?):
>
> "Targets with enabled “Stealth Mode� are only displayed..... if they meet at least one of the following requirements:

> - target is a threat

> - target is within 100m horizontal and 50m vertical
> - target is within 2000m horizontal and 300m vertical and within ±45° of own flight track."
>
> So the guys going your way - the ones ND is going to pull up sharply into - you don't even know are there. They aren't a threat because they are paralleling your course. Even if they are close enough to appear, their relative altitude is intentionally wrong.
>
> Now I am going to repeat for the 20th time or so, I don't believe Flarm is a huge increase in safety. It is a big sky and most accidents are spin/stall, not head on. I don't even call my Flarm an anti-collision device, I call it an in-flight entertainment system. But certainly beyond a doubt, it improves situational awareness always, and particularly in the scenario described. On The White Mountains and the Sierra convergence lines, I don't think there have been any head-ons than I can recall. Its a big sky. But plenty of people have had to change their underwear at the end of the day, I can assure you. It was enough of a concern that a rather elaborate procedure was devised in the area, reserving a radio frequency and involving reporting points etc., all of which seemed pretty ineffective, while non-stealth FLARM pretty much solves the problem completely and with no distraction.

From your experience, at about what distance does Flarm give conflict alert in a high speed head on situation? I understand that some gliders show on display at "long" range, presumably before alarms go off by some amount. I'm trying to get a practical understanding of the best case sensing and how it compares with alarming.
Anyone with real world experience, please ring in.
Thanks
UH

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 12:16:50 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
>
> If you're that afraid, why not give it up?
>

We all flew for half a century with big sky/little glider. The odds are low, but the outcome ruins your day. It's a matter of degree. People made the exact same argument agains transponders - arguably with a better fact base to support it since there has never been a collision between a glider and a commercial airliner. Why be afraid? It's never happened - the odds are demonstrably low. Plus airliners are easier targets to pick up visually.

On head-to-head conflicts at speed, limiting the pilots' situational awareness to a last-seconds alarm with a crude indication of direction is a needless producer of anxiety since the action you take is generally not well informed (you likely won't be able to check the collision display orient your gaze, pick up the traffic in time to do something useful). You may as well close your eyes and pray - that will work just fine most of the time - just like before Flarm.

I just don't get why we want to go back to that. Even most advocates of stealth don't want that one.

9B

> From your experience, at about what distance does Flarm give conflict alert in a high speed head on situation? I understand that some gliders show on display at "long" range, presumably before alarms go off by some amount. I'm trying to get a practical understanding of the best case sensing and how it compares with alarming.
> Anyone with real world experience, please ring in.
> Thanks
> UH

UH this is pretty easy to go back and look at using the Flarm range analysis tool. Just use the IGC file for a good ridge day where everyone is doing laps back and forth on the same ridge. My Flarm range is usually around 10km directly out front. I will say it is very nice to get a short beep alert and have the time to look at the target's direction and relative altitude well before getting surprised by a radar warning and having much less time to visually acquire the glider if you don't have them yet (which also happens regularly even while attempting to maintain a good visual scan) Ridge days are where I see a possible issue with the stealth rule here in the east.

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 7:50:19 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > <SNIP> Not trying to be difficult but I must be missing something. If they're that close to you (i.e., within 2 km), they're visible even with Stealth.
> >
> >
> > From the Flarm documents, V6.0 page 19 (maybe this has changed?):
> >
> > "Targets with enabled “Stealth Mode� are only displayed..... if they meet at least one of the following requirements:

> > - target is a threat

> > - target is within 100m horizontal and 50m vertical
> > - target is within 2000m horizontal and 300m vertical and within ±45° of own flight track."
> >
> > So the guys going your way - the ones ND is going to pull up sharply into - you don't even know are there. They aren't a threat because they are paralleling your course. Even if they are close enough to appear, their relative altitude is intentionally wrong.
> >
> > Now I am going to repeat for the 20th time or so, I don't believe Flarm is a huge increase in safety. It is a big sky and most accidents are spin/stall, not head on. I don't even call my Flarm an anti-collision device, I call it an in-flight entertainment system. But certainly beyond a doubt, it improves situational awareness always, and particularly in the scenario described. On The White Mountains and the Sierra convergence lines, I don't think there have been any head-ons than I can recall. Its a big sky. But plenty of people have had to change their underwear at the end of the day, I can assure you. It was enough of a concern that a rather elaborate procedure was devised in the area, reserving a radio frequency and involving reporting points etc., all of which seemed pretty ineffective, while non-stealth FLARM pretty much solves the problem completely and with no distraction.
>
> From your experience, at about what distance does Flarm give conflict alert in a high speed head on situation? I understand that some gliders show on display at "long" range, presumably before alarms go off by some amount. I'm trying to get a practical understanding of the best case sensing and how it compares with alarming.
> Anyone with real world experience, please ring in.
> Thanks
> UH

I have never had an unexpected head on warning. The expected ones seem to happen about as claimed, around 12 - 15 seconds prior to impact. The reason I have never had an unexpected warning is that any glider with non-stealth Flarm shows up on the tactical display many miles out - at least 5 and often 10 or more. Most gliders flying in this area fly with non-stealth Flarm. I consider unexpected warnings to be a direct result of loss of situational awareness, after which one should evaluate what he/she is doing wrong.

Prior to Flarm, flying a very fast narrow street like the White Mountains, it was not at all uncommon to have a glider flash by going the other way maybe a few wing spans apart, with 2 - 3 seconds from visual recognition to passing. You are looking for a nose-on white glider against a white cloud background. No doubt there were others that I never saw. With Flarm, you see MANY more gliders that you never would have seen, and close crossings are easily avoided.

Now I will pre-empt the responses about head down time. I consider the Butterfly and other dedicated Flarm displays to be quite deficient for tactical, situational, and collision avoidance use. I don't have one. Flarm targets appear on the moving map tactical display at all times, and are emphasized on that display if the get close. A one second glance is more than enough to evaluate the whole fleet. The vario has voice warnings for collision threats of both gliders and GA aircraft. It does not add to heads down time.

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 10:27:22 AM UTC-8, ND wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:41:38 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 8:23:24 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > > No agreed to scenario?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 14 CFR 91.113*Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (e)*Approaching head-on.*When aircraft are
> > > approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each
> > > aircraft shall alter course to the right.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Some people are writing their own rules when the rules are already
> > > in effect.* So if one of you turns to the left because that seems
> > > the best course, and the other turns to the right because that's
> > > what the FARs require, what happens?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Winter seems the time for everyone to come up with outrageous
> > > scenarios.* And BTW, it's snowing here, too.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/22/2015 5:15 PM, Andy Blackburn
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.
> > >
> > >
> > > Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.
> > >
> > > Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.
> > >
> > > 9B
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Dan, 5J
> >
> > And if there is already an aircraft to your right?
>
> then i will beg our father for mercy and forgiveness in my remaining moments for being a dumbass who didn't give myself an out....
>
> i told you, i am done arguing about hypothetics. remember this from my last post? "you can't win at hypotheticals, because the antagonist can always say, "ok that's fine, but what if..."
>
> so i wont respond next time bruh.

Not a response to you, but to Dan who said the FARs say turn right. Sometimes that is the right thing to do. Sometimes not. If we are arguing technology we ought to also argue about the EXTREMELY antiquated technology of his discussion board. Very last century. Often can't tell who is responding to whom.

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 1:19:41 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:

>
> Now I will pre-empt the responses about head >down time. I consider the Butterfly and other >dedicated Flarm displays to be quite deficient >for tactical, situational, and collision >avoidance use. I don't have one. Flarm targets >appear on the moving map tactical display at >all times, and are emphasized on that display >if the get close. A one second glance is more >than enough to evaluate the whole fleet. The >vario has voice warnings for collision threats >of both gliders and GA aircraft. It does not >add to heads down time.

What map display and vario are you using?

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:41:26 AM UTC-8, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 10:22:32 AM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > From Rules Committee:
> >
> > "This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):
> >
> > 1. For National Contests:
> > * Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
> > * Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"
> >
> >
> > I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.
> >
> > You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.
> >
> > Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.
> >
> > Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej
>
> I don't subscribe to the big sky theory of collision avoidance on the whites. If there is a cloud base, everyone is at it, so altitudes are usually the same. Because it is a long ridge line, everyone tends to fly the best line, so the flight corridor tends to be very tight. Speeds can be near Vne in both directions. Head-on glider profiles are nearly impossible to see until the last minute. That's why procedure Alpha was developed. FLARM is helpful, but not sufficient. not everyone has it. If I collide with one of the few guys that still hasn't installed it, my day is still AFU.
>
> Matt

Matt, my experience is that Flarm is FAR more effective than procedure Alpha. Its sole drawback is the few gliders that don't have it installed. By comparison, procedure Alpha requires constant attention and distraction, relies on (unreliable) pilot reporting, rapidly aging altitude reports, fast mental calculations to determine crossing times and altitudes. Better than nothing perhaps. But universal Flarm usage would be vastly superior.

The "Big Sky" theory is proven to be an invalid theory with each collision and each near miss. We tend to fly along lift lines. Have had too many close calls!

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:41:26 AM UTC-8, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:

> I don't subscribe to the big sky theory of collision avoidance on the whites. If there is a cloud base, everyone is at it, so altitudes are usually the same. Because it is a long ridge line, everyone tends to fly the best line, so the flight corridor tends to be very tight. Speeds can be near Vne in both directions. Head-on glider profiles are nearly impossible to see until the last minute. That's why procedure Alpha was developed. FLARM is helpful, but not sufficient. not everyone has it. If I collide with one of the few guys that still hasn't installed it, my day is still AFU.
>
> Matt

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 1:19:41 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:

> Now I will pre-empt the responses about head down time. I consider the Butterfly and other dedicated Flarm displays to be quite deficient for tactical, situational, and collision avoidance use. I don't have one. Flarm targets appear on the moving map tactical display at all times, and are emphasized on that display if the get close. A one second glance is more than enough to evaluate the whole fleet. The vario has voice warnings for collision threats of both gliders and GA aircraft. It does not add to heads down time.


I'll add to that point.

The modern moving-map displays like Oudie, LX Nav and I'm sure many, many others put down very easy to scan "snail trails" of traffic that give a ton of information at a glance - position, track and, with a little extra focus, relative altitude (sometimes it's a numerical label, sometimes it's color coding). I put this information in a clearly contrasting color so I can scan easily. That is a nearly sure-fire way to avoid conflicts - especially now that almost everyone in contests is carrying Flarm. The longer range the target information is made available, the less frequently my gaze has to return to the display.

It is a fallacy in this new world that you are going to pick up more targets looking out the window - especially the conflicting ones you really care about (no I'm not arguing for 100% heads down - a good scan is part of aviating). Just try flying around looking for targets with your Mark I eyeballs on a reasonably busy day, then look at your Flarm display. I bet you find surprises - particularly if they are on a course without angular movement - like collision courses are by definition.

9B

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 1:32:09 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 1:19:41 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
>
> >
> > Now I will pre-empt the responses about head >down time. I consider the Butterfly and other >dedicated Flarm displays to be quite deficient >for tactical, situational, and collision >avoidance use. I don't have one. Flarm targets >appear on the moving map tactical display at >all times, and are emphasized on that display >if the get close. A one second glance is more >than enough to evaluate the whole fleet. The >vario has voice warnings for collision threats >of both gliders and GA aircraft. It does not >add to heads down time.
>
> What map display and vario are you using?

I am using an Air Avionics (Butterfly) vario which does very nice, clear voice warnings for Flarm (also gear, spoilers, and other warnings). I have used Winpilot and XCSoar (which also show targets) but for the last year or two I have been using iGlide. It shows Flarm targets with on-screen emphasis when they turn into warnings. It has some other nice features which will no doubt add to the paranoia: any target can be marked with a color, it retains that color throughout the flight whenever contacted. So my primary leach target can be red, secondary yellow, third blue, etc. Nearly zero head down time IDing them. One target can be set up so all of his/her data shows up in nav boxes (these are very easily navigated in iGlide) so constant large display of altitude, heading, climb rate, etc. Further, you can display the tracks of all Flarm targets, for example to match your thermalling circle with a leeching target.

Despite all that - at least here in the west - this will not allow you to stick to a better pilot. The climb rate reported for your target is wildly off. If you match his circle from below you will not be in the best lift. If you deviate more than a few hundred yards to a perceived better climb more likely than not you will not find it. It is just as Andy says. Don't know east coast flying so maybe it would work better there.

The main speed advantage I get from it is that you can see pilots pass you and get further and further ahead. This reminds me to push a little harder - but do my own thing.

On 12/23/2015 2:24 PM, jfitch wrote:

<Snip...>
> ...If we are arguing technology we ought to also argue about the EXTREMELY
> antiquated technology of this discussion board. Very last century. Often
> can't tell who is responding to whom.

Dern (and drifting still farther from this thread's subject...) - it *must* be
winter in this hemisphere, judging from posts like these two. Ha ha ha!

I can't help wondering if the fundamental problem alluded to in the above
observation is the "antiquated technology of this discussion board" or merely
human nature. Why bother to expend a modicum of contextually clarifying,
technology-aided, editing when it's easier simply to excise ruthlessly in the
Great Rush to express some thought temporarily atop one's mental stack?

Many of the casually-edited replies seen on RAS remind me of a spot-on
(considering the wearer!) T-shirt I saw: Who says I have ADHD? Hey - there
goes a chicken!!!

My Round File works great for lazily-edited RAS replies...if someone is too
lazy to properly edit, I'm too lazy to pay them any attention. It's not as if
posting on RAS is an emergency...

Bob W.

On 12/23/2015 2:24 PM, jfitch wrote:
> Not a response to you, but to Dan who said the FARs say turn right. Sometimes that is the right thing to do. Sometimes not. If we are arguing technology we ought to also argue about the EXTREMELY antiquated technology of his discussion board. Very last century. Often can't tell who is responding to whom.
Well, it would help a lot to trim down the thread to make it apparent to
whom one is responding.

Turning right to avoid a collision is what the FARs direct. If there's
truly an imminent collision and both aircraft turn right, there's no
problem. If only one aircraft turns right while the other continues his
course, there's no problem. But if one turns right and the other turns
left, then you might have a problem. So why make up so many scenarios
where something can go wrong if you make up the rules as you go? Just
follow the rules and keep your head out of the cockpit. And be prepared
to respond when things don't go as they should.

While my postings on this thread lead most to believe that I'm a Flarm
hater, that's not the case. I have simply analyzed the capabilities of
Flarm as described on this forum and as applied to my type and area of
flying and determined that it's not for me. I flew the Whites during
the past summer's fire and smoke season (severely restricted visibility)
and my PCAS alerted me to aircraft within 5 miles and 2,000 feet of my
position. Since I'm not flying for badges, records, contest points,
chicks, or money, it's no problem for me to move slightly away from the
line of best lift (to the right) to allow another glider to pass without
conflict. I also flew out of Minden in a friend's Flarm-equipped
2-seater and was entertained by the display of airliners 20+ thousand
feet above. I never saw an alert.

I'm also in the camp of those who don't want to see stealth mode
implemented. Not because I'm a user, just because I think it's
ridiculous to install a system designed to improve situational awareness
and then to hobble it by reducing its capabilities. I also believe that
leeching is not a threat to the top contest pilots and that being in
15th instead of 18th position in a contest has little, if any, meaning.

Finally I will always argue with the notion of making something
mandatory, to participate in a sport which is entirely voluntary, and I
will always take exception to those who rely on bullying (it's a no
brainer) to try to prove their agendas. I vote to state the facts and
let everyone decide for himself. If an event manager mandates Flarm
(Nephi) I won't attend the event. I can always fly there when there's
not an event taking place.

BTW, I will likely install ADS-B in my next glider but probably not
Flarm because I don't do a lot of gaggling.

Dan