PowerFLARM leeching comments

[Craig R.]

Time to state the obvious. After reading the comments in many of the recent PowerFLARM threads, many folks want to use PowerFLARM for “leeching”. Many are asking for programs to expand and simplify the use of that data. While that information is a byproduct of the important aspect of PF collision avoidance data, I think it has hidden issues.

I understand that many folks just want to say they flew X miles on today’s flight (local bragging rights or OLC standings come to mind). If they get the flight data from someone else, that is just dandy. It certainly is easier. Instead of learning from the mistakes they made and trying to improve their skills, they won’t learn and won’t improve. Unfortunately, this may give them confidence in skills they really don’t have and perhaps put them in situations they shouldn’t be in. They will just grouse that their PF reception is substandard, they couldn’t see that glider 6 nm out and what lift they were in and missed that great thermal that shortened their day....

Personally, I would prefer to look back on my flight and know that I read the terrain and weather conditions properly and made the most of the day. I can analyze my flight and know where I had issues and learn from my mistakes. I can kick myself when necessary and move on. The challenge for me is to see how well I do without any “hand holding”. Hopefully, my skills will improve and I will fly faster and farther the next time.

Obviously, I’m setting myself up for major flaming here (GPS, computers, programming, etc will be brought up). However, none of those tell me which specific spot to fly to on course for a 700 fpm thermal and puts that exact location on my moving map. Only a radio call from the person in that thermal approximates that and that data is not as accurate as the PF readout. Generic radio calls happen so infrequently that it isn’t an issue (team flying may or may not give that data, depending on your partner and your relative position - and how many really team fly?). With the PF data, some of that inaccuracy goes away. Certainly, you won’t use this information on every thermal throughout the day, but 3 or 4 spotted thermals can be the difference between an average day and a very good day.

Will this data go away or will people stop using it in this format? Of course not. However, I would like to see people consciously use the PF data for collision avoidance and ignore the leeching aspects. Pilots that continue to learn and improve are better and safer. That is good for everyone. I know that “ain’t going to happen” so stealth mode FTW ;-)

Craig R.

[BobW]

On 10/17/2012 7:35 PM, Craig R. wrote:
> Time to state the obvious. After reading the comments in many of the recent
> PowerFLARM threads, many folks want to use PowerFLARM for “leeching”. Many
> are asking for programs to expand and simplify the use of that data. While
> that information is a byproduct of the important aspect of PF collision
> avoidance data, I think it has hidden issues.

<"Moffat-esque philosophy" snipped...>

>
> Obviously, I’m setting myself up for major flaming here (GPS, computers,
> programming, etc will be brought up).

WARNING: Attempted humor nearby. Read no further if suffering from high blood
pressure and prone to knee-jerk anger.

Craig you sub-human scum. How DARE you bring up in a public forum an aspect of
human nature that at least one multiple world champion/elitist has publicly
previously excoriated over a period of 35+ years (and apparently to little
effect)?!? ===> :-) <===

But seriously, funnily enough I, too, have been wondering how long before
someone pointed out this aspect of this part of the PFlarm discussion. All
this "sub-par range-angst" over non-collision-worthy distant sailplane
targets...leech targets, if you will.

Realistically, the genie is out of the bottle, and SOMEone will develop
widgetry to improve and make more accessible to Joe Average Pilot the ability
to electronically leech far beyond the contest leeching Moffat so heartily
detests. Kids can you spell: "c-a-n o-f w-o-r-m-s"?

Talk about unintended consequences!

It certainly should be an interesting - unending - discussion.

Bob W.

P.S. For a good time, read Chapter 11, "Leeches" beginning on p. 103 of George
Moffat's "Winning II".

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 10/17/2012 6:35 PM, Craig R. wrote:
> Time to state the obvious. After reading the comments in many of the
> recent PowerFLARM threads, many folks want to use PowerFLARM for
> “leeching”. Many are asking for programs to expand and simplify the
> use of that data. While that information is a byproduct of the
> important aspect of PF collision avoidance data, I think it has
> hidden issues.With the PF data, some of that inaccuracy
> goes away. Certainly, you won’t use this information on every thermal
> throughout the day, but 3 or 4 spotted thermals can be the
> difference between an average day and a very good day.
> ....
>
> Will this data go away or will people stop using it in this format?
> Of course not. However, I would like to see people consciously use
> the PF data for collision avoidance and ignore the leeching aspects.
> Pilots that continue to learn and improve are better and safer. That
> is good for everyone. I know that “ain’t going to happen” so stealth
> mode FTW ;-)

Of course, you can fly without the "leeching" and learn to fly farther
and faster than the other pilots that have decided they'll use
PowerFlarm for "the difference between an average day and a very good day."

Or maybe they get that "very good day" AND learn to fly faster and
farther...

Your comments remind me so much of the mindset that was prevalent when I
got my motorglider almost 18 years ago: "it will take the excitement out
of it if you aren't going to land out", "you'll use as it a crutch and
never learn anything", and "it's cheating to have motor". That mindset
is mostly gone, as people now realize a motor is an asset to learning
soaring and to doing more soaring, because it gives you the ability to
explore without risking an early end to the flight.

PowerFlarm leeching/buddy-flying ability will give them a little bit of
what a motor does - not much more than without PowerFlarm, but enough to
allow pilots to extend their soaring, flying a bit farther and a bit
longer. And that's a good thing.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 02:32 18 October 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>On 10/17/2012 6:35 PM, Craig R. wrote:
>> Time to state the obvious. After reading the comments in many of the
>> recent PowerFLARM threads, many folks want to use PowerFLARM for
>> �leeching�. Many are asking for programs to expand and simplify the
>> use of that data. While that information is a byproduct of the
>> important aspect of PF collision avoidance data, I think it has
>> hidden issues.With the PF data, some of that inaccuracy
>> goes away. Certainly, you won�t use this information on every thermal
>> throughout the day, but 3 or 4 spotted thermals can be the
>> difference between an average day and a very good day.
>> ....
> >
>> Will this data go away or will people stop using it in this format?
>> Of course not. However, I would like to see people consciously use
>> the PF data for collision avoidance and ignore the leeching aspects.
>> Pilots that continue to learn and improve are better and safer. That
>> is good for everyone. I know that �ain�t going to happen� so
stealth
>> mode FTW ;-)
>
If everyone has the technology to "leech" it is not unfair. Consider the
case where a field of gliders launches into the blue. One pilot happens to
bimble into a really good thermal and wins the day, is that not luck?
Should luck have a place in competition? GP drivers slipstream other
drivers, they have technology to make it even more efficient. There is not
that much skill in finding lift, luck plays a big part, the skill is in
using it so perhaps, given that Pandora's box is open, developing
technology that is freely available to anyone that wants it is the only way
to level the playing field

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 02:32 18 October 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>On 10/17/2012 6:35 PM, Craig R. wrote:
>> Time to state the obvious. After reading the comments in many of the
>> recent PowerFLARM threads, many folks want to use PowerFLARM for
>> �leeching�. Many are asking for programs to expand and simplify the
>> use of that data. While that information is a byproduct of the
>> important aspect of PF collision avoidance data, I think it has
>> hidden issues.With the PF data, some of that inaccuracy
>> goes away. Certainly, you won�t use this information on every thermal
>> throughout the day, but 3 or 4 spotted thermals can be the
>> difference between an average day and a very good day.
>> ....
> >
>> Will this data go away or will people stop using it in this format?
>> Of course not. However, I would like to see people consciously use
>> the PF data for collision avoidance and ignore the leeching aspects.
>> Pilots that continue to learn and improve are better and safer. That
>> is good for everyone. I know that �ain�t going to happen� so
stealth
>> mode FTW ;-)
>
If everyone has the technology to "leech" it is not unfair. Consider the
case where a field of gliders launches into the blue. One pilot happens to
bimble into a really good thermal and wins the day, is that not luck?
Should luck have a place in competition? GP drivers slipstream other
drivers, they have technology to make it even more efficient. There is not
that much skill in finding lift, luck plays a big part, the skill is in
using it so perhaps, given that Pandora's box is open, developing
technology that is freely available to anyone that wants it is the only way
to level the playing field

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:35:12 PM UTC-4, Craig R. wrote:
> Time to state the obvious. After reading the comments in many of the recent PowerFLARM threads, many folks want to use PowerFLARM for “leeching”.. Many are asking for programs to expand and simplify the use of that data. While that information is a byproduct of the important aspect of PF collision avoidance data, I think it has hidden issues. I understand that many folks just want to say they flew X miles on today’s flight (local bragging rights or OLC standings come to mind). If they get the flight data from someone else, that is just dandy. It certainly is easier. Instead of learning from the mistakes they made and trying to improve their skills, they won’t learn and won’t improve. Unfortunately, this may give them confidence in skills they really don’t have and perhaps put them in situations they shouldn’t be in. They will just grouse that their PF reception is substandard, they couldn’t see that glider 6 nm out and what lift they were in and missed that great thermal that shortened their day.... Personally, I would prefer to look back on my flight and know that I read the terrain and weather conditions properly and made the most of the day. I can analyze my flight and know where I had issues and learn from my mistakes. I can kick myself when necessary and move on. The challenge for me is to see how well I do without any “hand holding”. Hopefully, my skills will improve and I will fly faster and farther the next time. Obviously, I’m setting myself up for major flaming here (GPS, computers, programming, etc will be brought up). However, none of those tell me which specific spot to fly to on course for a 700 fpm thermal and puts that exact location on my moving map. Only a radio call from the person in that thermal approximates that and that data is not as accurate as the PF readout. Generic radio calls happen so infrequently that it isn’t an issue (team flying may or may not give that data, depending on your partner and your relative position - and how many really team fly?). With the PF data, some of that inaccuracy goes away. Certainly, you won’t use this information on every thermal throughout the day, but 3 or 4 spotted thermals can be the difference between an average day and a very good day. Will this data go away or will people stop using it in this format? Of course not. However, I would like to see people consciously use the PF data for collision avoidance and ignore the leeching aspects. Pilots that continue to learn and improve are better and safer. That is good for everyone. I know that “ain’t going to happen” so stealth mode FTW ;-) Craig R.

You raise some good points. The US rules committee has been considering this issue since the time that Flarm became topical in the US. We are hoping pilots will provide us input via the rules poll or directly to help guide us in actions, or no actions, that may be taken in the future.
"Flarm radar" and potentially associated leeching have the potential to make profound changes in the competition segment of our sport.
UH RC Chair

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
Don Johnstone > wrote:


> technology that is freely available to anyone that wants it is the only way
> to level the playing field


Ha! If only it was free!

(I am being semi-facetious, I understand your point about availability)

WB
H301 Libelle
No bucks for the newest toys :-(

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

In article >, BobW >
wrote:

> On 10/17/2012 7:35 PM, Craig R. wrote:
> > Time to state the obvious. After reading the comments in many of the recent
> > PowerFLARM threads, many folks want to use PowerFLARM for ³leeching². Many
> > are asking for programs to expand and simplify the use of that data. While
> > that information is a byproduct of the important aspect of PF collision
> > avoidance data, I think it has hidden issues.
>
> <"Moffat-esque philosophy" snipped...>
>
> >
> > Obviously, I¹m setting myself up for major flaming here (GPS, computers,
> > programming, etc will be brought up).
>
> WARNING: Attempted humor nearby. Read no further if suffering from high blood
> pressure and prone to knee-jerk anger.
>
> Craig you sub-human scum. How DARE you bring up in a public forum an aspect
> of
> human nature that at least one multiple world champion/elitist has publicly
> previously excoriated over a period of 35+ years (and apparently to little
> effect)?!? ===> :-) <===
>
> But seriously, funnily enough I, too, have been wondering how long before
> someone pointed out this aspect of this part of the PFlarm discussion. All
> this "sub-par range-angst" over non-collision-worthy distant sailplane
> targets...leech targets, if you will.
>
> Realistically, the genie is out of the bottle, and SOMEone will develop
> widgetry to improve and make more accessible to Joe Average Pilot the ability
> to electronically leech far beyond the contest leeching Moffat so heartily
> detests. Kids can you spell: "c-a-n o-f w-o-r-m-s"?
>
> Talk about unintended consequences!
>
> It certainly should be an interesting - unending - discussion.
>
> Bob W.
>
> P.S. For a good time, read Chapter 11, "Leeches" beginning on p. 103 of
> George
> Moffat's "Winning II".



Thanks to Craig and Bob for finally saying what many are thinking (at
least many of the folks I fly with). IT'S A LEECH BOX! Certainly, there
are those who are promoting Flarm out of genuine concern for safety.
But, it seems to me that there are some who wave the flag of safety but
really want a leech-box. It is too bad Flarm here in the US is so much
more expensive than the original European Flarm.

I am certainly in favor of safety devices. My Libelle is equipped with a
PCAS unit. However, I just cannot afford close to $2k for FLARM.
Especially when it seems that the US version is still apparently an
early "beta test" version. And, no, I don't have a "super vario" or a
purpose built navigation system. So no one should bother with "if you
can afford xyz, then you can afford Flarm".

[Richard[_9_]]

On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:25:22 AM UTC-7, WB wrote:
> In article wrote: > On 10/17/2012 7:35 PM, Craig R. wrote: > > Time to state the obvious. After reading the comments in many of the recent > > PowerFLARM threads, many folks want to use PowerFLARM for �leeching�. Many > > are asking for programs to expand and simplify the use of that data. While > > that information is a byproduct of the important aspect of PF collision > > avoidance data, I think it has hidden issues. > > <"Moffat-esque philosophy" snipped...> > > > > > Obviously, I�m setting myself up for major flaming here (GPS, computers, > > programming, etc will be brought up). > > WARNING: Attempted humor nearby. Read no further if suffering from high blood > pressure and prone to knee-jerk anger. > > Craig you sub-human scum. How DARE you bring up in a public forum an aspect > of > human nature that at least one multiple world champion/elitist has publicly > previously excoriated over a period of 35+ years (and apparently to little > effect)?!? ===> :-) <=== > > But seriously, funnily enough I, too, have been wondering how long before > someone pointed out this aspect of this part of the PFlarm discussion. All > this "sub-par range-angst" over non-collision-worthy distant sailplane > targets...leech targets, if you will. > > Realistically, the genie is out of the bottle, and SOMEone will develop > widgetry to improve and make more accessible to Joe Average Pilot the ability > to electronically leech far beyond the contest leeching Moffat so heartily > detests. Kids can you spell: "c-a-n o-f w-o-r-m-s"? > > Talk about unintended consequences! > > It certainly should be an interesting - unending - discussion. > > Bob W. > > P.S. For a good time, read Chapter 11, "Leeches" beginning on p. 103 of > George > Moffat's "Winning II". Thanks to Craig and Bob for finally saying what many are thinking (at least many of the folks I fly with). IT'S A LEECH BOX! Certainly, there are those who are promoting Flarm out of genuine concern for safety. But, it seems to me that there are some who wave the flag of safety but really want a leech-box. It is too bad Flarm here in the US is so much more expensive than the original European Flarm. I am certainly in favor of safety devices. My Libelle is equipped with a PCAS unit. However, I just cannot afford close to $2k for FLARM. Especially when it seems that the US version is still apparently an early "beta test" version. And, no, I don't have a "super vario" or a purpose built navigation system. So no one should bother with "if you can afford xyz, then you can afford Flarm".

This was covered in the recent Contest Pilots opinion Poll. I would suspect that the rules committee will follow the responses and act appropiately. Europe does not mandate stealth in their contest and I don't believe the World Championships did either.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[[email protected]]

I do not think that flarm will make that good of a leaching tool. Read Dave Leonard's excellent analysis of flying at the worlds. http://leonardzl.dyndns.org/uvalde/
They were trying to team fly and talking with each other and it was still very difficult to find each other.

ASW27BV

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:22:26 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> I do not think that flarm will make that good of a leaching tool. Read Dave Leonard's excellent analysis of flying at the worlds. http://leonardzl.dyndns.org/uvalde/ They were trying to team fly and talking with each other and it was still very difficult to find each other. ASW27BV

From another flarm thread:
All in all, I am very happy with the brick/9000 combination in my glider. I was able to see targets on the map out to about 10 miles and I found it particularly useful during the start period in Uvalde to keep track of the locations of the various start gaggles across the 10 km start line.

Dave Springford
www.foxonecorp.com

[Dave Nadler]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:35:12 PM UTC-4, Craig R. wrote:
> Time to state the obvious.

It sure is.

If you aren't very close to other gliders, you're
not going to be able to leech.

How long does a thermal last ?
Not very long, and likely weak or gone when you arrive.

Will they be at your altitude when you arrive ?
Nope.

Keeping track of where other gliders went ?
Maybe, but only at short range.

Leeching ?
Not particularly helpful.

Try following a good pilot sometime, from an even position.
See how many minutes it takes for him to loose you.
Won't take long, even if you start dead even.
Especially if your head is in the cockpit playing video games.

Consequently, in Europe, "stealth mode" has proven an
irrelevant annoyance and is largely abandoned in practice.
At WGC, nobody bothered with this.

As ever, look out the cockpit for the best clues !

Hope that's helpful,
See ya, Dave

[Mike the Strike]

I'm with Dave on this one. Even though we have seen competitors zoom off towards a PowerFlarm target they saw climbing strongly, I am not sure this will turn out to be the advantage many wish for. I can't count the times I have ended up a thousand feet or so below a colleague climbing at ten knots to find nothing there - the thermal bubble had departed upwards!

My opinion is that knowing the location of nearby competitors is useful for both safety and tactics, but will impart no advantage if the information is available to everyone. I strongly oppose the adoption of the "stealth' mode for this reason.

Mike

[Brad[_2_]]

On Oct 18, 10:23*am, Dave Nadler > wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:35:12 PM UTC-4, Craig R. wrote:
> > Time to state the obvious.
>
> It sure is.
>
> If you aren't very close to other gliders, you're
> not going to be able to leech.
>
> How long does a thermal last ?
> Not very long, and likely weak or gone when you arrive.
>
> Will they be at your altitude when you arrive ?
> Nope.
>
> Keeping track of where other gliders went ?
> Maybe, but only at short range.
>
> Leeching ?
> Not particularly helpful.
>
> Try following a good pilot sometime, from an even position.
> See how many minutes it takes for him to loose you.
> Won't take long, even if you start dead even.
> Especially if your head is in the cockpit playing video games.
>
> Consequently, in Europe, "stealth mode" has proven an
> irrelevant annoyance and is largely abandoned in practice.
> At WGC, nobody bothered with this.
>
> As ever, look out the cockpit for the best clues !
>
> Hope that's helpful,
> See ya, Dave

Dave,

Well said. The thought of PF as a "leeching" tool never entered my
brain.............I'm surprised some are terrified it might erode
whatever lead they may feel they have over their fellow pilots.

Brad

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Oct 18, 1:19*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> I'm with Dave on this one. *Even though we have seen competitors zoom off towards a PowerFlarm target they saw climbing strongly, I am not sure this will turn out to be the advantage many wish for. *I can't count the times I have ended up a thousand feet or so below a colleague climbing at ten knots to find nothing there - the thermal bubble had departed upwards!
>
> My opinion is that knowing the location of nearby competitors is useful for both safety and tactics, but will impart no advantage if the information is available to everyone. *I strongly oppose the adoption of the "stealth' mode for this reason.
>
> Mike

My view: There are two basic questions about flarm leeching:

1) Does it work, really, in practice? As others have mentioned,
information more than a few miles away is pretty useless. I can see
some help in keeping teams together, and the comments on uvalde blogs
bear that out. But if you can't see the glider, it's not obvious that
going to its thermal is going to help.

2) If it does work, do pilots like or dislike the change in the racing
experience? The answer from Europe seems to be "like." We have not
heard a chorus of "flarm leeching is ruining the sport" though
they've been at it 10 years. We have heard a bunch of "I miss the AST
when you knew where people were," and perhaps flarm displays will
bring back some of this experience.

Still, our (US) ratio of theory to experience on both issues --
especially the second -- strikes me as pretty large at the moment.
Next year will be an interesting racing season.

John Cochrane

[Dave Nadler]

On Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:37:27 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> ... our (US) ratio of theory to experience on both issues --
> especially the second -- strikes me as pretty large at the moment.

Make that "Rampant Aviation Speculation" grossly exceeds "actual knowledge"...

Just to be clear ;-)

See ya, Dave

[Alexander Swagemakers[_2_]]

In the first seasons of competition flying with FLARM in Germany a few people were turning on stealth mode, especially if they did not have a display to get any tactical data. Turning FLARM off was also observed regularly. Now I hardly notice anyone using stealth mode anymore. The initial fear of having a competitive disadvantage seems to have run dry.

Flarm is far from giving you a clear picture of the thermals ahead. On average the range is smaller than the distance you can see with your eyes, so your best bet for finding a thermal is still looking outside. There are occasions where Flarm brings another glider to your attention you would otherwise have missed but it is far from being a reliable thermal finder.

FLARM range is extremely variable. I fly a lot of club gliders with different antenna installations and I have seen gliders with carbon fuselage with hardly 2km of reliable range for collision avoidance. Especially to the rear a carbon fuselage will often completely block the Flarm signal so that a target flying right behind you will sometimes not be visible. In other cases I have had peak ranges up to 25km which usually only last long enough to display the target for a few seconds. A very good installation should give you fairly reliable contacts up to 4 - 6km and irregular peaks of up to 8-16km. Remember that the range always depends on antenna installation in both gliders. Even with a perfect installation you will not see some Flarm equipped gliders even on short range.

Flarm will give you some benefits in competition flying. Besides the advantages mentioned above it is particularly good for tracking what is happening around. You can marker specific targets to keep track of your team mate or see your progress against a selected competitor. It’s not like the range and reliability is good enough to leech someone outside your eyesight but you get an occasional fix of your marked competitor a few km ahead (or behind) giving you some sense of whether you are gaining or losing ground. Personally I enjoy this because it makes gauging my own performance a little bit easier.

The most useful feature of Flarm is still collision avoidance. You get a really good situational awareness of what is happening around you. Bad surprises of a glider appearing out of nowhere, hardly happen anymore.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:35:12 PM UTC-4, Craig R. wrote:
> Time to state the obvious. After reading the comments in many of the recent PowerFLARM threads, many folks want to use PowerFLARM for “leeching”.. Many are asking for programs to expand and simplify the use of that data. While that information is a byproduct of the important aspect of PF collision avoidance data, I think it has hidden issues. I understand that many folks just want to say they flew X miles on today’s flight (local bragging rights or OLC standings come to mind). If they get the flight data from someone else, that is just dandy. It certainly is easier. Instead of learning from the mistakes they made and trying to improve their skills, they won’t learn and won’t improve. Unfortunately, this may give them confidence in skills they really don’t have and perhaps put them in situations they shouldn’t be in. They will just grouse that their PF reception is substandard, they couldn’t see that glider 6 nm out and what lift they were in and missed that great thermal that shortened their day.... Personally, I would prefer to look back on my flight and know that I read the terrain and weather conditions properly and made the most of the day. I can analyze my flight and know where I had issues and learn from my mistakes. I can kick myself when necessary and move on. The challenge for me is to see how well I do without any “hand holding”. Hopefully, my skills will improve and I will fly faster and farther the next time. Obviously, I’m setting myself up for major flaming here (GPS, computers, programming, etc will be brought up). However, none of those tell me which specific spot to fly to on course for a 700 fpm thermal and puts that exact location on my moving map. Only a radio call from the person in that thermal approximates that and that data is not as accurate as the PF readout. Generic radio calls happen so infrequently that it isn’t an issue (team flying may or may not give that data, depending on your partner and your relative position - and how many really team fly?). With the PF data, some of that inaccuracy goes away. Certainly, you won’t use this information on every thermal throughout the day, but 3 or 4 spotted thermals can be the difference between an average day and a very good day. Will this data go away or will people stop using it in this format? Of course not. However, I would like to see people consciously use the PF data for collision avoidance and ignore the leeching aspects. Pilots that continue to learn and improve are better and safer. That is good for everyone. I know that “ain’t going to happen” so stealth mode FTW ;-) Craig R.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:20:25 PM UTC-7, Alexander Swagemakers wrote:
> In the first seasons of competition flying with FLARM in Germany a few people were turning on stealth mode, especially if they did not have a display to get any tactical data. Turning FLARM off was also observed regularly. Now I hardly notice anyone using stealth mode anymore. The initial fear of having a competitive disadvantage seems to have run dry.
>
>
>
> Flarm is far from giving you a clear picture of the thermals ahead. On average the range is smaller than the distance you can see with your eyes, so your best bet for finding a thermal is still looking outside. There are occasions where Flarm brings another glider to your attention you would otherwise have missed but it is far from being a reliable thermal finder.
>
>
>
> FLARM range is extremely variable. I fly a lot of club gliders with different antenna installations and I have seen gliders with carbon fuselage with hardly 2km of reliable range for collision avoidance. Especially to the rear a carbon fuselage will often completely block the Flarm signal so that a target flying right behind you will sometimes not be visible. In other cases I have had peak ranges up to 25km which usually only last long enough to display the target for a few seconds. A very good installation should give you fairly reliable contacts up to 4 - 6km and irregular peaks of up to 8-16km. Remember that the range always depends on antenna installation in both gliders. Even with a perfect installation you will not see some Flarm equipped gliders even on short range.
>
>
>
> Flarm will give you some benefits in competition flying. Besides the advantages mentioned above it is particularly good for tracking what is happening around. You can marker specific targets to keep track of your team mate or see your progress against a selected competitor. It’s not like the range and reliability is good enough to leech someone outside your eyesight but you get an occasional fix of your marked competitor a few km ahead (or behind) giving you some sense of whether you are gaining or losing ground. Personally I enjoy this because it makes gauging my own performance a little bit easier.
>
>
>
> The most useful feature of Flarm is still collision avoidance. You get a really good situational awareness of what is happening around you. Bad surprises of a glider appearing out of nowhere, hardly happen anymore.

This is consistent with my experience over 7 days of contest flying with PF.. It is occasionally modestly helpful out on course in keeping track of competitors who are within a few miles of you. I found four specific instances where it was helpful:

1) Running down a group of pilots who started a couple of minutes ahead of me. On a blue day in particular, getting the right first climb can save a couple of minutes by keep you in touch with markers a bit better. On one occasion I was able to close on a group of very good pilots by about 2-3 minutes over the first 30-40 miles. They were just outside of visual range most of the time, so PF made a difference.

2) Calling attention to where there might be a good climb ahead - this was most often useful when making long-ish glides between areas of lift. With a big enough field of competitors, depending on the course, you randomly end up with situations where you'll pick up someone climbing in front of you - for me it happens a couple of miles before the naked eye can make the target out. It's possible that you might pick them up anyway, but just knowing where to point the nose to find a climb at the end of a long glide was modestly helpful and worked for me a couple of times.

3) Choosing a direction coming out of a turnpoint. Gliders collect at turpoints so I occasionally had a couple of targets out in front of me at turns. Should I take the deviation out to the cloud street or head straight down the courseline? I found myself using trends in altitude differential over several minutes to gauge climb much more than the PF transmitted climb rate, which is too noisy to be useful beyond "climbing or not?" questions.

4) Marking my progress against known competitors. I wrote down the PF codes for specific competitors as I became aware of them. On a couple of occasions on long legs I made different courseline decisions from other pilots and was able to mark progress as they came back into range dozens of miles later - this didn't really yield useful tactical information, but it made me feel good to come back in range with a rival having made some ground on them.. Discovering the opposite is a bit disheartening, but motivating.

I'd say in total it made maybe 1% difference in total points over a contest, though I'll never know for sure if it saved me from flying into a hole or led me astray in specific situations. A bigger search radius for other gliders out on course certainly doesn't hurt and I found it increased my enjoyment by making racing slightly less solitary.

Most importantly, PF called my attention to a handful of collision targets that I am certain I would never have seen without it. It's sobering to realize how many potential midairs in the past must've been avoided by nothing more than random chance.

9B

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 18:19 18 October 2012, Mike the Strike wrote:
>I'm with Dave on this one. Even though we have seen competitors zoom off
>t=
>owards a PowerFlarm target they saw climbing strongly, I am not sure this
>w=
>ill turn out to be the advantage many wish for. I can't count the times
I
>=
>have ended up a thousand feet or so below a colleague climbing at ten
>knots=
> to find nothing there - the thermal bubble had departed upwards!
>
>My opinion is that knowing the location of nearby competitors is useful
>for=
> both safety and tactics, but will impart no advantage if the information
>i=
>s available to everyone. I strongly oppose the adoption of the "stealth'
>m=
>ode for this reason.
>
>Mike

We did have a period of about 2 years where competition directors were
"instructed" to mandate stealth mode. Despite this I never did for the very
simple reason that I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.
While we do not have the same "litigate everything" culture that exists
elsewhere I could see some grieving relative making a claim on me for
contributing to the death of their loved one by lessening safety, unlikely
maybe but that is the way things are going even here in the UK.
It is just not possible to uninvent something and rest assured, like
artificial horizons on iPhones, someone will make and install a gizzmo just
to give them an advantage and it will be cheaper than FLARM. The only way
forward is to accept that such things are going to be used whatever you do
so the only sensible way is to not mandate against it,

[Dave Nadler]

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
> ... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
> pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.

Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.
It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.

Hope that is clear,
Best Regards, Dave

[pcool]

Exactly! Furthermore, the only thing happening when you set up stealth mode
is that you are sending a special information, together with your traffic
info through the radio, saying "I want stealth mode".
Other Flarms receiving this information with your traffic data will not send
out to the data port the complete data as usual.
Instead, they will work it out to make them somehow "unusable" for data
mining scope.
But the core flarm is receiving all info, and it is processing it as usual
concerning alerts and safety.
An intelligent approach in my opinion, because when you are close to the
traffic danger, the information is passed to data port integrally.
So nothing happens around safety.
Everything is about data outgoing to external instruments.

However in my opinion the stealth mode is not enough "strong" for the
purpose.
For example, the altitude is scrambled with sort of a white noise,
numerically, but averaging the value will most likely return the real
altitude to programmers.

There is another aspect about leeching with traffic advisors: range.
Range is fundamental if you want information about what is going on ahead of
you, say 10km away, 20km away.
First you need to extend the "range" flarm should use while sending out to
data port traffic info.
This can be done programmatically by the external instrument (LK offers a
button to do it).
But then, you actually need to be able to receive the radio transmission,
which is weak at 10mw if I remember correctly.
Those of use who are radio entusiasts know too well that the antenna makes
the big difference !
A good antenna will catch weak signals, and let you know what's happening
far away.
The standard antenna will not.
The antenna is attached with a standard SMA connector, and for 10 dollars
you get so many antennas to choose from!

So here is an example of what you can obtain from LK software, and probably
other (not sure):
- you sort the traffic by direction ahead of you, and you see the lift
values, suppose at 20km distance: a thermal ahead of you.
- you are about to leave you thermal and decide to go for the next one,
under that big cumulus.
- you know the lift value under there, and the exact position for best lift.
- you select the traffic position and make it a virtual waypoint, and you
immediately know the MC you can use to get there.
- You start the fast glide over there, and when you approach the cumulus
there are no more gliders under it, but you still get their traces drawn in
green red blue on the map, so you know exactly where to pull up.

It is also possible to calculate the MC value someone is flying with,
knowing the aircraft type (and thus its polar).

paolo




"Dave Nadler" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
> ... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
> pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.

Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.
It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.

Hope that is clear,
Best Regards, Dave

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> > ... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
>
> > pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.
>
>
>
> Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.
>
> It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.
>
>
>
> Hope that is clear,
>
> Best Regards, Dave

Dave,

it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. Just my $0.02

Frank (TA)

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:
> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> > > ... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
>
> > > pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device..
>
> > Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.
>
> > It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.
>
> > Hope that is clear,
>
> > Best Regards, Dave
>
> Dave,
>
> it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02
>
> Frank (TA)

See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about
how stealth mode works.

It's here: http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx

Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of
PowerFlarm at all. You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,
which is plenty.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:41:11 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
> > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > ... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
>
> >
>
> > > > pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.
>
> >
>
> > > Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.
>
> >
>
> > > It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.
>
> >
>
> > > Hope that is clear,
>
> >
>
> > > Best Regards, Dave
>
> >
>
> > Dave,
>
> >
>
> > it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02
>
> >
>
> > Frank (TA)
>
>
>
> See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about
>
> how stealth mode works.
>
>
>
> It's here: http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx
>
>
>
> Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of
>
> PowerFlarm at all. You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,
>
> which is plenty.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

"Plenty" is interesting. Let's all remember, flarm is not a "collision avoidance" device. It is a "collision warning" device. You still have to find the other glider, avoid it, and not run in to anyone else while you're doing that. Don't just bank away from the collision threat, make sure there isn't a new collision threat.

If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode? No, I gather. If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...

And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if carbon fuselages are blocking signals. Gliders have collided when both had operating flarm systems. Norway and Uvalde.

A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only shows imminent collision threats. The operation and reliability of such a mode have to be really bulletproof. Which, given power flarm's recent history with range issues, software updates, antenna updates etc., would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find out its actual limitations?

It's interesting how many reports we're getting of pilots who saw collision threats with flarm. But we obviously don't know about the failures until they hit each other. And how do we learn about the failures under stealth mode. Can of worms here.


John Cochrane

[Ramy]

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:52:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:41:11 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > ... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision..
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Hope that is clear,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Best Regards, Dave
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Dave,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Frank (TA)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about
>
> >
>
> > how stealth mode works.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It's here: http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of
>
> >
>
> > PowerFlarm at all. You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,
>
> >
>
> > which is plenty.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>
> "Plenty" is interesting. Let's all remember, flarm is not a "collision avoidance" device. It is a "collision warning" device. You still have to find the other glider, avoid it, and not run in to anyone else while you're doing that. Don't just bank away from the collision threat, make sure there isn't a new collision threat.
>
>
>
> If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode? No, I gather. If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...
>
>
>
> And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if carbon fuselages are blocking signals. Gliders have collided when both had operating flarm systems. Norway and Uvalde.
>
>
>
> A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only shows imminent collision threats. The operation and reliability of such a mode have to be really bulletproof. Which, given power flarm's recent history with range issues, software updates, antenna updates etc., would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find out its actual limitations?
>
>
>
> It's interesting how many reports we're getting of pilots who saw collision threats with flarm. But we obviously don't know about the failures until they hit each other. And how do we learn about the failures under stealth mode. Can of worms here.
>
>
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

I agree with John. I find the situational awareness as important as the collision alert. Also, not sure where the 25 sec came from, but when I was on a head on with another glider at 17K both of us flying above 100 knots TAS, the warning we got was more like 10 seconds, just enough to react and bank away. We never saw each other until we banked away, but luckily we saw each other on flarm radar 5 miles away giving us plenty time to be alerted and be prepared to change course. I sure hope no one will fly in stealth mode.

Ramy

[Brad[_2_]]

On Oct 21, 8:28*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:52:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:41:11 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
> > > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> > > > > > ... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
>
> > > > > > pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.
>
> > > > > Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.
>
> > > > > It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless..
>
> > > > > Hope that is clear,
>
> > > > > Best Regards, Dave
>
> > > > Dave,
>
> > > > it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02
>
> > > > Frank (TA)
>
> > > See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about
>
> > > how stealth mode works.
>
> > > It's here: *http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx
>
> > > Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of
>
> > > PowerFlarm at all. *You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,
>
> > > which is plenty.
>
> > > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> > "Plenty" is interesting. Let's all remember, flarm is not a "collision avoidance" device. It is a "collision warning" device. You still have to find the other glider, avoid it, and not run in to anyone else while you're doing that. Don't just bank away from the collision threat, make sure there isn't a new collision threat.
>
> > If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode? No, I gather.. *If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...
>
> > And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if carbon fuselages are blocking signals. Gliders have collided when both had operating flarm systems. Norway and Uvalde.
>
> > A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only shows imminent collision threats. *The operation and reliability of such a mode have to be really bulletproof. Which, given power flarm's recent history with range issues, software updates, antenna updates etc., would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find out its actual limitations?
>
> > It's interesting how many reports we're getting of pilots who saw collision threats with flarm. But we obviously don't know about the failures until they hit each other. And how do we learn about the failures under stealth mode. Can of worms here.
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> I agree with John. I find the situational awareness as important as the collision alert. Also, not sure where the 25 sec came from, but when I was on a head on with another glider at 17K both of us flying above 100 knots TAS, the warning we got was more like 10 seconds, just enough to react and bank away. We never saw each other until we banked away, but luckily we saw each other on flarm radar 5 miles away giving us plenty time to be alerted and be prepared to change course. I sure hope no one will fly in stealth mode.
>
> Ramy

Ramy,

How did you know which direction to bank? I've not flown with the unit
enough to get a feel for what evasive moves to make. So far when I've
been warned I've seen the other aircraft and can react accordingly.

Thanks,
Brad

[Ramy]

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:03:48 PM UTC-7, Brad wrote:
> On Oct 21, 8:28*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:52:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > > On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:41:11 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > ... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Hope that is clear,
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Best Regards, Dave
>
> >
>
> > > > > Dave,
>
> >
>
> > > > > it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02
>
> >
>
> > > > > Frank (TA)
>
> >
>
> > > > See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about
>
> >
>
> > > > how stealth mode works.
>
> >
>
> > > > It's here: *http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx
>
> >
>
> > > > Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of
>
> >
>
> > > > PowerFlarm at all. *You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,
>
> >
>
> > > > which is plenty.
>
> >
>
> > > > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> >
>
> > > "Plenty" is interesting. Let's all remember, flarm is not a "collision avoidance" device. It is a "collision warning" device. You still have to find the other glider, avoid it, and not run in to anyone else while you're doing that. Don't just bank away from the collision threat, make sure there isn't a new collision threat.
>
> >
>
> > > If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode? No, I gather. *If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...
>
> >
>
> > > And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if carbon fuselages are blocking signals. Gliders have collided when both had operating flarm systems. Norway and Uvalde.
>
> >
>
> > > A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only shows imminent collision threats. *The operation and reliability of such a mode have to be really bulletproof. Which, given power flarm's recent history with range issues, software updates, antenna updates etc., would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find out its actual limitations?
>
> >
>
> > > It's interesting how many reports we're getting of pilots who saw collision threats with flarm. But we obviously don't know about the failures until they hit each other. And how do we learn about the failures under stealth mode. Can of worms here.
>
> >
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> >
>
> > I agree with John. I find the situational awareness as important as the collision alert. Also, not sure where the 25 sec came from, but when I was on a head on with another glider at 17K both of us flying above 100 knots TAS, the warning we got was more like 10 seconds, just enough to react and bank away. We never saw each other until we banked away, but luckily we saw each other on flarm radar 5 miles away giving us plenty time to be alerted and be prepared to change course. I sure hope no one will fly in stealth mode.
>
> >
>
> > Ramy
>
>
>
> Ramy,
>
>
>
> How did you know which direction to bank? I've not flown with the unit
>
> enough to get a feel for what evasive moves to make. So far when I've
>
> been warned I've seen the other aircraft and can react accordingly.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brad

I should mention that we were also talking to each other on the radio. The whole time we were closing on each other I was waiting to see him but when the collision alert and the audio alarm started showing him at 12 ocklock same altitude I just decided the bank to the right while radioing to him that I am doing so, and he banked to the right as well. This was the first time for both of us to see each other, very eye opening as we both knew there is traffic ahead and were scanning for it yet we couldn't see each other as we were a non moving target. I figured banking right is the standard procedure with head on traffic, if not, it should be the protocol when flarm warns of traffic at 12 oclock. Diving or pulling my not work since both pilots may do the same thing, but both banking right will do the trick.

Ramy

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:52:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side
> and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode?
> No, I gather.
> If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...

Correct.


> And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if
> carbon fuselages are blocking signals.

And especially if pilots have not followed sensible practice
installing the antennas, or used antennas with no radiation
downwards. Speak to your fellow pilots when you see this,
it could be your life...


> A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only
> shows imminent collision threats. The operation and reliability
> of such a mode have to be really bulletproof.
> << gratuitous obnoxious comment snipped >>
> ... would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world
> experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find
> out its actual limitations?

One could possibly pay attention to foreign experience, where many
thousands of FLARM have been deployed for years, instead of
provincially continually reinventing the wheel...

Just a far-out idea, wishful thinking no doubt...

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:52:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:41:11 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > ... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision..
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Hope that is clear,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Best Regards, Dave
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Dave,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Frank (TA)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about
>
> >
>
> > how stealth mode works.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It's here: http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of
>
> >
>
> > PowerFlarm at all. You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,
>
> >
>
> > which is plenty.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>
> "Plenty" is interesting. Let's all remember, flarm is not a "collision avoidance" device. It is a "collision warning" device. You still have to find the other glider, avoid it, and not run in to anyone else while you're doing that. Don't just bank away from the collision threat, make sure there isn't a new collision threat.
>
>
>
> If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode? No, I gather. If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...
>
>
>
> And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if carbon fuselages are blocking signals. Gliders have collided when both had operating flarm systems. Norway and Uvalde.
>
>
>
> A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only shows imminent collision threats. The operation and reliability of such a mode have to be really bulletproof. Which, given power flarm's recent history with range issues, software updates, antenna updates etc., would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find out its actual limitations?
>
>
>
> It's interesting how many reports we're getting of pilots who saw collision threats with flarm. But we obviously don't know about the failures until they hit each other. And how do we learn about the failures under stealth mode. Can of worms here.
>
>
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

If there's a comm problem between flarm transceivers, then the operating mode simply doesn't matter. One advantage of the open mode is that it provides a means to test the system performance without aerial jousting. And yeah, I see a lot of carbon gliders (V2's mainly) with really spotty contact.

Short warning time when comm is established probably reflects maneuvering, i.e. a course conflict that arose "unexpectedly". For high speed head on traffic, "maneuvering" doesn't necessarily mean much. A small heading/glide slope change is all it would take.

T8

[[email protected]]

Perhaps this is a good summary of the various opinions skeptical of stealth mode:

Collision avoidance is enhanced by situational awareness, of gliders that you are not actually on a collision path towards. This is especially true of "carbon gliders with spotty contact." If you know there are 5 gliders in the gaggle, and where the ones you can't see are, you're less likely to miss one, or no know what to do when an alert goes off, than if they are all blanked from the screen. This does seem like a "real world" difficulty of stealth mode.

(And Dave, sorry for "gratuitous obnoxious comments." You are doing heroic work with Flarm, and hearing only the complaints when things aren't already perfect.)

John Cochrane

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:26:38 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> Diving or pulling my not work since both pilots may do the same thing, but both banking right will do the trick.


Don't forget that FLARM traffic orientation is relative to your TRACK not your HEADING. In other words traffic at 12 O'clock on your FLARM display will not be at your nose if you are flying with a crosswind.

The correct direction to turn in a head on situation was discussed at length and heatedly in UK RAS a couple of years ago. If after years of usage they couldn't agree, how can you be so sure?

I asked years ago if US PowerFLARM would be integrated with other available sensors to provide a useful heading referenced display but the question fell on stony ground.

Andy

[Sean F (F2)]

It sounds as if some of our leaders may have already come to some significant conclusions about PowerFlarm data and a new rule effort.

My experience is that PowerFlarm is not NEARLY reliable enough at range outside of 1 mile to leech effectively. The data is simply not reliable vs using your eyes. Perhaps we should consider banning eyes with vision better than say, 20/40 or new glasses before wasting time on this. :-) Occasionally I get a hit on a glider at longer range, which is nice. But leeching off the climb rate data at a significant distance. Not a chance.

PowerFlarm is a fantastic close proximity AUDIBLE collision alert system for me when flying in an environment full of other gliders. It has effectively alerted me to MANY gliders which I was not aware of and were in close proximity. That said, I rarely ever look at the actual screen unless it beeps a loud audible warning. I have have far better things to look at. If necessary to "leech", I can see and follow the heard visually with far better acuity and effectiveness.

Is there anything better to do in regards to rules than discussion on banning PowerFlarm and potentially hindering badly needed (my opinion of course) adoption? PowerFlarm is basically useless until A) everyone has one and B) everyone has one installed properly. I believe placing hurdles in between us and that goal is unnecessary. We desperately want to save the next pilot from a horrible, unnecessary collision. We need greater adoption to ensure that accident does not happen.

Perhaps someone should study and proves (at least confirms its possible) that PowerFlarm and the full data stream is consistently reliable enough to leech more effectively than without before considering bans? How about some testing of that "hypothesis" before prescribing the costly fix and sending the soaring suppliers scrambling? Ill admit I have not tried leeching with my PowerFlarm but from what I have seen with reliable range, I just cant believe it is being seriously discussed. Or perhaps this has already been proven? Has it?

I believe the tracking features PowerFlarm has marketed are basically fantasy outside of 1 (maybe 2 at times) miles. I just don't see FLARM targets outside of that range in my glider. My PowerFlarm antenna is in the perfect location and installed well. ADSB on the other hand I see easily at 20 miles +. But is the PowerFlarm range far enough out to "leech" other sailplanes from several miles out....I do not think so.

Are we defending against reality or the PowerFlarm/LX/"whatever" marketing hype?

Best,

Sean
F2

On Monday, October 22, 2012 1:04:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Perhaps this is a good summary of the various opinions skeptical of stealth mode:
>
>
>
> Collision avoidance is enhanced by situational awareness, of gliders that you are not actually on a collision path towards. This is especially true of "carbon gliders with spotty contact." If you know there are 5 gliders in the gaggle, and where the ones you can't see are, you're less likely to miss one, or no know what to do when an alert goes off, than if they are all blanked from the screen. This does seem like a "real world" difficulty of stealth mode.
>
>
>
> (And Dave, sorry for "gratuitous obnoxious comments." You are doing heroic work with Flarm, and hearing only the complaints when things aren't already perfect.)
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

[Ramy]

This is an important point which should have been emphasized in the manual, or I missed it. I bet not many are aware that the bearing to the target is based on track not heading. The error is relatively small at lower wind speed, but can be significant in strong cross wind especially at slow flight.
Thanks for pointing this out.
I am interested to hear what other methods of evasion (between gliders when there is no visual contact) are suggested. Perhaps diving or pulling are better since they are instantaneous and assuming that both gliders don't start at the same time and the same rate will result in much faster separation than turning.
This is an important topic worth discussing.


Ramy

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:11:08 AM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> It sounds as if some of our leaders may have already come to some significant conclusions about PowerFlarm data and a new rule effort. My experience is that PowerFlarm is not NEARLY reliable enough at range outside of 1 mile to leech effectively. The data is simply not reliable vs using your eyes. Perhaps we should consider banning eyes with vision better than say, 20/40 or new glasses before wasting time on this. :-) Occasionally I get a hit on a glider at longer range, which is nice. But leeching off the climb rate data at a significant distance. Not a chance. PowerFlarm is a fantastic close proximity AUDIBLE collision alert system for me when flying in an environment full of other gliders. It has effectively alerted me to MANY gliders which I was not aware of and were in close proximity. That said, I rarely ever look at the actual screen unless it beeps a loud audible warning. I have have far better things to look at. If necessary to "leech", I can see and follow the heard visually with far better acuity and effectiveness. Is there anything better to do in regards to rules than discussion on banning PowerFlarm and potentially hindering badly needed (my opinion of course) adoption? PowerFlarm is basically useless until A) everyone has one and B) everyone has one installed properly. I believe placing hurdles in between us and that goal is unnecessary. We desperately want to save the next pilot from a horrible, unnecessary collision. We need greater adoption to ensure that accident does not happen. Perhaps someone should study and proves (at least confirms its possible) that PowerFlarm and the full data stream is consistently reliable enough to leech more effectively than without before considering bans? How about some testing of that "hypothesis" before prescribing the costly fix and sending the soaring suppliers scrambling? Ill admit I have not tried leeching with my PowerFlarm but from what I have seen with reliable range, I just cant believe it is being seriously discussed. Or perhaps this has already been proven? Has it? I believe the tracking features PowerFlarm has marketed are basically fantasy outside of 1 (maybe 2 at times) miles. I just don't see FLARM targets outside of that range in my glider. My PowerFlarm antenna is in the perfect location and installed well. ADSB on the other hand I see easily at 20 miles +. But is the PowerFlarm range far enough out to "leech" other sailplanes from several miles out....I do not think so. Are we defending against reality or the PowerFlarm/LX/"whatever" marketing hype? Best, Sean F2 On Monday, October 22, 2012 1:04:53 PM UTC-4, wrote: > Perhaps this is a good summary of the various opinions skeptical of stealth mode: > > > > Collision avoidance is enhanced by situational awareness, of gliders that you are not actually on a collision path towards. This is especially true of "carbon gliders with spotty contact." If you know there are 5 gliders in the gaggle, and where the ones you can't see are, you're less likely to miss one, or no know what to do when an alert goes off, than if they are all blanked from the screen. This does seem like a "real world" difficulty of stealth mode. > > > > (And Dave, sorry for "gratuitous obnoxious comments." You are doing heroic work with Flarm, and hearing only the complaints when things aren't already perfect.) > > > > John Cochrane

I have no idea where you have gotten the idea that there is any consideration of banning Flarm. The Rules Committee has supported and encouraged adoption of this technology from the start. We have been asked to make a statement of support. The RC strongly encourages the adoption of Flarm technology in US competition sailplanes.
There are a variety of opinions about the issue of Flarm being a useful leech tool. My personal experience, while limited, shows it has the strong potential to be very useful in this regard.
The possibility of implementation of some sort of Stealth mode is a real consideration for the future as more experience becomes available. The potential affect on the sport is profound. The pilot poll asks for pilot input associated with this issue. Certainly no limitations will be imposed without testing and evaluation at the regional level.
Any pilots that have not participated in the poll are strongly encoraged to provide their input. The poll closes on 10/26.
UH
US RC Chair

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 22, 2012 10:34:23 PM UTC-5, Andy wrote:
> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:26:38 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>
> > Diving or pulling my not work since both pilots may do the same thing, but both banking right will do the trick.
>
>
>
>
>
> Don't forget that FLARM traffic orientation is relative to your TRACK not your HEADING. In other words traffic at 12 O'clock on your FLARM display will not be at your nose if you are flying with a crosswind.
>
>
>
> The correct direction to turn in a head on situation was discussed at length and heatedly in UK RAS a couple of years ago. If after years of usage they couldn't agree, how can you be so sure?
>
>
>
> I asked years ago if US PowerFLARM would be integrated with other available sensors to provide a useful heading referenced display but the question fell on stony ground.
>
>
>
> Andy

But regardelss of your HEADING, your TRACK will turn right when you bank right. To avoid collision your TRACK needs to change. You may not be looking at the correct portion of sky but the goal of avoiding collision by having both pilots bank to the right will still be achieved. The only difference is in the windy scenario you'll be in a crab orientation when you see the other glider pass to your left rather than in a straight on orientation.

[Sean F (F2)]

I meant restriction on telemetry data (stealth mode), not a complete ban.

The Flarm people still don't have the damn logger function working. They have struggled a bit out of the blocks to say the least. The last thing they need is to have their attention drawn into perfecting stealth mode. That may cause more problems, etc.

Lets focus on PowerFlarm adoption 100%. Lets establish the reality of the systems performance and measure average useful range (and its practical usefulness) before installing limits, restrictions, etc aimed at preventing supposed "Flarm leeching".

The marketing slick is far different than reality even in my glider which has exceptional antenna position (max height and central).

Sean
F2

[Sean F (F2)]

This sounds pretty serious to me. "Profound changes in the competition segment of our sport." Agreed IF the system functions as promised in early marketing. What relevant data has been gathered to support this apparent position?

"You raise some good points. The US rules committee has been considering this issue since the time that Flarm became topical in the US. We are hoping pilots will provide us input via the rules poll or directly to help guide us in actions, or no actions, that may be taken in the future.
"Flarm radar" and potentially associated leeching have the potential to make profound changes in the competition segment of our sport.
UH RC Chair"

Sean
F2

[Mike the Strike]

I sometimes wonder if the Rules Committee lives on a different planet from the rest of us!

There is no way in hell that any contest director in the USA would mandate the use of stealth mode on an anti-collision system if this reduces its usefulness even the teeniest bit. In the event of a collision, insurance companies looking to minimize their exposure through subrogation would hold the CD at least partially responsible for the accident - spreading the cost to his or the contest's insurer. This might not be an issue in the rest of the world, but is sure is here in the USA.

No sensible person would ever mandate stealth mode here!

Mike

[kirk.stant]

Ah but the beauty of FLARM Stealth mode is that you can select it youself and make yourself harder to be leeched. Sure you then lose the ability to leech off ofhers, but if you are ahead in points it makes competitive sense to be stealthy, regardless of what the CD says.

So now do we have to have the CD mandate that stealth NOT be used by individual choice (use is noted in the logger file)?

This is going to be almost as fun as the great attitude indicator argument last winter!

Kirk
66

[Tim Taylor]

I will be working on fast switching mode. Off when I'm behind and on when I am leading. My vote was for stealth mode for contests.

Non-stealth changes the game too much and too much time with pilots heads down looking at the displays.

I flew two nationals with it this year. It was useful for tactical information but will just lead to an arms race of upgrades in the future. The stealth mode provides plenty of safety without the additional data.

For fun flying I think it is great to keep track of the other pilots in your group.

TT

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:59:35 PM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
> I sometimes wonder if the Rules Committee lives on a different planet from the rest of us!
>
>
>
> There is no way in hell that any contest director in the USA would mandate the use of stealth mode on an anti-collision system if this reduces its usefulness even the teeniest bit. In the event of a collision, insurance companies looking to minimize their exposure through subrogation would hold the CD at least partially responsible for the accident - spreading the cost to his or the contest's insurer. This might not be an issue in the rest of the world, but is sure is here in the USA.
>
>
> No sensible person would ever mandate stealth mode here!
>
>
> Mike

Mike,

I dunno - I consider myself reasonably sensible. Despite that, I recently agreed to CD an SSA Regional contest; okay, so maybe I'm not that sensible :-)

I would certainly consider it... if it were shown to be properly implemented such that the conflict resolution advisories were in no way impacted. By comparison, we used to force people to dive at redline through a gate and encourage people to fly marginal final glides to a 50 foot gate. Yet, "sensible people" routinely did this.

Right now, it's all premature, as others have pointed out. Once the range and reception issues are ironed out and adoption becomes more-or-less universal, then I think there will be added incentive for display manufacturers to invest heavily in "leeching support". I'd be willing to be that one of the unintended consequences would be increased gaggling on weak blue days. But, we'll just have to see, won't we.

And no Dave, I don't believe that European experience tells us much...yet. When someone starts moving from dots and beeps to heat-maps of glider concentrations and otherwise presenting data into a format that's easily consumable by the pilots (not to mention FLARM-next-gen, with greater range and reliability, which someone will surely develop in the coming 10 years), then I think there will be some hard choices to be made.

And FWIW, I overheard one pilot at Region IV mention that he turned off his transponder just to avoid leaching. Now that's not what we want, is it? So, in a competitive environment, one can never predict exactly how people are going to behave... remember gliders loaded to way above max gross with water and lead bars taped to the spars?

P3

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 10/23/2012 10:59 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
> I sometimes wonder if the Rules Committee lives on a different planet
> from the rest of us!
>
> There is no way in hell that any contest director in the USA would
> mandate the use of stealth mode on an anti-collision system if this
> reduces its usefulness even the teeniest bit. In the event of a
> collision, insurance companies looking to minimize their exposure
> through subrogation would hold the CD at least partially responsible
> for the accident - spreading the cost to his or the contest's
> insurer. This might not be an issue in the rest of the world, but is
> sure is here in the USA.
>
> No sensible person would ever mandate stealth mode here!

I get really concerned when people raise legal issues that seem very
tenuous, because may instill a totally unnecessary fear. Are you a
personal liability lawyer, or otherwise experienced in the law of this
sort? If not, perhaps this is just wild guessing, and should be labeled
as such?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Mike C]

"This is going to be almost as fun as the great attitude indicator argument last winter!"

Haha!

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:43:28 -0700, Ramy wrote:

> This is an important point which should have been emphasized in the
> manual, or I missed it. I bet not many are aware that the bearing to the
> target is based on track not heading. The error is relatively small at
> lower wind speed, but can be significant in strong cross wind especially
> at slow flight.
>
Surely this is obvious.

As any fule kno[1] a GPS receiver can only know its track vector and
record its track: it doesn't matter whether you carry it forwards,
backwards or sideways, it still correctly records its track without
having the faintest idea of which way its being pointed relative to that
track.

The FLARM depends entirely on GPS for its knowledge of its current track
vector, so it follows that it too knows nothing about its orientation
relative to your gliders fuselage or what the glider's heading might be.


[1] nigel molesworth, the terror of st custards

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Oct 23, 5:05*pm, Tim Taylor > wrote:
> I will be working on fast switching mode.

No, you won't. Read the dataport spec.

T8.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Oct 23, 1:59*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> I sometimes wonder if the Rules Committee lives on a different planet from the rest of us!
>
> There is no way in hell that any contest director in the USA would mandate the use of stealth mode on an anti-collision system if this reduces its usefulness even the teeniest bit. *In the event of a collision, insurance companies looking to minimize their exposure through subrogation would hold the CD at least partially responsible for the accident - spreading the cost to his or the contest's insurer. *This might not be an issue in the rest of the world, but is sure is here in the USA.
>
> No sensible person would ever mandate stealth mode here!
>
> Mike

Sowing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt based on... nothing at all. Read
the freaking manual, or in this case the dataport spec.

T8

[Ramy]

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 4:23:20 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:43:28 -0700, Ramy wrote:
>
>
>
> > This is an important point which should have been emphasized in the
>
> > manual, or I missed it. I bet not many are aware that the bearing to the
>
> > target is based on track not heading. The error is relatively small at
>
> > lower wind speed, but can be significant in strong cross wind especially
>
> > at slow flight.
>
> >
>
> Surely this is obvious.
>
>
>
> As any fule kno[1] a GPS receiver can only know its track vector and
>
> record its track: it doesn't matter whether you carry it forwards,
>
> backwards or sideways, it still correctly records its track without
>
> having the faintest idea of which way its being pointed relative to that
>
> track.
>
>
>
> The FLARM depends entirely on GPS for its knowledge of its current track
>
> vector, so it follows that it too knows nothing about its orientation
>
> relative to your gliders fuselage or what the glider's heading might be.
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] nigel molesworth, the terror of st custards
>
>
>
> --
>
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>
> org |

Sure it is obvious when you think about it, but it is not intuitively obvious. I'll admit it did not cross my mind until it was mentioned here, and I would bet that it did not cross most pilots mind. How many pilots you think will intuitively know to look for traffic downwind the first time they get a flarm collision alert when they fly in significant cross wind?

Ramy

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Just in case this too is not obvious, bear in mind that if you are in high speed wave or ridge, and fly into wind slower than the wind speed, you will go backwards. So Flarm’s “12 o’clock” is behind you, in your visual 6 o’clock. Bearings/azimuth to other contacts will be related to that.

Chris N

[folken]

On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:26:44 PM UTC+2, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> Just in case this too is not obvious, bear in mind that if you are in high speed wave or ridge, and fly into wind slower than the wind speed, you will go backwards. So Flarm’s “12 o’clock” is behind you, in your visual 6 o’clock. Bearings/azimuth to other contacts will be related to that..

That is true. The effect is also an issue with crosswind. Flarm may show you a 10 o clock alert for an 11 o clock target.
- Folken

[pcool]

Where have you seen a 10 o clock alert in flarm?
Which display have you seen, from Flarm, showing a 10 o clock field?


"folken" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:26:44 PM UTC+2, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> Just in case this too is not obvious, bear in mind that if you are in high
> speed wave or ridge, and fly into wind slower than the wind speed, you
> will go backwards. So Flarm’s “12 o’clock” is behind you, in your visual 6
> o’clock. Bearings/azimuth to other contacts will be related to that.

That is true. The effect is also an issue with crosswind. Flarm may show you
a 10 o clock alert for an 11 o clock target.
- Folken

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:53:56 +0200, pcool wrote:

> Where have you seen a 10 o clock alert in flarm?
> Which display have you seen, from Flarm, showing a 10 o clock field?
>
I think Folken is referring to what the original small 'ring of LEDs'
FLARM display shows you. Its angular resolution is pretty coarse and the
vertical resolution ('above you' or 'below you) is even coarser. As a
result, I tend to scan a fairly wide sky segment (maybe 45 degrees wide
and high) to pick up the bandit. This is probably a wide enough scan to
allow for the difference between heading and track under most thermal
conditions.

I haven't (yet) used FLARM for ridge or wave soaring, which is when the
difference between heading and track could be much larger.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 23:35 21 October 2012, wrote:
>On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:

>I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing pilots to lessen
>the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.

Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision. It
gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.
Hope that is clear,

>> >
>Dave,
>
>it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate,
it
isn't entirely correct. Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational
awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition
does exactly that. The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode
might
not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate

action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. Just my $0.02
>
>Frank (TA)

From the FLARM manual

"Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation
awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the
use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM® off for tactical
reasons."
There is no way that the above can be interpreted in any way other than the
safety benefits are reduced. Do you really want to be seen being
responsible for telling pilots to reduce safety?

http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:45:03 AM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 23:35 21 October 2012, wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
> >> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>
>
> >I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing pilots to lessen
>
> >the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.
>
>
>
> Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision. It
>
> gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.
>
> Hope that is clear,
>
>
>
> >> >
>
> >Dave,
>
> >
>
> >it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate,
>
> it
>
> isn't entirely correct. Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational
>
> awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition
>
> does exactly that. The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode
>
> might
>
> not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate
>
>
>
> action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. Just my $0.02
>
> >
>
> >Frank (TA)
>
>
>
> From the FLARM manual
>
>
>
> "Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation
>
> awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the
>
> use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM® off for tactical
>
> reasons."
>
> There is no way that the above can be interpreted in any way other than the
>
> safety benefits are reduced. Do you really want to be seen being
>
> responsible for telling pilots to reduce safety?
>
>
>
> http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

It's a matter of how much warning and of what type is useful and actionable..

You have not actually flown with PowerFlarm "radar", have you?

The amount of head down time required to develop any actionable information from present flarm radar screens is scary large. In fact I would argue that given only flarm/butterfly panel mount displays currently available we'll be safer with everyone in stealth mode simply because there will be less to look at on the panel and eyes may stay outside a little more. 3rd parties will solve the display problem even if Flarm doesn't, but the fact remains that radar in open mode shows you mostly targets that are not and will never become collision threats.

Read (I tire of saying this) the dataport spec. Page 19. It describes in detail what stealth mode actually does. Among other things, you'll find that it still displays all radar targets that might become a collision threat.. I can make the argument that this enhances safety because it does not so clutter the display with non-threats.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 11:40 28 October 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:45:03 AM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
>> At 23:35 21 October 2012, wrote:
>>=20
>> >On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>=20
>> >> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> >I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing pilots to
>lesse=
>n
>>=20
>> >the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.
It
>>=20
>> gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.
>>=20
>> Hope that is clear,
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> >> >
>>=20
>> >Dave,
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically
accurate,
>>=20
>> it
>>=20
>> isn't entirely correct. Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational
>>=20
>> awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by
definition
>>=20
>> does exactly that. The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth
mode
>>=20
>> might
>>=20
>> not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. Just my $0.02
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >Frank (TA)
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> From the FLARM manual
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> "Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation
>>=20
>> awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend
the
>>=20
>> use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM=AE off for
>tacti=
>cal
>>=20
>> reasons."
>>=20
>> There is no way that the above can be interpreted in any way other than
>t=
>he
>>=20
>> safety benefits are reduced. Do you really want to be seen being
>>=20
>> responsible for telling pilots to reduce safety?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf
>
>It's a matter of how much warning and of what type is useful and
>actionable=
>.. =20
>
>You have not actually flown with PowerFlarm "radar", have you?
>
>The amount of head down time required to develop any actionable
>information=
> from present flarm radar screens is scary large. In fact I would argue
>th=
>at given only flarm/butterfly panel mount displays currently available
>we'l=
>l be safer with everyone in stealth mode simply because there will be
less
>=
>to look at on the panel and eyes may stay outside a little more. 3rd
>parti=
>es will solve the display problem even if Flarm doesn't, but the fact
>remai=
>ns that radar in open mode shows you mostly targets that are not and will
>n=
>ever become collision threats.
>
>Read (I tire of saying this) the dataport spec. Page 19. It describes
in
>=
>detail what stealth mode actually does. Among other things, you'll find
>th=
>at it still displays all radar targets that might become a collision
>threat=
>.. I can make the argument that this enhances safety because it does not
>so=
> clutter the display with non-threats.
>
>Evan Ludeman / T8

No, but I have flown with an LX800, not that this has anything to do with
it at all. I would rather take the advice of the makers of the instrument
and those who have been using FLARM for some time. Stealth mode is no
longer required here for competitions, the full mode can be used. FLARM are
very clear, "We do NOT recommend the use of stealth mode", which part of
that do you not understand. You ignore it at your peril or perhaps more
likely to the peril of others.
>
>

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Oct 28, 4:00*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
[snip]
>
> No, but I have flown with an LX800, not that this has anything to do with
> it at all. I would rather take the advice of the makers of the instrument
> and those who have been using FLARM for some time. Stealth mode is no
> longer required here for competitions, the full mode can be used. FLARM are
> very clear, "We do NOT recommend the use of stealth mode", which part of
> that do you not understand. You ignore it at your peril or perhaps more
> likely to the peril of others.

Just to be clear on this: I do have competition experience with the
equipment we're discussing.

Where I disagree with Flarm -- based on my experience -- is on the
utility of the "radar" display for collision avoidance. It's a net
negative based on the amount of head down time required to develop any
useful situational awareness from the display. Try it. You'll see.

Stealth mode affects *only* information displayed in "radar" mode --
information straight from Flarm. No effect at all in the anti-
collision warning mode. There seems to be a lot of nearly willful
misunderstanding on this issue.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Ramy]

The butterfly display has 2 types of displays:
1 - radar display for situational awareness
2- led like display for collision alert. It automatically switch to this mode when it detects collision risk.
Which one are you referring to?

Ramy

[Jim[_32_]]

On Monday, October 29, 2012 12:36:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> The butterfly display has 2 types of displays:
>
> 1 - radar display for situational awareness
>
> 2- led like display for collision alert. It automatically switch to this mode when it detects collision risk.
>
> Which one are you referring to?
>
>
>
> Ramy

There is actually a 3rd display which is totally useless and on most of the time (the one with the HUGE red butterfly). Why don't Butterfly use this real estate for something useful? Almost anything else is more useful (battery voltage, Lat/Lon, "friendly" traffic nearby, altitude, you-name-it, etc.)

-Jim

[bumper[_4_]]

On Monday, October 29, 2012 9:46:58 AM UTC-7, Jim wrote:
> On Monday, October 29, 2012 12:36:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
>
> There is actually a 3rd display which is totally useless and on most of the time (the one with the HUGE red butterfly). Why don't Butterfly use this real estate for something useful? Almost anything else is more useful (battery voltage, Lat/Lon, "friendly" traffic nearby, altitude, you-name-it, etc.)
>
>
>
> -Jim

+1, I'm with you on that. Also give us the option to display local time instead of UTC please.

bumper

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Oct 29, 12:36*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> The butterfly display has 2 types of displays:
> 1 - radar display for situational awareness
> 2- led like display for collision alert. It automatically switch to this mode when it detects collision risk.
> Which one are you referring to?
>
> Ramy

I'm disparaging the #1 radar display, of course. The one where a) you
have to squint in order to read the scale, the relative altitude and
climb rate, b) you have to scroll through the targets in order to
decide which target you want relative alt and climb rate info for. We
are doing a somewhat better job of displaying the same raw data with
ClearNav (2.2.0.38 should be available for public beta testing very
shortly) but I think your eyeballs are better employed looking out the
window.

Pretty much everyone likes the #2 collision warning display, which is
fast, effective and intuitive.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean F (F2)]

Wow! So much is assumed about the usefulness of PowerFLARM in so-called "radar mode." Its painful to read the assumption, marketing based arguments some are making loudly. FLARM itself strongly recommends not using STEALTH mode as it significantly reduces to capability of the system. Pretty clear to me. But some really want to go after this latest technology ban. Why? An apparent deathly fear of new technology. Almost a phobia. We have seen it many times before, yet it is all here! Radio's. Vario's. GPS. Eyeglasses.

Again, I vote (and did so in the SSA Contest pilot poll weeks ago) for ABSOLUTELY NO restrictions, limitations or complications of any kind to the implementation and adoption of PowerFLARM until such time that:

A) PowerFLARM adoption reaches a level of completeness that satisfies the initial goals (Mandatory in contests and strong growth in general US soaring) and

B) it is OBJECTIVELY PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that so-called Flarm leeching is reasonably possible.

To review: The goal of powerFLARM is improved safety generally in all environments (towing, clubs, contests) and a general reduction of collisions...such as the one that happened in the US a few months back at the World Championships.

That's right. A nearly fatal collision just occurred in the USA where a glider was lost, a pilot was forced to bail out and was knocked unconscious on the parachute landing. Thankfully he was OK...but the truth is that collisions are STILL OCCURRING, statistically very often. Very little was said about this accident and the numerous other accidents at that event. Near misses are all to common in US contest soaring and in clubs. Collision safety is a huge concern worldwide. Regardless of these facts, some really want to ban important aspects of this impressive new innovation in soaring safety before it even gets started. Some seem more concerned about crushing any small almost impossibly unrealistic chance of improved "leeching" than achieving original goal of the system...SAFETY and prevention of needless fatal collision accidents of our friends.

Safety needs to be doubled down on at all costs.

It should be the policy of the US rules committee to error DEEPLY on the the side of SAFETY. I think this is true in most cases. But FLARM and collision risk is not the area to screw around with at this point. Most pilots in the US are still relying on "chance" to avoid collision. A collision occurs when both pilots do not see eachother. It is clear that visual scan's are not sufficient and never will be. Without PowerFLARM or better technology, it's only a matter of time until you have your collision. We need to do better!

When looking at those involved in these arguments, ask yourselves the following questions: 1) Who is concerned about general safety off the soaring community? 2) Who here is concerned about the slim potential for leeching harming THEM in a contest? What is the motivation? Expand safety without comprimise? Or personal concerns? Answer those questions and I think you will have some useful intelligence on this discussion. Is the PowerFLARM system worth working on a ban for the minuscule chance that someone could actually follow (LEECH) you at greater speed from outside visual range with the PowerFLARM and LX 8000?

Give me a break!!!!!! Lets move on and focus on more productive things this winter.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

[Craig R.]

Ok. Just to play Devil’s advocate and stir the pot a bit, if it is SAFETY you are really looking for, then perhaps the SSA and Rules Committee should MANDATE that every pilot have a 3 flight checkout demonstrating proficiency in takeoffs and landings (logged and signed) every 90-120 days with a qualified instructor. Not proficient? Then no sign off and no flying until you do it right. Since only 4% of the soaring accidents occur in air to air collisions and over 65% occur in the pattern, then the OBVIOUS course of action is to spend the $1800+ that PowerFlarm costs on instruction/validation of pilot skills and NOT on hardware/software for anti-collision products. Spread over say 7 years, that equals about $260 per year for instruction in the environment that is killing most of the glider pilots today (and yesterday as well). The results would be staggering in reducing glider deaths and injuries. Once that statistic is reduced, then worry about collision avoidance hardware/software.

Since the latest and greatest technology is assumed by many glider pilots to be the future in gliding and the most prudent course of action for safety, I guess that better airmanship is a stupid and worthless idea in reducing glider accidents. However, I can’t count the number of times I’ve observed world class (not average) pilots make takeoffs and landings that would flunk them in a private pilot check ride.

In business and life, any prudent person would begin with the big picture first. If you are really interested in safety, put your efforts into reducing the number of takeoff and landing accidents.

Craig R.

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, October 29, 2012 5:32:44 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Safety needs to be doubled down on at all costs.

Yup. I'm installing a 5-point harness on my Barcolounger
so I can't hurt myself watching foootbaaall.
Hope I don't hurt myself with the power-tools during
installation, wish me luck.
Yes, I've got an STC for that harness install.


> Give me a break!!!!!! Lets move on and focus on more
> productive things this winter.

Yup, its time for the PW-5 debate to start...


See ya, Dave

[[email protected]]

> In business and life, any prudent person would begin with the big picture first. If you are really interested in safety, put your efforts into reducing the number of takeoff and landing accidents.
>
>
>
> Craig R.

Actually,I've put together the numbers. Takeoff and landing accidents in US contests are essentially zero. Clem Bowman was the unfortunate exception that proves the rule. Otherwise, zero -- zero -- PTT accidents. Read Tom Knauff in the latest soaring for how that compares with soaring in general.

Landings, back at the airport, following a finish with reasonable energy, have also produced no accidents that I can find from searching NTSB or contest reports. (A few gear up landing sorts of things, but that's it.)

There have been quite a few accidents resulting from approaching the airport with insufficient energy, "low passes" that start at 60 knots and 50 feet, or crashes in fields very close to the home airport.

In contests, the really big accident categories are running in to mountains, and running in to things during off field landings. The latter often started way too low, with far too much thermaling attempt at very low altitude. Midair collisions follow all of these categories, and a long way back.

That's the big picture. If you want safer contests, the main areas to work on are low altitude thermaling, off field landings, running in to mountains, marginal final glides blown just before or just after reaching the home airport, and mid-air collisions.

I'm surprised you think top pilots are lacking in stick and rudder skills that a checkride would notice. Every contest pilot I know is fully aware of these dangers, and would easily pass a checkride. All the pilots I have known who crashed would have passed even more easily. It has happened that a pilot gave the safety talk warning of danger X, and then went and crashed in that exact scenario at the end of the day.

If you want to make contests safer, I think you have to look at dangers other than takeoff and landing accidents -- common in regular soaring, I admit -- and more stringent checkrides.

John Cochrane

[Craig R.]

John, I concur with your comments. My words were for all using PowerFlarm. In our club, few are contest pilots, yet there are many PowerFlarm units installed and in use (tugs too). I don't expect the additional checkrides (unrealistic/very unpopular), but shifting the safety emphasis to takeoff and landing accidents in gliding is very real and needed. We need to bring those numbers down. The big picture is ALL glider pilots and not just comp pilots. An interesting thought, what percentage of accidents occur from pilots that have flown in competition, but not during a competition?

Craig R.

[Craig R.]

Regarding stick and rudder skills of the top people, anyone, including them, have bad takeoffs and landings. Percentage wise, they will be less than the average pilot, but they are NOT exempt from screwing it up. Again, I have seen top pilots do ugly things in the pattern that would have got them bounced from a checkride. Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. It just takes one time to become a statistic.

Craig R

[Ramy]

On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:36:26 PM UTC-7, Craig R. wrote:
> Regarding stick and rudder skills of the top people, anyone, including them, have bad takeoffs and landings. Percentage wise, they will be less than the average pilot, but they are NOT exempt from screwing it up. Again, I have seen top pilots do ugly things in the pattern that would have got them bounced from a checkride. Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. It just takes one time to become a statistic.
>
>
>
> Craig R

The difference between midairs and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you can do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm. See and avoid fails to prevent midairs. Yet this is the only type of accident which can be avoided by using relatively low cost and easy to install technology.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

> The amount of head down time required to develop any actionable information from present flarm radar screens is scary large. In fact I would argue that given only flarm/butterfly panel mount displays currently available we'll be safer with everyone in stealth mode simply because there will be less to look at on the panel and eyes may stay outside a little more. 3rd parties will solve the display problem even if Flarm doesn't, but the fact remains that radar in open mode shows you mostly targets that are not and will never become collision threats.

Evan,

I'm fully with you in that head-down time needs to be minimized.

Just for the record, another possibility to reduce the number of irrelevant
targets on the display is of course to reduce the respective horizontal and vertical ranges. Dangerous targets are not affected by the range setting.

Best
--Gerhard

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 29, 2012 7:22:20 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:

> The difference between midairs and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you can do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm. See and avoid fails to prevent midairs. Yet this is the only type of accident which can be avoided by using relatively low cost and easy to install technology.

> Ramy


Exactly. I'm a bit surprised to see the continuing nit-picking about this.

9B

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 02:22 30 October 2012, Ramy wrote:
>
>The difference between midairs and all other cause of accidents is that
it
>=
>is the only type which you can do almost nothing to prevent it, except
>usin=
>g flarm. See and avoid fails to prevent midairs. Yet this is the only
type
>=
>of accident which can be avoided by using relatively low cost and easy to
>i=
>nstall technology.=20
>
>Ramy

I sincerely hope that no-one believes the above statement because it is
misguided.
The only way of preventing mid air collisions is for pilots to maintain a
good lookout and situational awareness AT ALL TIMES.
By far the most common scenario for a mid air in a glider is in a thermal,
followed by flying in wave. FLARM was designed to address the second cause,
flying in wave, and it does assist a pilot in that it alerts him where to
look for a threat that he has not seen, in theory. It is reasonably
efficient at this task. FLARM is not particulary good at assisting a piot
in a thermal and the effectiveness reduces as the number of gliders in a
thermal increases. Were are we likely to find large numbers of gliders in
the same thermal? in competitions.
If you are sharing a thermal with other gliders outside competition flying,
being the person able to climb faster is a matter of personal pride, not a
high priority you might think. In the competition scenario being able to
outclimb your opponents is a very high priority, you are there to win after
all. Of course a good lookout and situational awareness are essential when
sharing a thermal with others but is this priority degraded by the need to
get the best out of the thermal so climbing better. No pilot deliberately
degrades his lookout and situational awareness to address other priorities
but the need to out perform is always in the mind, that is the paradox of
competition flying. Does FLARM help in a busy thermal? The good people at
FLARM and many pilots will tell you the answer to that is NO, it was not
designed for that situation and given the heading/track problem it can be a
hinderance rather than a help.
The only way to prevent a mid air in a glider is to maintain a good lookout
and situational awareness and anyone who says otherwise is a asking for
trouble. Training people and emphasising that need is what is needed not a
technology solution that gives pilots the idea that their lookout can be
delegated to a machine that has serious limitations.

[[email protected]]

Don,

I fully agree that maintaining a good lookout at all times
is a good basis for see-and-avoid.

However, we believe that even the best pilot may occasionally fail to detect traffic.
There are a number of human factors which affect perception
(distraction, selective attention, target merging into background, target not
moving wrt. background, etc).

We have a presentation where on one slide we listed the situations where FLARM
has potentially better and/or earlier chances to detect traffic than the human eye.

These situations are:
- Head-on and converging course (both gliders in cruise), especially in the
presence of clouds, snow fields etc.
- One glider circling, another one approaching the same thermal.
- Two gliders circling in opposite directions (yes, we know this shouldn't happen...)

As you say, the fewer gliders in a thermal, the more helpful FLARM can be.

FLARM does help in wave, but the indicated relative bearing to the threat may be strongly biased by wind.

Needless to say, whenever a FLARM warning occurs, the pilot should immediately
try to make visual contact with the threat.

In the Classic FLARM manual, we write:

"Under no circumstances should a pilot or crewmember adopt different tactics or deviate from the normal principles of safe airmanship."

I think that summarizes it quite nicely.

Best
--Gerhard

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

Gerhard,
fully agree with you, but would like to add one situation where
FLARM is useful. When there is someone on your under or
above, in position where you cannot see the other plane, flying
into the same direction. Can be cloudstreet, competition or just
a friend of your's you fly with.
The LED based FLARM displays used in Europa can only show
one target. If there are several planes around you, this display
does not give you very good situation awareness. That caused
here a midair of two FLARM equipped gliders year ago.
The powerflarm has graphical display, that shows several
targets around you. It also has two receivers and antennas, so
the situation of the midair I mentioned should not occur again.
There was no FLARM warning - looks like the carbon fuselages
dampen the radio signal, and the gliders approached each
others from the dipole antenna's blind spots.
-kimmo

(English language summary on page VII)
http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/Satellite?
blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype=BlobSer
ver&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blobkey=id&
blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=Tutkintaselost us%20B1_
2011L.pdf&SSURIsscontext=Satellite%20Server&blobwhere=134
2016078074&blobheadername1=Content-
Disposition&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

At 15:06 30 October 2012, wrote:
>Don,
>
>I fully agree that maintaining a good lookout at all times
>is a good basis for see-and-avoid.
>
>However, we believe that even the best pilot may occasionally
fail to
>detect traffic.
>There are a number of human factors which affect perception
>(distraction, selective attention, target merging into
background, target
>not
>moving wrt. background, etc).
>
>We have a presentation where on one slide we listed the
situations where
>FLARM
>has potentially better and/or earlier chances to detect traffic
than the
>human eye.
>
>These situations are:
>- Head-on and converging course (both gliders in cruise),
especially in the
> presence of clouds, snow fields etc.
>- One glider circling, another one approaching the same
thermal.
>- Two gliders circling in opposite directions (yes, we know this
shouldn't
>happen...)
>
>As you say, the fewer gliders in a thermal, the more helpful
FLARM can be.
>
>FLARM does help in wave, but the indicated relative bearing to
the threat
>may be strongly biased by wind.
>
>Needless to say, whenever a FLARM warning occurs, the pilot
should
>immediately
>try to make visual contact with the threat.
>
>In the Classic FLARM manual, we write:
>
>"Under no circumstances should a pilot or crewmember adopt
different
>tactics or deviate from the normal principles of safe
airmanship."
>
>I think that summarizes it quite nicely.
>
>Best
>--Gerhard

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 15:06 30 October 2012, wrote:
>Don,
>
>I fully agree that maintaining a good lookout at all times
>is a good basis for see-and-avoid.
>
>However, we believe that even the best pilot may occasionally fail to
>detect traffic.
>There are a number of human factors which affect perception
>(distraction, selective attention, target merging into background, target
>not
>moving wrt. background, etc).
>
>We have a presentation where on one slide we listed the situations where
>FLARM
>has potentially better and/or earlier chances to detect traffic than the
>human eye.
>
>These situations are:
>- Head-on and converging course (both gliders in cruise), especially in
the
> presence of clouds, snow fields etc.
>- One glider circling, another one approaching the same thermal.
>- Two gliders circling in opposite directions (yes, we know this
shouldn't
>happen...)
>
>As you say, the fewer gliders in a thermal, the more helpful FLARM can
be.
>
>FLARM does help in wave, but the indicated relative bearing to the threat
>may be strongly biased by wind.
>
>Needless to say, whenever a FLARM warning occurs, the pilot should
>immediately
>try to make visual contact with the threat.
>
>In the Classic FLARM manual, we write:
>
>"Under no circumstances should a pilot or crewmember adopt different
>tactics or deviate from the normal principles of safe airmanship."
>
>I think that summarizes it quite nicely.
>
>Best
>--Gerhard

Gerhard

I do not disagree with you, FLARM does help, with the emphasis on help, it
does not replace or indeed lessen the necessity for a good lookout. My
argument was contering the statement that, "The difference between midairs
and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you can
do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm." which I think you
will agree is a load of total ********. FLARM can assit the aware pilot, it
is NOT the answer to preventing mid air collisions.
In Europe we do have, or some of us do, the LX8000 which does give the
radar display, however it takes time to see all the other gliders, time
which would be beter spent looking out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[folken]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> I do not disagree with you, FLARM does help, with the emphasis on help, it
>
> does not replace or indeed lessen the necessity for a good lookout. My
>
> argument was contering the statement that, "The difference between midairs
>
> and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you can
>
> do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm." which I think you
>
> will agree is a load of total ********. FLARM can assit the aware pilot, it
>
> is NOT the answer to preventing mid air collisions.

Statically it is. Midairs, once the number 1 accident cause, are now almost nonexistent in Switzerland, since the introduction of Flarm.

You can also assume that no pilot wants a midair collision and maintains good look out. But there are limitations to the human senses, as stated by Gerhard.

We have to stop threating the glider pilot as a luminous all seeing perfect elite being. (paron the pun.) We make mistakes. Hundreds each flight. In fact its a human quality to err.

Here is where technology helps. It maintains its constant SA and fills in our human attention gaps.

- Folken

[Sean F (F2)]

So this is how we justify banning FLARM radar mode. We need to focus on takeoff and landing accidents? Two totally UNRELATED different problems.

This conversation has plunged into infantile. Its are to respect this kind of leadership. Sorry.

Ugg.

[Sean F (F2)]

Bravo Falken. +1 again and again! I wish we had more folks like you over here. Bravo!

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 17:13 30 October 2012, folken wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> I do not disagree with you, FLARM does help, with the emphasis on help,
>it
>>
>> does not replace or indeed lessen the necessity for a good lookout. My
>>
>> argument was contering the statement that, "The difference between
>midairs
>>
>> and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you
>can
>>
>> do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm." which I think you
>>
>> will agree is a load of total ********. FLARM can assit the aware
pilot,
>it
>>
>> is NOT the answer to preventing mid air collisions.
>
>Statically it is. Midairs, once the number 1 accident cause, are now
almost
>nonexistent in Switzerland, since the introduction of Flarm.
>
>You can also assume that no pilot wants a midair collision and maintains
>good look out. But there are limitations to the human senses, as stated
by
>Gerhard.
>
>We have to stop threating the glider pilot as a luminous all seeing
perfect
>elite being. (paron the pun.) We make mistakes. Hundreds each flight. In
>fact its a human quality to err.

Yes it helps, it does not provide the answer as the statement to which I
objected intimated it might. The only solution is better lookout and
bettter situational awareness however THAT can be achieved, not replacing
them with technology.

In answer to the assertion that mid-air collisions in Switzerland have been
eradicated, mid air collisions are very very rare and relying on statistics
with such a small sample is futile. As I recall the only mid air I can
recall in Switzerland over recent year was between two FLARM equipped
gliders, go figure.
>
>Here is where technology helps. It maintains its constant SA and fills in
>our human attention gaps.
>
> - Folken
>

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 29, 2012 5:32:44 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Wow! So much is assumed about the usefulness of PowerFLARM in so-called "radar mode." Its painful to read the assumption, marketing based arguments some are making loudly. FLARM itself strongly recommends not using STEALTH mode as it significantly reduces to capability of the system. Pretty clear to me. But some really want to go after this latest technology ban. Why? An apparent deathly fear of new technology. Almost a phobia. We have seen it many times before, yet it is all here! Radio's. Vario's. GPS. Eyeglasses. Again, I vote (and did so in the SSA Contest pilot poll weeks ago) for ABSOLUTELY NO restrictions, limitations or complications of any kind to the implementation and adoption of PowerFLARM until such time that: A) PowerFLARM adoption reaches a level of completeness that satisfies the initial goals (Mandatory in contests and strong growth in general US soaring) and B) it is OBJECTIVELY PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that so-called Flarm leeching is reasonably possible. To review: The goal of powerFLARM is improved safety generally in all environments (towing, clubs, contests) and a general reduction of collisions...such as the one that happened in the US a few months back at the World Championships. That's right. A nearly fatal collision just occurred in the USA where a glider was lost, a pilot was forced to bail out and was knocked unconscious on the parachute landing. Thankfully he was OK...but the truth is that collisions are STILL OCCURRING, statistically very often. Very little was said about this accident and the numerous other accidents at that event. Near misses are all to common in US contest soaring and in clubs. Collision safety is a huge concern worldwide. Regardless of these facts, some really want to ban important aspects of this impressive new innovation in soaring safety before it even gets started. Some seem more concerned about crushing any small almost impossibly unrealistic chance of improved "leeching" than achieving original goal of the system...SAFETY and prevention of needless fatal collision accidents of our friends. Safety needs to be doubled down on at all costs. It should be the policy of the US rules committee to error DEEPLY on the the side of SAFETY. I think this is true in most cases. But FLARM and collision risk is not the area to screw around with at this point. Most pilots in the US are still relying on "chance" to avoid collision. A collision occurs when both pilots do not see eachother. It is clear that visual scan's are not sufficient and never will be.. Without PowerFLARM or better technology, it's only a matter of time until you have your collision. We need to do better! When looking at those involved in these arguments, ask yourselves the following questions: 1) Who is concerned about general safety off the soaring community? 2) Who here is concerned about the slim potential for leeching harming THEM in a contest? What is the motivation? Expand safety without comprimise? Or personal concerns? Answer those questions and I think you will have some useful intelligence on this discussion. Is the PowerFLARM system worth working on a ban for the minuscule chance that someone could actually follow (LEECH) you at greater speed from outside visual range with the PowerFLARM and LX 8000? Give me a break!!!!!! Lets move on and focus on more productive things this winter. Sincerely, Sean F2

Your vote and your impassioned arguments are respectfully and duely noted.
That said, the conversation on the topic of the effect of Flarm on the sporting aspects of competition soaring are appropriate and should continue.
A number of very experienced pilots have commented here and in other forms that they has serious concerns about what "Flarm radar" will do to our sport.

[Sean F (F2)]

OK. I will stop here and let the process go along. But I think competition concerns are GREATLY outweighed by SAFETY concerns.

Good luck with this. I dont have RADAR in my glider so its not really a concern.

Sean

[Ramy]

Apparently Don have not seen the many demonstrations and articles proving that see and avoid does not work (except in thermals when eye contact can be maintained to some extent).
Don, other then when thermaling and in the traffic pattern (which is only 20-30% of typical flight) you may as well fly blind folded and your chances for mid air will remain about the same. The problem is that many pilots believe that they can see and avoid since they always see traffic which is not on collision course without realizing that they can not see the one which will hit them. Also it will be interesting if we could put a camera in the cockpit of those claiming that they always scan to find out how much scanning they actually do during a 5 hours XC flight... Looking for lift under the clouds ahead is not considerd scanning!

Ramy

[Ramy]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:12:54 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Bravo Falken. +1 again and again! I wish we had more folks like you over here. Bravo!

I second that.

The problem with some folks is that they are clueless about the risks and as such are in a higher risk. They believe that the reason they did not have any midair yet is due to their good scanning technique, while in fact it is 99% luck due to the big sky theory.

For a good reading on the subject of see and avoid check
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/bca0107c.xml (this link is few years old and currently not working, hopefully temporary)

Also a list of youtube videos showing how much we can trust our eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
-note: let it buffer all the way first, without letting it run, then
watch it full screen and really count!

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-25/1416088
-blind spot, eek...

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-5/1400321
-relative shades

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-14/1408013
-implied green

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-3/1400187
-false center

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-15/1408125
-false spiral

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illlusion-22/1414565
-implied square

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-19/1412692
-parallel lines

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-6/1400351
-parallels

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-18/1412564
-wiggling ovals

[Ramy]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:25:20 PM UTC-7, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 17:13 30 October 2012, folken wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> I do not disagree with you, FLARM does help, with the emphasis on help,
>
> >it
>
> >>
>
> >> does not replace or indeed lessen the necessity for a good lookout. My
>
> >>
>
> >> argument was contering the statement that, "The difference between
>
> >midairs
>
> >>
>
> >> and all other cause of accidents is that it is the only type which you
>
> >can
>
> >>
>
> >> do almost nothing to prevent it, except using flarm." which I think you
>
> >>
>
> >> will agree is a load of total ********. FLARM can assit the aware
>
> pilot,
>
> >it
>
> >>
>
> >> is NOT the answer to preventing mid air collisions.
>
> >
>
> >Statically it is. Midairs, once the number 1 accident cause, are now
>
> almost
>
> >nonexistent in Switzerland, since the introduction of Flarm.
>
> >
>
> >You can also assume that no pilot wants a midair collision and maintains
>
> >good look out. But there are limitations to the human senses, as stated
>
> by
>
> >Gerhard.
>
> >
>
> >We have to stop threating the glider pilot as a luminous all seeing
>
> perfect
>
> >elite being. (paron the pun.) We make mistakes. Hundreds each flight. In
>
> >fact its a human quality to err.
>
>
>
> Yes it helps, it does not provide the answer as the statement to which I
>
> objected intimated it might. The only solution is better lookout and
>
> bettter situational awareness however THAT can be achieved, not replacing
>
> them with technology.
>
>
>
> In answer to the assertion that mid-air collisions in Switzerland have been
>
> eradicated, mid air collisions are very very rare and relying on statistics
>
> with such a small sample is futile. As I recall the only mid air I can
>
> recall in Switzerland over recent year was between two FLARM equipped
>
> gliders, go figure.
>
> >
>
> >Here is where technology helps. It maintains its constant SA and fills in
>
> >our human attention gaps.
>
> >
>
> > - Folken
>
> >

I hope no one takes Don comments seriously. It is evident he doesn't know what he is talking about with gems like: midairs are very very rare, see and avoid is the only solution to midairs, flarm was designed for wave etc. Please spare us.

Ramy

Ramy

[[email protected]]

Don,

> In answer to the assertion that mid-air collisions in Switzerland have been
>
> eradicated, mid air collisions are very very rare and relying on statistics

Switzerland is a small country. I have an incomplete list here
with midairs between 2006 and 2007 in Central Europe. The list implies
a lower bound of:
14 mid-airs
24 fatalities.

I'm not aware of a centralised European accident database, so statistics
is a bit tricky indeed, but it can theoretically be done by wading through
a few 1000s of reports from various national authorities.

> recall in Switzerland over recent year was between two FLARM equipped
> gliders, go figure.

http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/2012.pdf

Mid-air between an ASH 25 and a Stemme near Samedan, April 2007:

1.3 Information concerning the aircraft

Motorglider HB-2XXX was fitted with a traffic and collision warning
system FLARM F4 which was not operational because its UHF antenna was
not mounted.

[ the ASH had an operational FLARM ].

The only mid-air events I'm personally aware of where both involved aircraft
had an operational FLARM on board was Finland 2011 and Uvalde 2012.

FLARM helps, but it doesn't provide 100% protection.

Best
--Gerhard

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 10:57 31 October 2012, wrote:
>Don,
>
>> In answer to the assertion that mid-air collisions in Switzerland have
>been
>>
>> eradicated, mid air collisions are very very rare and relying on
>statistics
>
>Switzerland is a small country. I have an incomplete list here
>with midairs between 2006 and 2007 in Central Europe. The list implies
>a lower bound of:
> 14 mid-airs
> 24 fatalities.
>
>I'm not aware of a centralised European accident database, so statistics
>is a bit tricky indeed, but it can theoretically be done by wading
through
>a few 1000s of reports from various national authorities.
>
>> recall in Switzerland over recent year was between two FLARM equipped
>> gliders, go figure.
>
>http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/2012.pdf
>
>Mid-air between an ASH 25 and a Stemme near Samedan, April 2007:
>
> 1.3 Information concerning the aircraft
>
> Motorglider HB-2XXX was fitted with a traffic and collision warning
> system FLARM F4 which was not operational because its UHF antenna was
> not mounted.
>
>[ the ASH had an operational FLARM ].
>
>The only mid-air events I'm personally aware of where both involved
>aircraft
>had an operational FLARM on board was Finland 2011 and Uvalde 2012.
>
>FLARM helps, but it doesn't provide 100% protection.
>
>Best
>--Gerhard

FLARM is like the flashing blue light and sirens on a police car, it does
not in itself provide any protection at all. Both the above rely on the
human beings being able to interpret what they see, a flashing light and or
a sound, and take the necessary action. There are those who believe that
there is a technology solution which makes looking out less of a priority.
I particularly like the statement that people do not see the other aircraft
before it hits them, of course they don't, if they saw it the collision
would not take place. Of course FLARM can help, IF it is used as intended
and the human bit understands what he is bing told. It still relies on good
old fashioned lookout.
It is not unknown for two aircraft hitting each other when under radar
control, it is not the technology that is the problem. Accidents happen
because we are human, and sometimes fail to do what we should.
My comment about FLARM aircraft being involved in collisions was not a
critism of FLARM, more a comment that despite FLARM it can still, and will
happen.
>

[folken]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:

> FLARM is like the flashing blue light and sirens on a police car, it does
>
> not in itself provide any protection at all. Both the above rely on the
>
> human beings being able to interpret what they see, a flashing light and or
>
> a sound, and take the necessary action.

> There are those who believe that
> there is a technology solution which makes looking out less of a priority..

Nobody, right in their head actually believes that. Nobody that has been instructed in FLARM usage does believe that.

> I particularly like the statement that people do not see the other aircraft
>
> before it hits them, of course they don't, if they saw it the collision
>
> would not take place.

Which is exactly the situation where FLARM comes in and tells you the pilot to pay attention and prevent the collision. So these stories will be a thing of the past.

> Of course FLARM can help, IF it is used as intended
> and the human bit understands what he is bing told.

If you fly in an aircraft where you do not understand what each instrument on your panel does, and are unfamiliar with the procedures that this entitles (for example pulling out right with a imminent head on collision) You do _not_ belong into this aircraft. These are the very basics.

> It still relies on good
> old fashioned lookout.

Flarm does not replace the pilot or good airmanship. It augments the pilot's senses.


> It is not unknown for two aircraft hitting each other when under radar
>
> control, it is not the technology that is the problem. Accidents happen
>
> because we are human, and sometimes fail to do what we should.
>
> My comment about FLARM aircraft being involved in collisions was not a
>
> critism of FLARM, more a comment that despite FLARM it can still, and will
>
> happen.

Since flarm doesn't pilot the aircraft for you: of course it can. But a critical situation is

1. far less likely to arise.
2. The outcome of a critical situation far less likely to cause an accident..

Statistics from .ch: Note the dip from 2004 onwards.
http://www.segelflug.ch/d/6safety/pdf/Unfallstatistik_CH.pdf

And i checked the accidents reports from 2007 onwards: There hasn't been a midair since the introduction of FLARM in Switzerland. (Flarm equipped and _in working order_ aircraft.)

- Folken

[Ramy]

Don, the statement said " can not see the one which will hit them" not the one which hit them! You misunderstood again. What the statement means is that your eye can barely detect non moving target, and the non moving target is the one which will hit you. I suggest you do some research before posting more BS.

Ramy

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 10/31/2012 6:46 AM, Don Johnstone wrote:
> Of course FLARM can help, IF it is used as intended
> and the human bit understands what he is bing told. It still relies on good
> old fashioned lookout.

If Flarm alerts you, it's probably because your "good old fashioned
lookout" has not alerted you. Flarm does depend on you finding the other
glider that caused the alert, but finding a threat after it's position
is given to you is not part of "good old fashioned lookout".

The pilot should continue to use his "[not really so] good old fashioned
lookout" after he has installed a Flarm unit, because there are still
aircraft that don't have Flarm or a transponder, and because Flarm isn't
perfect.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 16:53 31 October 2012, Ramy wrote:
>Don, the statement said " can not see the one which will hit them" not
the
>=
>one which hit them! You misunderstood again. What the statement means is
>t=
>hat your eye can barely detect non moving target, and the non moving
>target=
> is the one which will hit you. I suggest you do some research before
>posti=
>ng more BS.=20
>
>Ramy

Yes Ramy I do understand that. FLARM was originally designed to alert
pilots flying in wave, where the relative movement of soaring gliders is
very small, and their direction of travel, (track) is often unrelated to
their heading (direction they are pointing) to an outside observer. FLARM
is very good at alerting us of that situation and quite often the rate of
closure is very small.
That is just one situation where FLARM is excellent however it does not
necessarily mean that it is good in other situations.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 16:35 31 October 2012, folken wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:00:04 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> FLARM is like the flashing blue light and sirens on a police car, it
does
>>=20
>> not in itself provide any protection at all. Both the above rely on the
>>=20
>> human beings being able to interpret what they see, a flashing light
and
>=
>or
>>=20
>> a sound, and take the necessary action.=20
>
>> There are those who believe that
>> there is a technology solution which makes looking out less of a
>priority=
>..
>
>Nobody, right in their head actually believes that. Nobody that has been
>in=
>structed in FLARM usage does believe that.
>=20
>> I particularly like the statement that people do not see the other
>aircra=
>ft
>>=20
>> before it hits them, of course they don't, if they saw it the collision
>>=20
>> would not take place.=20
>
>Which is exactly the situation where FLARM comes in and tells you the
>pilot=
> to pay attention and prevent the collision. So these stories will be a
>thi=
>ng of the past.
>
>> Of course FLARM can help, IF it is used as intended
>> and the human bit understands what he is bing told.=20
>
>If you fly in an aircraft where you do not understand what each
instrument
>=
>on your panel does, and are unfamiliar with the procedures that this
>entitl=
>es (for example pulling out right with a imminent head on collision) You
>do=
> _not_ belong into this aircraft. These are the very basics.
>
>> It still relies on good=20
>> old fashioned lookout.
>
>Flarm does not replace the pilot or good airmanship. It augments the
>pilot'=
>s senses.
>
>=20
>> It is not unknown for two aircraft hitting each other when under radar
>>=20
>> control, it is not the technology that is the problem. Accidents happen
>>=20
>> because we are human, and sometimes fail to do what we should.
>>=20
>> My comment about FLARM aircraft being involved in collisions was not a
>>=20
>> critism of FLARM, more a comment that despite FLARM it can still, and
>wil=
>l
>>=20
>> happen.=20
>
>Since flarm doesn't pilot the aircraft for you: of course it can. But a
>cri=
>tical situation is=20
>
>1. far less likely to arise.=20
>2. The outcome of a critical situation far less likely to cause an
>accident=
>..
>
>Statistics from .ch: Note the dip from 2004 onwards.
>http://www.segelflug.ch/d/6safety/pdf/Unfallstatistik_CH.pdf
>
>And i checked the accidents reports from 2007 onwards: There hasn't been
a
>=
>midair since the introduction of FLARM in Switzerland. (Flarm equipped
and
>=
>_in working order_ aircraft.)
>
> - Folken

and 99% of people who enter a retirment home die there, does not mean that
retirement homes are dangerous places, just that the statistics are
meaningless. In the case you put forward the sample is far too small to
draw a meaningful conclusion. There could be other factors at work, like
less flying taking place, more conspicuous markings, better understanding
by pilots of the problem ad nausea.
Better lookout and situational awareness is they key, anyone who thinks
otherwise should stay at home in a locked room, they are far too dangerous
to be allowed out.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:00:03 PM UTC-7, Don Johnstone wrote:

> and 99% of people who enter a retirment home die there, does not mean that
> retirement homes are dangerous places, just that the statistics are
> meaningless. In the case you put forward the sample is far too small to
> draw a meaningful conclusion. There could be other factors at work, like
> less flying taking place, more conspicuous markings, better understanding
> by pilots of the problem ad nausea.
> Better lookout and situational awareness is they key, anyone who thinks
> otherwise should stay at home in a locked room, they are far too dangerous
> to be allowed out.

Ad nauseam is the right characterization - this comes across as continual nit-picking and nay-saying in denial of available facts and logic - and in contradiction of some of your own prior statements regarding admitted effectiveness of Flarm as an aid to situational awareness specific to traffic conflicts.

I've flown with it, I know it works - in my retirement home people live longer than in Don's so I'm moving there.

9B

[folken]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:00:03 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:
> Better lookout and situational awareness is they key, anyone who thinks
>
> otherwise should stay at home in a locked room, they are far too dangerous
>
> to be allowed out.

You know whats far more dangerous? Pilots resistant to critique.

If three pilots tell you that what you are doing|thinking is wrong or dangerous: it probably is.

[Ramy]

Don, can you back up your claim that Flarm was designed mainly for wave flying by providing some reference?
Also,can you share with us your actual experience flying with Flarm?

Ramy

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 02:05 01 November 2012, Ramy wrote:
>Don, can you back up your claim that Flarm was designed mainly for wave
>flying by providing some reference?
>Also,can you share with us your actual experience flying with Flarm?
>
>Ramy

The original FLARM was conceived to assist pilots in detecting difficult to
see gliders, particulary in wave where the relative movement is small, the
closure rate is slow and the track of another glider cannot easily be
detected by observing the way it is pointing.
I fly a Discus fitted with FLARM and an LX8000. The LX8000 linked to the
FLARM provides a "radar" display on the moving map. I have found the system
to be useful when flying in wave, I have found it to be less useful, if not
distracting in thermals. On a short 3 mile ridge with 20 or 30 gliders it
is positively lethal.
I do not use the LX8000 display at all when flying a ridge or in thermals.
I have used it when flying in wave, however I still feel the time spent
looking at the LX display and trying to make sense of it would be better
spent looking out.
The most scary thing, even using just the clock lights on the basic system,
is that it is misleading when flying a ridge in higher wind speeds. The
light bears no relation to the direction of the threat so I hear the bleep
and look all round. I have to say that there have been very few occasions
when the alert has sounded and I have not seen the glider causing it before
the alert sounded, lucky maybe?

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:05:38 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> Don, can you back up your claim that Flarm was designed mainly for wave flying by providing some reference? Also,can you share with us your actual experience flying with Flarm? Ramy

I recall hearing that Flarm was developed to attempt to address the issue of mid air collisions and collisions with obstacles in the Alps. There is a big issue with coming around the corner of a rock and there is another glider. They also have a huge number of wires and such that you can't see.
Maybe the Flarm folks can clarify this bit of history. I'm sure we all would like to know.
UH

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:45:02 AM UTC-7, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 02:05 01 November 2012, Ramy wrote:
>
> >Don, can you back up your claim that Flarm was designed mainly for wave
>
> >flying by providing some reference?
>
> >Also,can you share with us your actual experience flying with Flarm?
>
> >
>
> >Ramy
>
>
>
> The original FLARM was conceived to assist pilots in detecting difficult to
>
> see gliders, particulary in wave where the relative movement is small, the
>
> closure rate is slow and the track of another glider cannot easily be
>
> detected by observing the way it is pointing.
>
> I fly a Discus fitted with FLARM and an LX8000. The LX8000 linked to the
>
> FLARM provides a "radar" display on the moving map. I have found the system
>
> to be useful when flying in wave, I have found it to be less useful, if not
>
> distracting in thermals. On a short 3 mile ridge with 20 or 30 gliders it
>
> is positively lethal.
>
> I do not use the LX8000 display at all when flying a ridge or in thermals..
>
> I have used it when flying in wave, however I still feel the time spent
>
> looking at the LX display and trying to make sense of it would be better
>
> spent looking out.
>
> The most scary thing, even using just the clock lights on the basic system,
>
> is that it is misleading when flying a ridge in higher wind speeds. The
>
> light bears no relation to the direction of the threat so I hear the bleep
>
> and look all round. I have to say that there have been very few occasions
>
> when the alert has sounded and I have not seen the glider causing it before
>
> the alert sounded, lucky maybe?

Lucky, yes.

In a dozen flights I probably picked up 10-15 conflicts that I had not already determined to be a threat visually. Examples include: an LS-8 doing a zoomie from down below my nose after overtaking me from behind/below, a Discus 2 that decided to leave a thermal by cutting through the middle of the circle and across my path from above/behind, a glider a half mile abeam of me that changed to a converging course line. On top of that there were multiple cases of traffic encountered on course and gliders adjusting their circles in thermals, I found most of them immediately useful and a couple were downright sobering.

I never use the radar display in a thermal - it's not good for that and not intended for that, but it is useful in making you aware when a glider you might not have seen is now in your general vicinity. Mis-using the radar display by going heads-down in close quarters is not grounds for a sweeping criticism of the device. You could make the same criticism of an airspeed indicator - staring at it until you fly into an obstacle would be dangerous and dumb, but isn't a reason to remove the instrument from your panel.

I recall the same as UH - that Flarm was developed for Alpine flying, but not especially for wave - (which is a small portion of overall flight time). I always understood Flarm was targeted at a general set of glider collision threat scenarios - all of which would be exacerbated by the traffic funneling that mountain flying of every form tends to generate. I expect Urs could clarify.

9B

[Mike the Strike]

I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of the"stealth" mode.

Mike

[Tim Taylor]

On Nov 1, 9:23*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. *My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas *is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. *The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of *the"stealth" mode.
>
> Mike

Mike,

I had exactly that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this
year. Was near cloudbase at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100
knots indicated or about 120 mph over the ground. Light angle was low
as I was running back to the southwest and the air noise from flying
fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My Butterfly display switched to
conflict mode and showed a target straight ahead and at my altitude.
I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3 pass me in the
opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was around
240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I have
no problems recommending stealth mode for contests.

Tim (TT)

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 15:23 01 November 2012, Mike the Strike wrote:
>I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets,
including one
>in=
>cident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-
on with a
>colleag=
>ue at very high closing speeds. My concern with
PowerFlarm and its cheesy
>=
>antennas is that the range may not be sufficient to
adequately warn me in
>=
>this scenario. The more information the unit can provide
the better -
>that=
> is why I oppose use of the"stealth" mode.
>
>Mike
>

Mike,

This link to an illustration of glider sizes versus time to
impact and speeds might offer reassurance about
sufficiency of warning in the head on case - assuming that
the PF range collision alert range is at least as good as the
less powerful Swiss Flarm version.

For example, with both gliders doing 108 knots towards
each other on a collision course, the first PF alert would be
at around 2km separation and at that distance a 15m
wingspan will subtend an angle smaller than a screw head
on the instrument panel.

http://www.flarm.com/files/glider_shapes_en.pdf

John Galloway

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 05:50:48 -0700, unclhank wrote:

> I recall hearing that Flarm was developed to attempt to address the
> issue of mid air collisions and collisions with obstacles in the Alps.
> There is a big issue with coming around the corner of a rock and there
> is another glider. They also have a huge number of wires and such that
> you can't see.
>
I heard that too - especially the point about flying round a corner in a
mountain face and meeting traffic coming the other way. I think that also
explains the built-in obstacle database.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Richard[_9_]]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
> On Nov 1, 9:23*am, Mike the Strike > wrote: > I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. *My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas *is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. *The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of *the"stealth" mode. > > Mike Mike, I had exactly that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near cloudbase at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120 mph over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the southwest and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My Butterfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight ahead and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3 pass me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was around 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I have no problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT)

Tim,

I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le Display, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, so I do not recommend the Stealth Mode. More time to identify the threat is much better.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Nov 1, 7:42*pm, Richard > wrote:
> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 9:23*am, Mike the Strike > wrote: > I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. *My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas *is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. *The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of *the"stealth" mode. > > Mike Mike, I had exactly that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near cloudbase at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120 mph over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the southwest and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My Butterfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight ahead and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3 pass me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was around 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I have no problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT)
>
> Tim,
>
> I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le Display, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, *so I do not recommend the Stealth Mode. * More time to identify the threat is much better..
>
> Richardwww.craggyaero.com

Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle
of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack
traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a
foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the
one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius
of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply
don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few
minutes.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Richard[_9_]]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:01:12 PM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Nov 1, 7:42*pm, Richard > wrote: > On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote: > > On Nov 1, 9:23*am, Mike the Strike > wrote: > I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. *My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas *is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. *The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of *the"stealth" mode. > > Mike Mike, I had exactly that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near cloudbase at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120 mph over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the southwest and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My Butterfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight ahead and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3 pass me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was around 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I have no problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT) > > Tim, > > I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le Display, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, *so I do not recommend the Stealth Mode. * More time to identify the threat is much better. > > Richardwww.craggyaero..com Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few minutes. Evan Ludeman / T8

Change your zoom on the Ultimate Le and you will only see the ones closer. The lady discriminates the threat with a voice warning "traffic 5 oclock 50 feet low"



Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Richard[_9_]]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:01:12 PM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Nov 1, 7:42*pm, Richard > wrote: > On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote: > > On Nov 1, 9:23*am, Mike the Strike > wrote: > I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. *My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas *is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. *The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of *the"stealth" mode. > > Mike Mike, I had exactly that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near cloudbase at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120 mph over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the southwest and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My Butterfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight ahead and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3 pass me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was around 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I have no problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT) > > Tim, > > I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le Display, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, *so I do not recommend the Stealth Mode. * More time to identify the threat is much better. > > Richardwww.craggyaero..com Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few minutes. Evan Ludeman / T8

On SeeYou Mobile you can also set the zoom level that shows the Flarm Radar..

Always , Never, 1,2,5,10,20 nm you may want it at higher levels for situational awareness and to see fast moving ADS-B. I saw an ADS-B target that was coming out of Grant County at a climb rate of +6000 fpm and moving fast.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Michael Clarke]

At 00:01 02 November 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>On Nov 1, 7:42=A0pm, Richard wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
>> > On Nov 1, 9:23=A0am, Mike the Strike wrote: > I ha=
>ve had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one
>incide=
>nt a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague
>a=
>t very high closing speeds. =A0My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy
>an=
>tennas =A0is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me
in
>=
>this scenario. =A0The more information the unit can provide the better -
>th=
>at is why I oppose use of =A0the"stealth" mode. > > Mike Mike, I had
>exactl=
>y that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near
>cloudba=
>se at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120
>mph=
> over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the
>southwes=
>t and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My
>But=
>terfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight
>ahead=
> and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3
>pass=
> me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was
>ar=
>ound 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I
have
>no=
> problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT)
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le
>D=
>isplay, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, =A0so I do not
>reco=
>mmend the Stealth Mode. =A0 More time to identify the threat is much
>better=
>..
>>
>> Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
>Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle
>of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack
>traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a
>foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the
>one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius
>of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply
>don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few
>minutes.
>
>Evan Ludeman / T8
>
Evan,

Just to be clear, you see the traffic 4 miles out but you only get the
collision
warning message when it close enough to be a potential collision warning.

When you have flown in a Flarm rich environment for a season, you will
understand why putting it in stealth mode feels like flying with a
blindfold on.

Mike

[Tim Taylor]

Yes Mike (and Richard too),

There is no question that Flarm is a great tool for soaring. The issue here is should we use full range and information during contests.

Are we willing to change the sport so much and at what price? I have flown two nationals with Flarm and it was interesting. But, I personally feel it changes the sport too much in the full mode. It will spark an arms race of additional information and software analysis.

It allows easy leaching and changes the tactical flying style. You can see what gliders up to nearly ten miles away are doing.

At the nationals level I feel we should have Flarm in stealth mode. This provides the safety it was developed for, but allows pilots to focus on their own decision making and not on what pilots two to three miles away are doing.

I look forward to all the information that Flarm and new software will provide in flight, just also want to preserve the essence of competition soaring which is pilot against pilot.

Tim

[[email protected]]

> I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of the"stealth" mode.


Mike,

we all know the history we had with poor range beginning of this season.

But I do think we have that under control now. If you still find 'cheesy' installations,
feel free to invite the responsible operators to improve them in everybody's interest.

Luckily, there's a correlation between the reception characteristics of most
installations and the conflict situation with highest approach speed (head-on)---
most antennas are in the nose and radiate best in front of the glider.

For parallel course, you don't need 10NM range because the potential closing
speeds are much lower.

We recommend not activating stealth!

Best
--Gerhard

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Nov 2, 4:23*am, wrote:

> We recommend not activating stealth!
>
> Best
> --Gerhard

Presuming that the systems and installations in use have been well
tested in open mode for adequate range in all directions in open mode:
why not?

I really only want one thing from flarm: anti-collision warning.
Tracking "bugs" across a small cockpit display and trying to make
tactical decisions based on same is simply not a game I am interested
in playing.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

> I recall hearing that Flarm was developed to attempt to address the issue of mid air collisions and collisions with obstacles in the Alps. There is a big issue with coming around the corner of a rock and there is another glider. They also have a huge number of wires and such that you can't see.
>
> Maybe the Flarm folks can clarify this bit of history. I'm sure we all would like to know.

FLARM has been designed and deployed since the beginning for gliders and light aviation.
It has *not* been designed specifically for wave flight, but rather to cover a wide range
of situations where the human eye can fail. (Wave flight accounts only for a very
small percentage of flight time at least here in the Alps, so the benefit would've been minimal).

The FLARM algorithm is general enough to support any type of aircraft and maneuvers,
with the exception perhaps of aerobatics.

Initially, most installations were in gliders, but tow planes and other GA aircraft
soon followed.

The collision algorithm does work in wave, however with the caveat that the relative
bearing may be off because of the wind influence. This is covered in the manual.
(BTW, the relative bearing will also be off if you fly inverted! :)

I hope this clarifies a few questions!

Best
--Gerhard

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:57:01 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> Yes Mike (and Richard too), There is no question that Flarm is a great tool for soaring. The issue here is should we use full range and information during contests. Are we willing to change the sport so much and at what price? I have flown two nationals with Flarm and it was interesting. But, I personally feel it changes the sport too much in the full mode. It will spark an arms race of additional information and software analysis. It allows easy leaching and changes the tactical flying style. You can see what gliders up to nearly ten miles away are doing. At the nationals level I feel we should have Flarm in stealth mode. This provides the safety it was developed for, but allows pilots to focus on their own decision making and not on what pilots two to three miles away are doing. I look forward to all the information that Flarm and new software will provide in flight, just also want to preserve the essence of competition soaring which is pilot against pilot. Tim

This states the case very well. It will be interesting to see how many will agree with your view. Personally, I do, but know we need to get enough experience to allow the group to guide the long term situation.
UH

[Andy[_1_]]

On Nov 2, 1:23*am, wrote:

> we all know the history we had with poor range beginning of this season.
> > But I do think we have that under control now.

Gerhard,

Would you please sumarise what, if any, changes have been made since
the beginning of the season that would have resulted in increased
FLARM range for the US portable and core systems.

The only change I am aware of is a recall of portables to fit a band
pass filter but that recall has not yet been made.


thanks

Andy GY

[[email protected]]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 6:13:27 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:57:01 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
>
> > Yes Mike (and Richard too), There is no question that Flarm is a great tool for soaring. The issue here is should we use full range and information during contests. Are we willing to change the sport so much and at what price? I have flown two nationals with Flarm and it was interesting. But, I personally feel it changes the sport too much in the full mode. It will spark an arms race of additional information and software analysis. It allows easy leaching and changes the tactical flying style. You can see what gliders up to nearly ten miles away are doing. At the nationals level I feel we should have Flarm in stealth mode. This provides the safety it was developed for, but allows pilots to focus on their own decision making and not on what pilots two to three miles away are doing. I look forward to all the information that Flarm and new software will provide in flight, just also want to preserve the essence of competition soaring which is pilot against pilot. Tim
>
>
>
> This states the case very well. It will be interesting to see how many will agree with your view. Personally, I do, but know we need to get enough experience to allow the group to guide the long term situation.
>
> UH

I'm not sure I appreciate the "arms race" concern. Flarm costs a bit more than a regular logger and upgrades to the software we all use aren't typically that expensive. I think it would be good to have some additional incentive to adopt Flarm for contest flying in particular and if a belief in a modest tactical advantage encourages some more pilots to adopt I think that's a good thing.

I am yet to be convinced that Flarm does much to alter competition dynamics since it has only slightly greater range than the human eyeball and is not (yet) as good at picking up details like climb rates. The European experience has not surfaced big changes in the character of racing to my knowledge and the Europeans have rejected use of Stealth mode. What little change I have picked up from my own experience was modestly positive - it made racing feel a bit more "head to head". If world championships will have no-stealth Flarm allowed then the arguments about how differences in the US rules hinder the competitiveness of US team pilots would also apply to Flarm usage - particularly at Nationals.

In general I am leery of efforts to retard the adoption of technology as the fears are typically overstated and the enforcement can be cumbersome. The exception for me would be cases where there is a potential for reduced safety from use of a technology - artificial horizons and the temptation to fly in clouds for instance - not the case for Flarm.

9B

[Sean F (F2)]

Bravo 9B.