FLARM in Stealth Mode at US 15M/Standard Nationals - Loved It! [Archive]

Papa3[_2_]

August 6th 15, 01:48 AM

Leaving aside bats vs. eagles for a minute. Here are my experiences with recent contests I've flown. Take it for what it's worth:

Flarm tactical uses: 1) Pre-start gaggles. With a 5 mile radius cylinder, it's not unusual for gaggles to form several miles apart. Flarm immediately tipped me off to a big gaggle forming outside the gate in better air. Spent a lot of heads-down time keeping an eye on that one to see how many, how much higher, etc. 2) Line on the first leg out of the gate. Are a bunch of guys deviating left of course line? Right? This was huge at Dannsville last year. 3) Anyone out there? Anyone? Several times at Mifflin and at Dannsville Flarm showed other gliders on course when I was alone (late starts trying to catch the early starters). Just knowing that there are other gliders not that far ahead is useful information in and of itself.

Bottom line is that I spent a lot more time looking at the "scope" when Flarm was allowed as a tactical tool than I did when it was purely collision avoidance. While I agree you can't use Flarm to lead you to the better thermals, it absolutely helps you keep in touch with the pack, especially when coursline changes matter (jumping streets, aiming for different parts of an AAT cylinder, etc.) or when you want to keep tabs on the big gaggles (either on course or pre-start) .

P3

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:17:13 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 4:31:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > My idea of compromise is anything that provides awareness of imminent collision while providing no useful tactical information.
> > If you can see gliders ahead, you know where they think or know the lift is and you can chase them. Adding climb rate and altitude only makes it more useful, attractive and compelling in use.
> > I flew in Stealth at Mifflin and found it completely satisfactory dealing with oncoming traffic in the ridge(closing speeds 200+).
> > UH
>
> Hank,
>
> When you say "if you can see gliders ahead" do you mean with Flarm or with your eyes? Is it a problem that pilots can see gliders ahead of them visually and use it for tactical purposes?
>
> It has always seemed a bit unfair to me that the guys with 20/10 vision have a tactical advantage over the guys who can't correct to better than 20/25. I've found that Flarm levels the playing field a bit so that us guys with crappy vision aren't at such a disadvantage. Flarm really isn't very useful tactically beyond about three to four miles - which is about what the eagle-eyed guys can see. Of course the eagle-eyed guys might like that the bat-eyed are at a disadvantage.
>
>

August 6th 15, 02:00 AM

By not having any useful or interesting targets to look at on the screen I found my eyes were outside more often. I must admit I look out and up at clouds rather than out and on the horizon, scanning for traffic. Here I found FLARM very useful. When an audible alert went off I was able to go right to it rather than refocus at a new distance.

As for the competitive aspects, the reason I find competitions interesting is to see how my soaring skills stack up against other pilots. By that I mean which human can best fly like a bird.

Yes, the top guy often would be the same but I think the full use of FLARM as a tactical instrument would not yield a valid result through the middle of the score sheet.

XC

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 6th 15, 02:30 AM

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 5:48:59 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> Leaving aside bats vs. eagles for a minute. Here are my experiences with recent contests I've flown. Take it for what it's worth:
>
> Flarm tactical uses: 1) Pre-start gaggles. With a 5 mile radius cylinder, it's not unusual for gaggles to form several miles apart. Flarm immediately tipped me off to a big gaggle forming outside the gate in better air. Spent a lot of heads-down time keeping an eye on that one to see how many, how much higher, etc. 2) Line on the first leg out of the gate. Are a bunch of guys deviating left of course line? Right? This was huge at Dannsville last year. 3) Anyone out there? Anyone? Several times at Mifflin and at Dannsville Flarm showed other gliders on course when I was alone (late starts trying to catch the early starters). Just knowing that there are other gliders not that far ahead is useful information in and of itself.

Those seem like useful things to know. If I understand, you are saying it is bad for pilots to know these useful things - things that they also can know to a great extent by looking out the window and using a diligent scan.

I'm still trying to take in what exactly the excitement is about having less information. The entire history of the sport has been about having better information - variometers, total energy, glide computers, GPS, moving map displays, etc. Those all had detractors, so I'm trying to figure out if this is about something materially different and what, exactly, that is.

Stealth mode is available for anyone to use and it would be a lot easier in terms of contest staff workload (and liability) to leave it as a personal choice. I'd also like to understand what the appeal is, if any, about regulating other people's use. Stealth is symmetrical - you get what you give in terms of information. Why is that not sufficient?

9B

Papa3[_2_]

August 6th 15, 02:49 AM

Wow - I would have thought it completely self-evident that having this information via a screen was/is "bad" relative to what we (I) traditionally think of as "the sport of soaring". Not meant to sound sarcastic - just shows how differently people can look at this topic.

Without regurgitating a long post I made about a year back, it's completely obvious that IF we go in the direction of using Flarm as a tactical tool, then the next frontier of development will be highly optimized screens that interpret the data and present it in a way that's optimized for competition. Need to track KS or P7. Check. Two gaggles 3 miles ahead and want to know which has achieved the highest average climb among the 5 gliders involved. Check. Is the glider to the left or right achieving a better L/D over the last 2 minutes. Roger.

Of course, the best display and best software will cost more money, so let's just drop another $10K on top of the $100K we've already got locked up in this silly sport.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to get opinions from people who have actually flown under both scenarios.

P3

[email protected]

August 6th 15, 03:10 AM

Respectfully Andy, I truly believe a contest is more interesting if it compares one pilot's soaring ability against another's.

A contest with unlimited use of FLARM and/or outside-the-cockpit sources compares pilots' capability to gather, synthesize, and analyze the abilities of multiple people (other pilots through FLARM, weatherman, call DJ on the iPhone, etc) This is decidedly un-birdlike and not as fun.

XC

Dave Springford

August 6th 15, 03:16 AM

To provide more input to the discussion - I was never able to get my flarm to go into stealth mode during the contest. I used the $PFLAC,S,PRIV,1 code in the config file and provided that code to two other pilots who when they inserted the code into their config file, it placed their flarm in stealth mode.

No idea why my flarm ignored the command in the config file. To counteract this, I set my range to 2 km and 300 m so I would in principal have the same parameters as those in stealth.

So before we merrily go down the stealth path, let it be known, there are problems with the implementation.

As to the flying, it does remove the tactical value but, like John, I would prefer a greater range than 2 km. It also seems to me that the "climb rate" is considered the biggest advantage to the leeches.

If stealth is going to be implemented, I would prefer to see stealth mode opened up to a larger range, maybe 5 km and hide the climb rate.

As to the question of whether or not Comp ID's are displayed in stealth mode - I like to see the ID's. It makes the race more fun if you can see who you are ahead of and who you are behind. It brings back memories of the days of assigned tasks!

John Cochrane[_3_]

August 6th 15, 03:31 AM

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:49:23 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> Wow - I would have thought it completely self-evident that having this information via a screen was/is "bad" relative to what we (I) traditionally think of as "the sport of soaring".

The "sport" often involves highly tactical decisions of followng other gliders. Is it necessarily better that this is limited by the mark IV eybeball, so gliders have to follow very closely to stay with gaggles? Is it not possibly better to have a wider view, a chance to go off on your own and still keep track of others?

Yes, people do use flarm for tactical advantage. Right now, really, the display of where other glders are within 4 miles is the main use. The climb rates, as others have pointed out, are next to useless.

Cost is a non-issue. Advantage is a non-issue. We have the flarms anyway. We either artificially disable their capabilities or we use them at no extra cost for their full ability, and everyone has them. If you're worried about cost, $160,000 new gliders are orders of magniutde more than any electronics we are contemplating.

Let's worry about hypothetical new 100k instruments if and when they arrive.. For now the issue is, do we use the full capabilities of an instrument everyone has anyway or not?

So just how terrible is it to have a slightly better situalational awareness of where the gliders are within 4 miles -- and especially behind where you can't see?

One thing I like about full flarm is it actually breaks up gaggles. people can go off on their own for a bit and not worry about being alone all day.

Yes it's different. Yes it's new. But our job is not historic preservation. Our job is to have fun and enjoy soaring and advance the sport.

What I have not seen in the case for stealth mode is a clear statement of just what is the awful problem that we're trying to fix. Not hypotheticals, what have you actually observed in flarm contests that is a terrible problem requiring banning this interesting new technology?

Yes, you can see start gaggles that you otherwise might have missed unless you sat off the back of KS tail all day. Yes, you can see some other gaggles forming that you might have missed if you weren't looking very hard. So can everyone else. Just how terrible is this?

Personally I find the greater situational awareness of what others are doing makes the contest more enjoyable. The big complaint, especially when we moved from AST to time limited tasks is that nobody knew what anyone else was doing, you went and flew and waited for an 8 pm scoresheet. Well, now you know a lot more about what others are doing.

But that's my view. All I've heard is grumbling about how terrible it is that the sport is changing. That's not a problem. I've heard hypotheticals about new instruments someone might make someday. That's not a problem today. Just what is the real problem we're trying to fix here?

John Cochrane BB

August 6th 15, 03:50 AM

I've seen a pilot in a Regional who didn't practice all year and never was very good locate a top competitor pre-start using FLARM, follow him around the course and win the day in a FAI handicapped class because he was flying a 15m glider and the top competitor was flying an 18m glider. I started with the two of them split off and did my own thing.

XC

jfitch

August 6th 15, 04:06 AM

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 7:50:45 PM UTC-7, XC wrote:
> I've seen a pilot in a Regional who didn't practice all year and never was very good locate a top competitor pre-start using FLARM, follow him around the course and win the day in a FAI handicapped class because he was flying a 15m glider and the top competitor was flying an 18m glider. I started with the two of them split off and did my own thing.
>
> XC

I have to agree with JC. In fact I would prefer that the range be greatly increased. If I get a Flarm warning that I was not expecting, I consider that a failure of situational awareness.

The story about a mediocre pilot in a 15m following a top pilot in an 18 meter is quite far fetched - at least where I fly pretty much impossible as described. If performance in this sport comes down to simply aping another's actions, then it isn't quite the skill sport that we thought.

John Cochrane[_3_]

August 6th 15, 04:37 AM

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 7:50:45 PM UTC-7, XC wrote:
> I've seen a pilot in a Regional who didn't practice all year and never was very good locate a top competitor pre-start using FLARM, follow him around the course and win the day in a FAI handicapped class because he was flying a 15m glider and the top competitor was flying an 18m glider. I started with the two of them split off and did my own thing.
>
> XC

Mediocre pilots latched on to top competitors visually in the old days and followed them slavishly around the course. The only difference is now mr. mediocre can afford to get a few miles away, in the old days he had to stay 100 feet away so as not to lose contact. Ask KS how much fun this was.

I'm not convinced that the ability to find other gliders pre-start via flarm (especially without constest ids) is a significant help to a significant problem here. If you're worried about this, banning start announcements would be a bigger help.

Also we're talking about nationals.

John Cochrane

Ramy[_2_]

August 6th 15, 04:51 AM

I noticed that climb rate was often mentioned here as useful tactical information.
Those who flown with PowerFlarm long enough already knows that the climb rate PowerFlarm indicates is more often than not completely wrong. I suspect this is due to the poor sampling rate, or lack of TE compensation or both. I found comparing relative altitude much more accurate and useful.

Ramy

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 6th 15, 05:47 AM

Respect back at ya.

Gathering info. Need the 360 view and to drill quite a bit on specifics. The whats and whys. What we know vs what we suspect vs what we fear. Probabilities and frequencies of things happening. Magnitudes of impact. Call it due diligence.

9B

waremark

August 6th 15, 11:36 AM

In the UK most people fly with traditional Flarm rather than Powerflarm. The range is so much shorter that the issues are different. I have my Butterfly display set to 2 km because anything more is fairly useless.

Jim White[_3_]

August 6th 15, 12:06 PM

At 17:56 05 August 2015, 7C wrote:
>Other Flarm users. If you are in Stealth you give no more warnings to
>othe=
>r users than you receive. So non-stealth gliders will not see any more
>th=
>an your fellow competitors. =20
>
>This has the unfortunate effect of causing gaggles to 'appear' with very
>li=
>ttle prior warning.
>
>So... a fast moving powered aircraft that happens to have Flarm will have
>s=
>econds worth of warning that you are about to collide which may not be
>suff=
>icient. I'd be concerned about the liability issues if this was to
happen
>=
>because you had degraded your collision avoidance systems - especially in
>t=
>he US!
>
This explanation is untrue. Stealth mode does not limit the amount of
information transmitted nor range of the transmission.

Pilots not in stealth mode get exactly the same collision warnings but
their systems will not report to display devices climb rates and vertical
separation accurately beyond 2Km.

Please read section 3.1.7 of the Flarm Configuration Specification document
FTD-14 before you propagate alarmist nonsense.

Papa3[_2_]

August 6th 15, 01:17 PM

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 10:31:51 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:

> Personally I find the greater situational awareness of what others are doing makes the contest more enjoyable. The big complaint, especially when we moved from AST to time limited tasks is that nobody knew what anyone else was doing, you went and flew and waited for an 8 pm scoresheet. Well, now you know a lot more about what others are doing.
>
> But that's my view. All I've heard is grumbling about how terrible it is that the sport is changing. That's not a problem. I've heard hypotheticals about new instruments someone might make someday. That's not a problem today. Just what is the real problem we're trying to fix here?
>
> John Cochrane BB

I don't think anyone is claiming that it's "terrible that the sport is changing". GPS recording and the tasks it enables, better instruments, safer gliders, etc. are all huge steps forward. However, these changes do at some point impact the cost of competing, the skills required of pilots, and the characteristics of competition flights.

Once enough competitors decide that better tactical information from Flarm is vitally important, it's the displays of this information which will become the next frontier. Many of the half-hearted attempts at convincing us that Flarm isn't all that important in this thread (climb rates aren't reliable, it's not that important to know where everyone is prior to the start) are not at all convincing. Maybe they're based on current displays (which were built for collision avoidance)? Maybe they're just based on small samples? All I can say is that there is a big difference between a competition in Stealth Mode v.s. one in "Regular" mode. For me, the Stealth Mode contest wins hands-down. It'll be interesting to see what others say when this comes up in the Pilot Opinion Poll.

Parting shot. As a some-time sailor (Lightning Class), I love the fact that many one-design classes have drawn a line in the sand to say "this is where technology stops and human skill and strength prevail". While the march of technology is inevitable, the decision on how to use it should be conscious rather than unconscious.

P3

Tango Eight

August 6th 15, 01:25 PM

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 10:31:51 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> Just what is the real problem we're trying to fix here?
>
> John Cochrane

Loss of interest in competition soaring would be high on my list.

So far, the guys weighing in from Elmira (the ones who voted with their wallets and vacation time) seem to be of the opinion that stealth mode was a good thing.

The pre-contest buzz I heard about the stealth mode requirement at std/15s was all positive.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Tango Eight

August 6th 15, 02:16 PM

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:45:06 AM UTC-4, Ian Reekie wrote:
> Consider a very fast power pilot that has fitted Power Flarm purely to
> avoid other aircraft - especially gliders. He is used to seeing other
> traffic at 5-10km on his Flarm radar display and always takes early
> avoiding action.

Stealth mode changes the transmission of information in only one way: it adds a flag that says "this flarm device is in stealth mode". That's all.

If not already done, flarm could do this: configure the fast power pilot option in power flarm to reject the stealth bit flag and simply report all traffic in view as normal. Maybe this capability comes in a different box that isn't permitted in glider comps.

Aside: I question whether power flarm is the right tool for collision avoidance involving fast power traffic. It's certainly not adequate for jets.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

August 6th 15, 02:18 PM

I believe both of the above statements lack the proper context.

First, the BGA suspended their use of stealth mode for this season due to concerns about commercial and military traffic and ATC facilities that were equipped to see FLARM equipped gliders. They thought the use of stealth mode was worth pursuing and are working with manufacturers to tweak it so it can provide stealth mode to competitors and still paint gliders to outside users. In the US no commercial, military aircraft, or ATC facilities are equipped to see FLARM gliders.

Second, the context of the guidance in the FLARM configuration document is for FLARM users configuring their unit for general flying. For use during competitions, they have designed the option of a stealth mode. They are not saying "Don't use this available feature."

XC

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 6th 15, 03:40 PM

Thanks to Eric, Sean and others for posting their impressions from the Elmira contest. The commentary and discussion should help inform any fall polling.

Seems like there are two questions to be addressed. First, does Flarm, with vs without Stealth mode materially affect the outcomes and fairness of contests - whether it's top of the scoresheet, middle of the scoresheet, bottom of the scoresheet. Second, does Flarm, with or without Stealth, materially affect pilot enjoyment of flying contests - from US team contenders to first-timers?

We now have at least one contest we can compare the results from to see if pilots scored significantly differently with stealth vs not - there is normally a lot of variance in the scoring even over a long contest so it may or may not show anything but at least we will have an indication if anything significant is going on.

As to the arms race - you can get pretty detailed tactical display of Flarm data on an Oudie or a PNA or Phablet running open source software. I admit I am a little at a loss as to how that's going to amount to an expense that takes people out of the sport.

There seems to be general agreement that Flarm aides situational awareness for as far as it can "see". The difference is in what the incremental mile or two of near-prefect "vision" does to actual tactics and contest results - and pilot enjoyment.

9B

Auxvache

August 6th 15, 04:12 PM

I've been lucky to fly several different sites and events with PFlarm, including Mifflin, Nephi Olc '14, PanAm, and most recent Harris Hill in stealth.. I'd like to underscore the glitches we had getting stealth mode to stick at elmira; one noble contestant landed and relit when he saw his unit had reverted to non-stealth. And enforcement is tricky.

The other point I'd make is that we were blessed at elmira with superb visibility, few narrow converging legs at turnpoints, and a relatively small number of gliders. I nearly always had the other glider visually before the flarm alert. I'm heartened to hear UH say the head-on alerts were unaffected on the ridge; for me, this is the biggest gain with pf, especially at uvalde, Hobbs, and Minden, where the speeds are high and visibility can get hard in the flat afternoon light.

Tactically, I missed the big-picture awareness I've come to use in non-stealth, which hints at an unhealthy dependence and heads-down habit. When life is good, you can see yourself pulling away from the pack or gauge progress on a parallel tack; when the doo hits the fan, having a group of targets to aim at is a nice option. My core feeds an Oudie, so I don't have the same level of tactical info others have realized with FlarmView, etc. Climb rates are fiction and I ignore them. But IDs work when folks have registered or shared on the ground (my PanAm teammate). This makes getting hooked up pre-start vastly easier. But it also led to some obvious follow-the-leader at PanAm and Minden. Some people enjoy racing that way. I'd vote for hiding IDs except for sanctioned team flying.

I'd second P3--we can control how our sport changes. Just because we can't stop someone from breaking a rule is a poor reason for abandoning the rule.

Thanks to XC and co. for putting on a fabulous contest and giving us the chance to gain some experience with stealth.

August 6th 15, 05:15 PM

> Cost is a non-issue.

First let me apologize for going even more off-topic with this rant. Thank you. Now on with the rant:

I don't begrudge anyone having the bucks (or willing to take on the debt) to own the nice stuff. In fact, I admire and envy you guys who have the latest and greatest. Good on you! I would just ask that you please realize that cost IS an issue. With all due respect, cost is very much an issue for some of us. I fly a $10k, 50 year-old glider with a damned odd trailer, not because I like being cheap, but because that is what I can afford. I just love guys with more money in their instrument panel than I have in my whole racing rig (including the tow vehicle) telling me that "cost is not an issue".. Especially when the costly gadgets being pushed are buggy, temperamental, and tend to keep eyes IN the cockpit.

Oh, and yes, I have flown with a PowerFlarm at a Nationals. Seemed to work OK but I'm sorry to report that I did not have the "IT SAVED MY LIFE" experience. Maybe I just did not spend enough time looking at the Flarm display.

WB
H301 Libelle #19

John Carlyle

August 6th 15, 07:03 PM

Could someone please clarify - if a PowerFlarm is in Stealth mode, does that affect <in any way> the display of PCAS and ADS-B information? If it does, then to my mind there's no sense in using Stealth mode at all, ever.

Assuming Stealth <only> affects Flarm signal display, I think we need to consider why people would want Stealth used in contests. I think there are three basic types of pilots at contests - those that are hyper competitive, those that are trying to learn competition flying, and those that are just out for fun. It's clear that hyper competitive pilots will probably always want Stealth, so they don't give up any advantage. Those that are trying to learn competition flying will most likely <not> want Stealth used, so they get a better idea of what's going on around them in real time so as to learn/improve faster. Those out for fun would probably also <not> want Stealth, but most likely only for situational awareness.

It's the learning pilots that I think are causing the angst in this thread. Perhaps a good compromise would be to allow Stealth only in Regional contests, or perhaps only in Sports class?

-John, Q3

John Carlyle

August 6th 15, 07:13 PM

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 2:04:00 PM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
> Could someone please clarify - if a PowerFlarm is in Stealth mode, does that affect <in any way> the display of PCAS and ADS-B information? If it does, then to my mind there's no sense in using Stealth mode at all, ever.
>
> Assuming Stealth <only> affects Flarm signal display, I think we need to consider why people would want Stealth used in contests. I think there are three basic types of pilots at contests - those that are hyper competitive, those that are trying to learn competition flying, and those that are just out for fun. It's clear that hyper competitive pilots will probably always want Stealth, so they don't give up any advantage. Those that are trying to learn competition flying will most likely <not> want Stealth used, so they get a better idea of what's going on around them in real time so as to learn/improve faster. Those out for fun would probably also <not> want Stealth, but most likely only for situational awareness.
>
> It's the learning pilots that I think are causing the angst in this thread. Perhaps a good compromise would be to allow Stealth only in Regional contests, or perhaps only in Sports class?
>
> -John, Q3

Arrgh - <non-Stealth> mode only in Regional contests, or perhaps only in Sports class, not Stealth...

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 6th 15, 07:41 PM

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 11:04:00 AM UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
> Could someone please clarify - if a PowerFlarm is in Stealth mode, does that affect <in any way> the display of PCAS and ADS-B information? If it does, then to my mind there's no sense in using Stealth mode at all, ever.
>
> Assuming Stealth <only> affects Flarm signal display, I think we need to consider why people would want Stealth used in contests. I think there are three basic types of pilots at contests - those that are hyper competitive, those that are trying to learn competition flying, and those that are just out for fun. It's clear that hyper competitive pilots will probably always want Stealth, so they don't give up any advantage. Those that are trying to learn competition flying will most likely <not> want Stealth used, so they get a better idea of what's going on around them in real time so as to learn/improve faster. Those out for fun would probably also <not> want Stealth, but most likely only for situational awareness.
>
> It's the learning pilots that I think are causing the angst in this thread. Perhaps a good compromise would be to allow Stealth only in Regional contests, or perhaps only in Sports class?
>
> -John, Q3

Stealth doesn't affect ADS-B or PCAS, but it does raise an interesting question.

As cheaper non-TSO'd GPS sources become available it is likely that some gliders will start equipping with ADS-B 1090ES Out (think Trig TT-series plus a Garmin GPS 20A, or equivalent). The future FAA position on ADS-B for gliders is TBD but there is an NPRM on transponders already on the table.

Ultimately, FAA action notwithstanding, you will see gliders equipped with ADS-B Out. These will offer ranges of many tens of miles, not the 3-5 miles offered by Flarm. All of that traffic information will be picked up by your PowerFLARM and go straight to your flight display and will include gliders as well as any power traffic equipped with ADS-B 1090ES. There's no stealth mode for ADS-B and ADS-B doesn't discriminate aircraft type. It does, I believe, transmit an ICAO code.

I'm guessing we don't want to be in the position of requiring pilots to turn off their ADS-B gear or banning its installation. You might be able to filter out glider ICAO codes using some sort of registration database like FlarmNet (not a current Flarm capability), but that starts to get pretty complicated and I'd bet the FAA would have something to say about it.

Not an immediate issue, but 5 years from now it could be very real.

John's points about preferences by pilot experience level are broadly consistent with my impressions talking with people - though there is a fair amount of variance. A poll question would put some real numbers against it.

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 6th 15, 07:59 PM

One other thing for people to chew on. I believe it was the paraglider folks who solved for this leeching thing in a very different way. They instituted 15-minute start time windows. Your start time is rounded back to the nearest quarter-hour. This leads to pilots starting in packs every 15 minutes. If you start 5 minutes late to try to catch the pack you get no credit for the later start time, so there's no benefit. If you can make up 15 minutes on the pack in front of you, well good for you. I don't know if everyone tends to leave at once or if it splits the field up nicely.

Worth pondering. It doesn't just solve for electronic leeching, it solves for the eyeball type too.

9B

Jim White[_3_]

August 6th 15, 08:03 PM

At 18:03 06 August 2015, John Carlyle wrote:
>Could someone please clarify - if a PowerFlarm is in Stealth mode, does
>tha=
>t affect the display of PCAS and ADS-B information? If it does=
>, then to my mind there's no sense in using Stealth mode at all, ever.=20
>
>Assuming Stealth affects Flarm signal display, I think we need to co=
>nsider why people would want Stealth used in contests. I think there are
>t=
>hree basic types of pilots at contests - those that are hyper
competitive,
>=
>those that are trying to learn competition flying, and those that are
just
>=
>out for fun. It's clear that hyper competitive pilots will probably
always
>=
>want Stealth, so they don't give up any advantage. Those that are trying
>to=
> learn competition flying will most likely want Stealth used, so they=
> get a better idea of what's going on around them in real time so as to
>lea=
>rn/improve faster. Those out for fun would probably also want Stealth=
>, but most likely only for situational awareness.=20
>
>It's the learning pilots that I think are causing the angst in this
>thread.=
> Perhaps a good compromise would be to allow Stealth only in Regional
>conte=
>sts, or perhaps only in Sports class? =20
>
>-John, Q3
>
In my experience competition pilots are optimists. They tend to think that
they will gain more competitive advantage from situational awareness than
they give away. In competition when stealth is optional most comp pilots go
'open'

Jim

August 6th 15, 08:21 PM

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 10:10:20 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Respectfully Andy, I truly believe a contest is more interesting if it compares one pilot's soaring ability against another's.
>
> A contest with unlimited use of FLARM and/or outside-the-cockpit sources compares pilots' capability to gather, synthesize, and analyze the abilities of multiple people (other pilots through FLARM, weatherman, call DJ on the iPhone, etc) This is decidedly un-birdlike and not as fun.
>
> XC

I have to agree with XC, P3, and UH here, and disagree with you Andy (the 9B kind). Having a little computer screen that can tell you where the other competitors are and what they are doing/experiencing beyond what you can gather with your senses traditionally seems impure to me. I don't have a flarm, so I have to get my information the old fashioned way, by looking out the window. I don't say this as a crotchety old guy resisting change--(think turn point cameras and GPS)--i'm in my 20's. we all stare at screens all day and I think what's beautiful about soaring still is that we get in a glider to have real non "through-a-screen" experiences. but we've found a way to keep staring at screens, even up there.

I think too much of the analysis is done by a computer when using flarm to it's full tactical extent, and not enough is being done with the brain. I don't say that as a bitter non-flarm user, but as someone who is just collecting his in-flight information about the competition the old fashioned way. assessment, decision making, and judgement all go hand in hand, and I think that is a job that the pilot should be doing on his own. that's what sets us apart in the cockpit, our minds. what reallly makes the best truly the best? that they have the most money to spend on fancy instruments? no. it's their ability to assess the overall situation and make the best choices.

Lastly, I will completely contradict myself and acknowledge that at the international/hardcore team flying level, using that kind of information to it's fullest extent is what is necessary to get on the podium these days.

August 6th 15, 08:24 PM

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 10:31:51 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:49:23 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> > Wow - I would have thought it completely self-evident that having this information via a screen was/is "bad" relative to what we (I) traditionally think of as "the sport of soaring".
>
> The "sport" often involves highly tactical decisions of followng other gliders. Is it necessarily better that this is limited by the mark IV eybeball, so gliders have to follow very closely to stay with gaggles? Is it not possibly better to have a wider view, a chance to go off on your own and still keep track of others?
>
> Yes, people do use flarm for tactical advantage. Right now, really, the display of where other glders are within 4 miles is the main use. The climb rates, as others have pointed out, are next to useless.
>
> Cost is a non-issue. Advantage is a non-issue. We have the flarms anyway. We either artificially disable their capabilities or we use them at no extra cost for their full ability, and everyone has them. If you're worried about cost, $160,000 new gliders are orders of magniutde more than any electronics we are contemplating.
>
> Let's worry about hypothetical new 100k instruments if and when they arrive. For now the issue is, do we use the full capabilities of an instrument everyone has anyway or not?
>
> So just how terrible is it to have a slightly better situalational awareness of where the gliders are within 4 miles -- and especially behind where you can't see?
>
> One thing I like about full flarm is it actually breaks up gaggles. people can go off on their own for a bit and not worry about being alone all day..
>
> Yes it's different. Yes it's new. But our job is not historic preservation. Our job is to have fun and enjoy soaring and advance the sport.
>
> What I have not seen in the case for stealth mode is a clear statement of just what is the awful problem that we're trying to fix. Not hypotheticals, what have you actually observed in flarm contests that is a terrible problem requiring banning this interesting new technology?
>
> Yes, you can see start gaggles that you otherwise might have missed unless you sat off the back of KS tail all day. Yes, you can see some other gaggles forming that you might have missed if you weren't looking very hard. So can everyone else. Just how terrible is this?
>
> Personally I find the greater situational awareness of what others are doing makes the contest more enjoyable. The big complaint, especially when we moved from AST to time limited tasks is that nobody knew what anyone else was doing, you went and flew and waited for an 8 pm scoresheet. Well, now you know a lot more about what others are doing.
>
> But that's my view. All I've heard is grumbling about how terrible it is that the sport is changing. That's not a problem. I've heard hypotheticals about new instruments someone might make someday. That's not a problem today. Just what is the real problem we're trying to fix here?
>
> John Cochrane BB

Not EVERYONE has flarm bruh.

August 6th 15, 08:31 PM

....
> But that's my view. All I've heard is grumbling about how terrible it is that the sport is changing. That's not a problem. I've heard hypotheticals about new instruments someone might make someday. That's not a problem today. Just what is the real problem we're trying to fix here?
>
> John Cochrane BB

Let me make my case another way, using an example from this past week at the 15m/Std. Nat's. On day three the sky looked great. I started alone with high hopes of blasting down the course line to catch others.

It turned out the day was much trickier than that. I failed to recognize this early, failed to properly evaluate the risk/reward, kept my water too late and landed out on the first leg. My performance was not good enough that day and I paid the price receiving 136 out of a possible 1000 points.

I would have loved to have had full FLARM capabilities as I got lower that day. I might have headed directly for someone's thermal and climbed out of a bad position. This would have effectively spackled over a major divot in my soaring performance.

Instead others who truly performed better were rewarded with a better score.. My hat is off to the pilots who figured it out consistently at Harris Hill, you can be proud of your performance. I'll learn from mine.

Again, I feel that using the full capabilities for FLARM smoothes out these lows and highs, making for a duller contest with less valid results. Plus, I may never have visited Almond, NY.

XC

August 6th 15, 08:32 PM

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:06:24 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 7:50:45 PM UTC-7, XC wrote:
> > I've seen a pilot in a Regional who didn't practice all year and never was very good locate a top competitor pre-start using FLARM, follow him around the course and win the day in a FAI handicapped class because he was flying a 15m glider and the top competitor was flying an 18m glider. I started with the two of them split off and did my own thing.
> >
> > XC
>
> I have to agree with JC. In fact I would prefer that the range be greatly increased. If I get a Flarm warning that I was not expecting, I consider that a failure of situational awareness.
>
> The story about a mediocre pilot in a 15m following a top pilot in an 18 meter is quite far fetched - at least where I fly pretty much impossible as described. If performance in this sport comes down to simply aping another's actions, then it isn't quite the skill sport that we thought.

False. I've seen it too. i've seen mediocre pilots post excellent speeds because they mimed an excellent pilot's decision making. does that mean he had the right stuff? no. it means he copied someone's homework. it IS the skill sport we think it is. it's why Jerzy can go faster than everyone else by 5-10 MPH more often than seems possible. because to win over and over, tremendous skill is required.

John Cochrane[_3_]

August 6th 15, 08:36 PM

One thing to keep in mind: Pilots can always use stealth mode on their own. If it bugs you that someone may follow you, then turn on stealth. The issue is mandating it for all.

John Cochrane BB

August 6th 15, 08:41 PM

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:31:54 PM UTC-4, XC wrote:
> ...
> > But that's my view. All I've heard is grumbling about how terrible it is that the sport is changing. That's not a problem. I've heard hypotheticals about new instruments someone might make someday. That's not a problem today. Just what is the real problem we're trying to fix here?
> >
> > John Cochrane BB
>
> Let me make my case another way, using an example from this past week at the 15m/Std. Nat's. On day three the sky looked great. I started alone with high hopes of blasting down the course line to catch others.
>
> It turned out the day was much trickier than that. I failed to recognize this early, failed to properly evaluate the risk/reward, kept my water too late and landed out on the first leg. My performance was not good enough that day and I paid the price receiving 136 out of a possible 1000 points.
>
> I would have loved to have had full FLARM capabilities as I got lower that day. I might have headed directly for someone's thermal and climbed out of a bad position. This would have effectively spackled over a major divot in my soaring performance.
>
> Instead others who truly performed better were rewarded with a better score. My hat is off to the pilots who figured it out consistently at Harris Hill, you can be proud of your performance. I'll learn from mine.
>
> Again, I feel that using the full capabilities for FLARM smoothes out these lows and highs, making for a duller contest with less valid results. Plus, I may never have visited Almond, NY.
>
> XC

really well said sean!

John Carlyle

August 6th 15, 09:19 PM

9B, that's a really excellent point about ADS-B. Flarm Stealth mode may be a completely moot point in 5 years. Thanks for pointing it out.

-John, Q3

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 2:41:21 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Ultimately, FAA action notwithstanding, you will see gliders equipped with ADS-B Out. These will offer ranges of many tens of miles, not the 3-5 miles offered by Flarm. All of that traffic information will be picked up by your PowerFLARM and go straight to your flight display and will include gliders as well as any power traffic equipped with ADS-B 1090ES. There's no stealth mode for ADS-B and ADS-B doesn't discriminate aircraft type. It does, I believe, transmit an ICAO code.
>
> I'm guessing we don't want to be in the position of requiring pilots to turn off their ADS-B gear or banning its installation. You might be able to filter out glider ICAO codes using some sort of registration database like FlarmNet (not a current Flarm capability), but that starts to get pretty complicated and I'd bet the FAA would have something to say about it.
>
> Not an immediate issue, but 5 years from now it could be very real.
>
> 9B

[email protected]

August 6th 15, 09:32 PM

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:36:28 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> One thing to keep in mind: Pilots can always use stealth mode on their own. If it bugs you that someone may follow you, then turn on stealth. The issue is mandating it for all.
>
> John Cochrane BB

If you are in Stealth, and your competitors are not, you are strongly disadvantaged from my experience. I stubbornly tried it. If the Flarmleechtool is in use, one can not afford not to be using it.
And- dirty little secret- pilots are covering their antennas when they think they are in the lead so as to not give away information. One well known world champion has been doing this, according to those I believe are in the know. "Whats the aluminum foil hat for?"
UH

waremark

August 6th 15, 09:48 PM

Flying a regionals competition last week in the UK, with my regular Flarm in open mode, even with my bat eyes I spotted gaggles or single thermalling gliders before Flarm told me about them. The best help I had was one day when I had a friend with eagle eyes in the back seat. And yet I believe that I was visible to ground tracking stations most of the time.

The main lesson that I draw from this discussion is that we Europeans should be upgrading to Powerflarm!

But from a flight safety POV I am quite happy not to be told about traffic beyond 2 km or 300 m from my position; that is the way it is for me at the moment anyway and seems appropriate for a competition.

However I don't like the idea of relative altitude being displayed with noise even if another glider is quite close. I want to be able to visually locate a closer glider as quickly as possible.

Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)

August 6th 15, 11:37 PM

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:32:48 PM UTC-4, ND wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:06:24 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 7:50:45 PM UTC-7, XC wrote:
> > > I've seen a pilot in a Regional who didn't practice all year and never was very good locate a top competitor pre-start using FLARM, follow him around the course and win the day in a FAI handicapped class because he was flying a 15m glider and the top competitor was flying an 18m glider. I started with the two of them split off and did my own thing.
> > >
> > > XC
> >
> > I have to agree with JC. In fact I would prefer that the range be greatly increased. If I get a Flarm warning that I was not expecting, I consider that a failure of situational awareness.
> >
> > The story about a mediocre pilot in a 15m following a top pilot in an 18 meter is quite far fetched - at least where I fly pretty much impossible as described. If performance in this sport comes down to simply aping another's actions, then it isn't quite the skill sport that we thought.
>
> False. I've seen it too. i've seen mediocre pilots post excellent speeds because they mimed an excellent pilot's decision making. does that mean he had the right stuff? no. it means he copied someone's homework. it IS the skill sport we think it is. it's why Jerzy can go faster than everyone else by 5-10 MPH more often than seems possible. because to win over and over, tremendous skill is required.

From my point of view (quite a while out of competition, but did compete against a lot of top US pilots before....), just because you "know" a "great pilot is doing something (like diving for the trees to scrape off leeches), YOU, still have to find the thermal, center it & climb out.
;-)

I lost a good place at Newcastle, VA (when all I had to do was get home) by deciding to follow another pilot back out (I had final glide made at ~8:1 in an ASW-20 before I headed back out) hoping I could garner an even better spot.

I landed out.
:-(

Yes, leeching can help at times, but being in the "right place at the right time" does NOT mean you'll get back up.

Steve Koerner

August 7th 15, 01:13 AM

US glider racing has a very big problem right now -- and it definitely isn't leeching! It is declining participation, fewer contest being offered, contest that are so small that they can't accommodate the several glider classes. Every change that's contemplated now should be viewed through that lens first.

It's perplexing to me that we're experiencing such a decline. The fact is that racing is really fun. But it's even more fun when you know about the presence of gliders around you and especially when you know who's in those gliders. I was certainly disappointed to read that stealth had been mandated in NY. If it were entirely my choice, I'd disallow stealth mode and mandate contest ID association.

For me, the fun factor of PowerFlarm has been a great side benefit to the outstanding safety benefit that it accords. It's just dumb to trash that.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 7th 15, 01:28 AM

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 7:40:21 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:

> We now have at least one contest we can compare the results from to see if pilots scored significantly differently with stealth vs not - there is normally a lot of variance in the scoring even over a long contest so it may or may not show anything but at least we will have an indication if anything significant is going on.
>

I ran some numbers to test the theory that less skilled pilots use Flarm as a way to up their performance - and that Stealth mode helps negate this strategy. I compare the last two 15 Meter Nationals - 2014 at Montague (Flarm without Stealth Mode) and 2015 at Harris Hill (Flarm with Stealth Mode). I compared each pilot's performance as measured by final score as a percentage of winner's score to their PRL percentage, which is the longer-term average of the same metric and is used for US Team selection so it's the best available measure of overall pilot skill. The metric I used was average absolute error for each contest - on average how closely did contest performance match PRL percentage. I dropped from the analysis any pilots who withdrew from either contest.

The theory we are testing is that with unrestricted Flarm you should get more inexperienced pilots higher in the scoresheet with higher scores and potentially some of the more highly skilled pilots dropping down as a result.

The average absolute error for the 2014 15-Meter Nationals at Montague was 7.4%. That is, on average pilots scored only 7.4% off of their PRL. Four pilots were competing in Standard Class gliders at Montague without handicaps.. If I give them each a 4% handicap the average absolute error drops to 7.1%.

The 2015 15-Meter Nationals at Harris Hill had an average absolute error of 11.8%. That a significant difference and not in the direction you'd expect.. It turns out that at Harris Hill a number of highly ranked pilots under-performed their PRL and a few lower-ranked pilots out-performed their PRL.

This is 35 pilots flying a total of 259 contest flights, so it's not a super big sample size, but not terrible given the stark difference. I also looked for any potential sources of sample bias - average pilot skill, contest length or devalued days. The two contests were pretty similar. Average PRL for Montague was .899 and Harris Hill was .906. Montague was 8 days and Harris Hill was 7 days. The average daily winner's score at Montague was 869 points and Harris Hill was 844 points. Not perfect, but pretty close.

So, if the theory is that Flarm allows lower skilled pilots to leech their way to the top of the score sheet and Stealth mode puts a lid on this behavior, the data suggests the opposite. In fact a number of long-time (30-40 years) highly ranked pilots under-performed their PRL with stealth mode. One potential reason for this is that more experienced pilots are actually better at making use of Flarm information than inexperienced pilots. The other theory is that Flarm helps reduce the random landouts that tend to scramble the scoresheet and actually reinforces stability and order.

Discuss.

9B

P.S. I already said that it's only 259 data points.

[email protected]

August 7th 15, 01:40 AM

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:28:24 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 7:40:21 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
> > We now have at least one contest we can compare the results from to see if pilots scored significantly differently with stealth vs not - there is normally a lot of variance in the scoring even over a long contest so it may or may not show anything but at least we will have an indication if anything significant is going on.
> >
>
> I ran some numbers to test the theory that less skilled pilots use Flarm as a way to up their performance - and that Stealth mode helps negate this strategy. I compare the last two 15 Meter Nationals - 2014 at Montague (Flarm without Stealth Mode) and 2015 at Harris Hill (Flarm with Stealth Mode). I compared each pilot's performance as measured by final score as a percentage of winner's score to their PRL percentage, which is the longer-term average of the same metric and is used for US Team selection so it's the best available measure of overall pilot skill. The metric I used was average absolute error for each contest - on average how closely did contest performance match PRL percentage. I dropped from the analysis any pilots who withdrew from either contest.
>
> The theory we are testing is that with unrestricted Flarm you should get more inexperienced pilots higher in the scoresheet with higher scores and potentially some of the more highly skilled pilots dropping down as a result..
>
> The average absolute error for the 2014 15-Meter Nationals at Montague was 7.4%. That is, on average pilots scored only 7.4% off of their PRL. Four pilots were competing in Standard Class gliders at Montague without handicaps. If I give them each a 4% handicap the average absolute error drops to 7..1%.
>
> The 2015 15-Meter Nationals at Harris Hill had an average absolute error of 11.8%. That a significant difference and not in the direction you'd expect. It turns out that at Harris Hill a number of highly ranked pilots under-performed their PRL and a few lower-ranked pilots out-performed their PRL.
>
> This is 35 pilots flying a total of 259 contest flights, so it's not a super big sample size, but not terrible given the stark difference. I also looked for any potential sources of sample bias - average pilot skill, contest length or devalued days. The two contests were pretty similar. Average PRL for Montague was .899 and Harris Hill was .906. Montague was 8 days and Harris Hill was 7 days. The average daily winner's score at Montague was 869 points and Harris Hill was 844 points. Not perfect, but pretty close.
>
> So, if the theory is that Flarm allows lower skilled pilots to leech their way to the top of the score sheet and Stealth mode puts a lid on this behavior, the data suggests the opposite. In fact a number of long-time (30-40 years) highly ranked pilots under-performed their PRL with stealth mode. One potential reason for this is that more experienced pilots are actually better at making use of Flarm information than inexperienced pilots. The other theory is that Flarm helps reduce the random landouts that tend to scramble the scoresheet and actually reinforces stability and order.
>
> Discuss.
>
> 9B
>
> P.S. I already said that it's only 259 data points.

Weather variability is most likely a bigger factor than Flarm. To wit- SM, who never lands out got snookered multiple times at Elmira. Same with KS. Only 3 pilots completed all tasks assigned. I suspect the weather had a much bigger effect on performance variability from the expected than Stealth- or not- ever would.
It is also worth noting that FS, who has a lot of Flarm expertise relative to the rest of us, won 15M in Stealth. Would he have enhanced his advantage? I think so.
UH

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 7th 15, 02:14 AM

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 5:40:12 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:28:24 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 7:40:21 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >
> > > We now have at least one contest we can compare the results from to see if pilots scored significantly differently with stealth vs not - there is normally a lot of variance in the scoring even over a long contest so it may or may not show anything but at least we will have an indication if anything significant is going on.
> > >
> >
> > I ran some numbers to test the theory that less skilled pilots use Flarm as a way to up their performance - and that Stealth mode helps negate this strategy. I compare the last two 15 Meter Nationals - 2014 at Montague (Flarm without Stealth Mode) and 2015 at Harris Hill (Flarm with Stealth Mode). I compared each pilot's performance as measured by final score as a percentage of winner's score to their PRL percentage, which is the longer-term average of the same metric and is used for US Team selection so it's the best available measure of overall pilot skill. The metric I used was average absolute error for each contest - on average how closely did contest performance match PRL percentage. I dropped from the analysis any pilots who withdrew from either contest.
> >
> > The theory we are testing is that with unrestricted Flarm you should get more inexperienced pilots higher in the scoresheet with higher scores and potentially some of the more highly skilled pilots dropping down as a result.
> >
> > The average absolute error for the 2014 15-Meter Nationals at Montague was 7.4%. That is, on average pilots scored only 7.4% off of their PRL. Four pilots were competing in Standard Class gliders at Montague without handicaps. If I give them each a 4% handicap the average absolute error drops to 7.1%.
> >
> > The 2015 15-Meter Nationals at Harris Hill had an average absolute error of 11.8%. That a significant difference and not in the direction you'd expect. It turns out that at Harris Hill a number of highly ranked pilots under-performed their PRL and a few lower-ranked pilots out-performed their PRL.
> >
> > This is 35 pilots flying a total of 259 contest flights, so it's not a super big sample size, but not terrible given the stark difference. I also looked for any potential sources of sample bias - average pilot skill, contest length or devalued days. The two contests were pretty similar. Average PRL for Montague was .899 and Harris Hill was .906. Montague was 8 days and Harris Hill was 7 days. The average daily winner's score at Montague was 869 points and Harris Hill was 844 points. Not perfect, but pretty close.
> >
> > So, if the theory is that Flarm allows lower skilled pilots to leech their way to the top of the score sheet and Stealth mode puts a lid on this behavior, the data suggests the opposite. In fact a number of long-time (30-40 years) highly ranked pilots under-performed their PRL with stealth mode. One potential reason for this is that more experienced pilots are actually better at making use of Flarm information than inexperienced pilots. The other theory is that Flarm helps reduce the random landouts that tend to scramble the scoresheet and actually reinforces stability and order.
> >
> > Discuss.
> >
> > 9B
> >
> > P.S. I already said that it's only 259 data points.
>
> Weather variability is most likely a bigger factor than Flarm. To wit- SM, who never lands out got snookered multiple times at Elmira. Same with KS. Only 3 pilots completed all tasks assigned. I suspect the weather had a much bigger effect on performance variability from the expected than Stealth- or not- ever would.
> It is also worth noting that FS, who has a lot of Flarm expertise relative to the rest of us, won 15M in Stealth. Would he have enhanced his advantage? I think so.
> UH

Well SM landed out on a 486 point day at Harris Hill and P7 landed out on a 850 point day at Montague (and scored even lower) so I'd say that was worse. Also, the landout day that caught the guys you mentioned also got the guy who won the contest, so I'd say that bit of weather variability didn't really scramble the field much and therefore wasn't much of a factor. Just to be sure, I took out the roughly 200 point benefit the finishers got over the landouts that day. The average standard error went from 11.8% to 12.9% - so it made it even worse.

There are always exceptional circumstances on any given day, but things tend to average out with enough days and the effects aren't as strong as people seem to remember.

The puzzling thing is that lower-ranked pilots out-performed with Stealth on and HH and despite a fair amount of weather randomness at Montague and a lot of low scratching in the mountains and blue holes - the middle ranked pilots weren't able to out-perform, so not only is the leeching theory not reflected in the data we have, but the data tilts a bit in the opposite direction - Stealth mode is actually associated with less consistent results.

Yes, only two contests - but if there was something seriously going wrong from using Flarm you'd not expect these results.

9B

August 7th 15, 03:10 AM

I flew Montegue and loved it. Rex and Nowelle did a great job. If you haven't flown there go at the next opportunity!

There are several reasons why the numerical analysis presented has limited usefulness. I'll just mention two:

1) I don't believe most people last year at Montegue were using a complete FLARM view type set up. I flew the contest with FLARM (through ClearNav) as anti-collision only. This year many more pilots were outfitted with the whole set up.

2) The weather at Harris Hill was much more fickle and unforgiving than Montegue, no comparison. 7 or even 8 days were flyable but each had significant challenges that tripped up even the locals. The guys I would have picked to win all had problems, sometimes on the first leg. On Day 6 in 15m 14/21 pilots landed out on the first leg. Others chose well and scored big. This really blew the rankings out of the water but that was the reality of the weather that day.

Great time at both contests,
XC

jfitch

August 7th 15, 04:54 AM

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 12:32:48 PM UTC-7, ND wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:06:24 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 7:50:45 PM UTC-7, XC wrote:
> > > I've seen a pilot in a Regional who didn't practice all year and never was very good locate a top competitor pre-start using FLARM, follow him around the course and win the day in a FAI handicapped class because he was flying a 15m glider and the top competitor was flying an 18m glider. I started with the two of them split off and did my own thing.
> > >
> > > XC
> >
> > I have to agree with JC. In fact I would prefer that the range be greatly increased. If I get a Flarm warning that I was not expecting, I consider that a failure of situational awareness.
> >
> > The story about a mediocre pilot in a 15m following a top pilot in an 18 meter is quite far fetched - at least where I fly pretty much impossible as described. If performance in this sport comes down to simply aping another's actions, then it isn't quite the skill sport that we thought.
>
> False. I've seen it too. i've seen mediocre pilots post excellent speeds because they mimed an excellent pilot's decision making. does that mean he had the right stuff? no. it means he copied someone's homework. it IS the skill sport we think it is. it's why Jerzy can go faster than everyone else by 5-10 MPH more often than seems possible. because to win over and over, tremendous skill is required.

Well I did qualify that with "where I fly", which is out west. Perhaps true for the flatlands and hillocks - I don't know. But if Jerzy can go 5 - 10 MPH faster than everyone else, I'm doubting that a novice in a 15m will keep up with him in an 18 no matter how many Flarms are involved. Not where I fly, anyway.

There are many technologies that have changed the sport over the years. This one not as earth shattering as many others gone before. The purists among us really should be flying with wooden wings, Clark Y airfoils, and a pellet vario. But the point about ADS-B makes this almost an academic argument?

Sean Fidler

August 7th 15, 05:09 AM

Interesting discussion,

IMO, the tactical advantage FLARM provides contest pilots during competition is being highly over-rated here. The "problem" is (and always has been) that A) not everyone has one, B) wants to buy one or c) is able to efficiently process the information available. I see FLARM (tactically) as just another small variable in the equation of flying performance.

It can easily hurt as much (or more) than it can help. Nobody seems to mention this possibility. Hint, hint...maybe you want people to try and leech with FLARM and fail or at least degrade. Hmm.

I currently have an "economy" contest set up...Brick-SN10-Oudie with a separate FLARM view display. A "funny guy" (he knows who he is) recently referred to my panel as a beat up WWII fighter. He's right! My panel is clearly not a great combination for efficiently tracking FLARM targets, analysing climb rates, etc. I don't know the full capabilities of the LX9000 or ClearNav. I do understand that their presentations are more (FLARM) information "rich." One good thing I see about a potential U.S. stealth mode rule is that the real or perceived advantage of these advanced soaring computers (in terms of FLARM based situation awareness) would be reduced or eliminated.

The real advantages of FLARM tracking (as I see it) is not climb rates. I would not trust the number anyway. I want to see the other potential gliders climbing and see the actual cloud they are under, etc. It's just not as simple as that pack has 3 knots and the other has 5...lets go to the 5!

For me, the ability to identify individual "key" pilots in the pack ahead (or behind) and "bonus" identification of gliders that I would have otherwise missed if I had not seen a FLARM "blip" and started searching in the exact right spot are the practical advantages that FLARM provides. It is very hard to calculate the value of these capabilities.

My actual FLARM reception range has been 1-3 miles (3 at absolute most). My antennas are well installed, blah, blah, blah. I therefore leave my FLARMview range at 1 mile so that I have a good resolution for "close in" gliders. In other words, the long range value is so consistently low that a greater range setting almost always pointless. Apparently others are seeing more as in my opinion 1 mile is fairly low value tactically. I usually see these gliders far earlier than I see them on FLARM.

While managing the available FLARM information well can provide value, my experience is that this is rarely a "great" value. In fact, it is usually a distraction to put effort into trying.

With that (my belief that others are likely gaining more from the available FLARM information than I am) I would (selfishly) be happy to see the requirement of a stealth mode at future US (or FAI) contests. But overall I have concluded that the value FLARM provides is highly, highly over-rated.

Finally, for whomever said (last few posts) the FAI World Championship Level requires FLARM leeching proficiency to be successful...please expound with specific information on how you reached these conclusions. Do you have a list of specifics? Who gave you this list? What experience do you have?

Sean
7T

Richard[_9_]

August 7th 15, 06:00 AM

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:08:08 AM UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
> The US 15M/Standard Class Nationals required FLARM to be in stealth mode for the duration of the contest. I have to say, I absolutely enjoyed the experience. FLARM became what it was always supposed to be - a collision avoidance tool - rather than a tactical leaching tool. I found that I would get alerts for gliders in the same thermal or approaching/exiting the thermal up to about 1 mile away, but no more. Not a single surprise conflict from a FLARM-equipped glider.
>
> I wonder if others had the same positive experience. I would hope other contests would consider requiring Stealth Mode.
>
>
> Erik Mann (P3)

The thing that amazes me most about the contest was that the organizers did not require PowerFlarm!! But if you had PowerFlarm it had to be in the stealth mode.

It appears they are much more concerned about leaching than the safety of the competitors.

Richard

Ramy[_2_]

August 7th 15, 07:17 AM

This is, indeed, amazing that folks are considering the "risk" of leeching more significant than the risk of collision. Sound like paranoia to me.

Ramy

August 7th 15, 01:02 PM

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:17:35 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> This is, indeed, amazing that folks are considering the "risk" of leeching more significant than the risk of collision. Sound like paranoia to me.
>
> Ramy

The genesis of trying the FLARM in stealth mode was when I was flying at the PAGC. Let me first say the PAGC was a very good event and Sarah and crew did an outstanding job. The idea was to use the FAI rules in a contest here in the US. The contest was a success and I like the FAI rules, generally.

There the US Team used team flying and all the FLARM capability we could get together. Poor Jerzey couldn't get away from the pack to do his own thing because he was tagged and followed from the start. It was also sad to see our top guys resort to following someone else rather than doing something brilliant on their own. The results were homogenized. Again, not as fun... I hope the FAI will continue with the movement afoot to go a stealth mode of some sort.

I congratulate the pilots at the 15m/Std Class Nationals at Harris Hill. There were no instances of poor, heads down thermalling that I heard of. FLARM warnings were quite adequate combined eyes-out awareness. The big FLARM debate never materialized at the contest. Everyone seemed content using stealth mode.

The same goes for the finish gate. None of the pilots went crazy with it. I don't remember any showy airshow stuff or iffy landing patterns. It really was no big deal and was more fun for everyone.

Thanks to those who came. Thanks for the sportsmanship and the safe flying. I wish more of you were there.

XC

Tango Eight

August 7th 15, 01:04 PM

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:

> It appears they are much more concerned about leaching than the safety of the competitors.
>
> Richard

It's tempting to start name calling here. I think you ought to retract that statement.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[email protected]

August 7th 15, 01:38 PM

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:08:08 AM UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
> > The US 15M/Standard Class Nationals required FLARM to be in stealth mode for the duration of the contest. I have to say, I absolutely enjoyed the experience. FLARM became what it was always supposed to be - a collision avoidance tool - rather than a tactical leaching tool. I found that I would get alerts for gliders in the same thermal or approaching/exiting the thermal up to about 1 mile away, but no more. Not a single surprise conflict from a FLARM-equipped glider.
> >
> > I wonder if others had the same positive experience. I would hope other contests would consider requiring Stealth Mode.
> >
> >
> > Erik Mann (P3)
>
> The thing that amazes me most about the contest was that the organizers did not require PowerFlarm!! But if you had PowerFlarm it had to be in the stealth mode.
>
> It appears they are much more concerned about leaching than the safety of the competitors.
>
> Richard

I would respond that my sense, and that of quite a number of others, is that Flarm, in Stealth mode, provided sense that we had the increased safety margin that Flarm technology offers without the possible negative affects of heads down tactical activity and had not meaningful affect on the race.
I do not think safety was compromised. As F1 said above, one might make a case for slightly more useful range, but that is a matter of opinion.
I thought it gave what we hoped for, without negative consequences.
UH

BobW

August 7th 15, 02:11 PM

On 8/6/2015 11:00 PM, Richard wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:08:08 AM UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
>> The US 15M/Standard Class Nationals required FLARM to be in stealth mode
>> for the duration of the contest. I have to say, I absolutely enjoyed
>> the experience. FLARM became what it was always supposed to be - a
>> collision avoidance tool - rather than a tactical leaching tool. I
>> found that I would get alerts for gliders in the same thermal or
>> approaching/exiting the thermal up to about 1 mile away, but no more.
>> Not a single surprise conflict from a FLARM-equipped glider.
>>
>> I wonder if others had the same positive experience. I would hope other
>> contests would consider requiring Stealth Mode.
>>
>>
>> Erik Mann (P3)
>
> The thing that amazes me most about the contest was that the organizers did
> not require PowerFlarm!! But if you had PowerFlarm it had to be in the
> stealth mode.
>
> It appears they are much more concerned about leaching than the safety of
> the competitors.
>
> Richard
>

As someone without a horse in this race (no PFlarm/interest in flying
competitions), it has more than once occurred to me while "listening" to these
sorts of (very interesting) discussions that PFlarm is a classic example of
better being the enemy of good enough, where good enough is glider-to-glider
(or even GA-to-glider, if adopted by GA) collision avoidance assistance, while
better is any real-or-perceived technical capability processed through humans'
"What if?" filters.

As for Richard's closing observation, that to me seems pretty strongly toward
relatively inaccurate gross oversimplification, doing little (nothing?) to
further the discussion while having significant potential of encouraging flame
warring. Have you anything new to add to the discussion on your thinking
regarding exactly how glider-to-glider safety is degraded through use of
stealth mode as it's been described throughout the years on RAS?

Respectfully,
Bob W.

August 7th 15, 02:25 PM

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:08:08 AM UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
> > The US 15M/Standard Class Nationals required FLARM to be in stealth mode for the duration of the contest. I have to say, I absolutely enjoyed the experience. FLARM became what it was always supposed to be - a collision avoidance tool - rather than a tactical leaching tool. I found that I would get alerts for gliders in the same thermal or approaching/exiting the thermal up to about 1 mile away, but no more. Not a single surprise conflict from a FLARM-equipped glider.
> >
> > I wonder if others had the same positive experience. I would hope other contests would consider requiring Stealth Mode.
> >
> >
> > Erik Mann (P3)
>
> The thing that amazes me most about the contest was that the organizers did not require PowerFlarm!! But if you had PowerFlarm it had to be in the stealth mode.
>
> It appears they are much more concerned about leaching than the safety of the competitors.
>
> Richard

you require powerflarm, then 3-4 of the people who participated safely would have had to sit out because they couldn't afford the damn thing. and that usually pertains to young competitors.

i'm not saying people are infallible to having a midair by simply keeping out a watchful eye, but the risk can certainly be effectively mitigated if everyone is looking vigilantly, and since we are all flying VFR, I don't care if you have flarm, or a transponder or god knows what, you've got to be looking. the organizers were not more concerned about leeching than safety. that's a silly presumption. the flarm in stealth mode still provides warning of impending collisions. it was an experiment, which XC talks about based on the experiences people had at PAGC.

Sean Fidler

August 7th 15, 03:07 PM

Hmmm, personally, I never saw much of Jerzy at the PAGC. He usually (wisely) started behind, etc. I am shocked to hear that "FLARM marking" Jerzy was the U.S. team strategy. It certainly wasn't mine.. I (and my team-mate) must have missed that memo. Again, the capability of FLARM "leeching" is being greatly overrated here. It's not a major factor, it just isn't. I wish to debate this as needed.

I strongly suggest that people considering the opinions here replay the flight traces from (for example) the PAGC event for themselves and pay particular attention to the behavior of certain pilots with reference to certain other pilots. The conditions at the PAGC were quite weak (unfortunately) and little tactical flexibility was available to rapidly modify tactics based on a FLARM hit. It was my experience that you had to fly your own air as much as possible and survive as long as you could. If you were with a gaggle it was not because you used FLARM to catch it.

And, FWIW, good luck to anybody who wants to try and stay with Jerzy (or DJ, KM, P7 etc) simply by watching your FLARM screen. It's not going to happen. You may benefit slightly once in awhile but your not going to beat these pilots simply by following them via FLARM data. They will leave you behind in a big hurry.

Ban FLARM or go to Stealth mode, etc. IMO it's not going to make a big (or small) difference. So little that it's irrelevant. I feel the issue is being overblown here.

August 7th 15, 03:17 PM

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:09:26 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Interesting discussion,
>
> IMO, the tactical advantage FLARM provides contest pilots during competition is being highly over-rated here. The "problem" is (and always has been) that A) not everyone has one, B) wants to buy one or c) is able to efficiently process the information available. I see FLARM (tactically) as just another small variable in the equation of flying performance.
>
> It can easily hurt as much (or more) than it can help. Nobody seems to mention this possibility. Hint, hint...maybe you want people to try and leech with FLARM and fail or at least degrade. Hmm.
>
> I currently have an "economy" contest set up...Brick-SN10-Oudie with a separate FLARM view display. A "funny guy" (he knows who he is) recently referred to my panel as a beat up WWII fighter. He's right! My panel is clearly not a great combination for efficiently tracking FLARM targets, analysing climb rates, etc. I don't know the full capabilities of the LX9000 or ClearNav. I do understand that their presentations are more (FLARM) information "rich." One good thing I see about a potential U.S. stealth mode rule is that the real or perceived advantage of these advanced soaring computers (in terms of FLARM based situation awareness) would be reduced or eliminated.
>
> The real advantages of FLARM tracking (as I see it) is not climb rates. I would not trust the number anyway. I want to see the other potential gliders climbing and see the actual cloud they are under, etc. It's just not as simple as that pack has 3 knots and the other has 5...lets go to the 5!
>
> For me, the ability to identify individual "key" pilots in the pack ahead (or behind) and "bonus" identification of gliders that I would have otherwise missed if I had not seen a FLARM "blip" and started searching in the exact right spot are the practical advantages that FLARM provides. It is very hard to calculate the value of these capabilities.
>
> My actual FLARM reception range has been 1-3 miles (3 at absolute most). My antennas are well installed, blah, blah, blah. I therefore leave my FLARMview range at 1 mile so that I have a good resolution for "close in" gliders. In other words, the long range value is so consistently low that a greater range setting almost always pointless. Apparently others are seeing more as in my opinion 1 mile is fairly low value tactically. I usually see these gliders far earlier than I see them on FLARM.
>
> While managing the available FLARM information well can provide value, my experience is that this is rarely a "great" value. In fact, it is usually a distraction to put effort into trying.
>
> With that (my belief that others are likely gaining more from the available FLARM information than I am) I would (selfishly) be happy to see the requirement of a stealth mode at future US (or FAI) contests. But overall I have concluded that the value FLARM provides is highly, highly over-rated.
>
> Finally, for whomever said (last few posts) the FAI World Championship Level requires FLARM leeching proficiency to be successful...please expound with specific information on how you reached these conclusions. Do you have a list of specifics? Who gave you this list? What experience do you have?
>
> Sean
> 7T

Hi Sean, it's andy (ND) brayer. hobbs, asw 20, young guy.

You might have taken my words too literally. my meaning is not that one must use "flarm leeching" to it's fullest extent in order to be world champion.. on the contrary, and with the understanding that you know all of this already; I think that in order to win, you need something else, something intangible, raw unadulterated talent. but that alone doesn't win it. i think we all agree that at the world level a completely individualistic approach is ineffective anymore, and that you are giving something up by flying as a lone wolf. as such, and in conjunction with sound team flying tactics, the information that can be garnered through complete use of flarm's capabilities is probably better considered than not. so while i don't have first person experience on a world level, or an actual list of specifics blessed by kawa, meuser, or sommer themselves, I do think the results of the team flying/information sharing mentality speak for themselves. to me--and i daresay others with a more impressive competitive resume--those results ought to include the intelligence gathered through complete use of flarm's capabilities. it does seem like leeching to be able to chose one thermal over another based on the fact that you know that frenchman is climbing in 6 knots, but the spaniard is only climbing in 4. now, from what i understand you say it isn't quite as accurate as that, and i accept that. on the other hand, i have heard from others who shall remain nameless that it is and that they've seen that movie played out.

Maybe the information gathered from flarm is overrated, maybe it isn't. who can say for sure? these are matters of opinion. i'm not sure whether i agree with you 100%, or not at all.

what is your assessment about what i've said?

andy
(ND)

August 7th 15, 03:29 PM

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:09:26 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Interesting discussion,
>
> IMO, the tactical advantage FLARM provides contest pilots during competition is being highly over-rated here. The "problem" is (and always has been) that A) not everyone has one, B) wants to buy one or c) is able to efficiently process the information available. I see FLARM (tactically) as just another small variable in the equation of flying performance.
>
> It can easily hurt as much (or more) than it can help. Nobody seems to mention this possibility. Hint, hint...maybe you want people to try and leech with FLARM and fail or at least degrade. Hmm.
>
> I currently have an "economy" contest set up...Brick-SN10-Oudie with a separate FLARM view display. A "funny guy" (he knows who he is) recently referred to my panel as a beat up WWII fighter. He's right! My panel is clearly not a great combination for efficiently tracking FLARM targets, analysing climb rates, etc. I don't know the full capabilities of the LX9000 or ClearNav. I do understand that their presentations are more (FLARM) information "rich." One good thing I see about a potential U.S. stealth mode rule is that the real or perceived advantage of these advanced soaring computers (in terms of FLARM based situation awareness) would be reduced or eliminated.
>
> The real advantages of FLARM tracking (as I see it) is not climb rates. I would not trust the number anyway. I want to see the other potential gliders climbing and see the actual cloud they are under, etc. It's just not as simple as that pack has 3 knots and the other has 5...lets go to the 5!
>
> For me, the ability to identify individual "key" pilots in the pack ahead (or behind) and "bonus" identification of gliders that I would have otherwise missed if I had not seen a FLARM "blip" and started searching in the exact right spot are the practical advantages that FLARM provides. It is very hard to calculate the value of these capabilities.
>
> My actual FLARM reception range has been 1-3 miles (3 at absolute most). My antennas are well installed, blah, blah, blah. I therefore leave my FLARMview range at 1 mile so that I have a good resolution for "close in" gliders. In other words, the long range value is so consistently low that a greater range setting almost always pointless. Apparently others are seeing more as in my opinion 1 mile is fairly low value tactically. I usually see these gliders far earlier than I see them on FLARM.
>
> While managing the available FLARM information well can provide value, my experience is that this is rarely a "great" value. In fact, it is usually a distraction to put effort into trying.
>
> With that (my belief that others are likely gaining more from the available FLARM information than I am) I would (selfishly) be happy to see the requirement of a stealth mode at future US (or FAI) contests. But overall I have concluded that the value FLARM provides is highly, highly over-rated.
>
> Finally, for whomever said (last few posts) the FAI World Championship Level requires FLARM leeching proficiency to be successful...please expound with specific information on how you reached these conclusions. Do you have a list of specifics? Who gave you this list? What experience do you have?
>
> Sean
> 7T

Hi Sean, it's andy (ND) brayer. hobbs, asw 20, young guy.

You might have taken my words too literally. my meaning is not that one must use "flarm leeching" to it's fullest extent in order to be world champion.. on the contrary, and with the understanding that you know all of this already; I think that in order to win, you need something else, something intangible, raw unadulterated talent. but that alone doesn't win it. i think we all agree that at the world level a completely individualistic approach is ineffective anymore, and that you are giving something up by flying as a lone wolf. as such, and in conjunction with sound team flying tactics, the information that can be garnered through complete use of flarm's capabilities is probably better considered than not. so while i don't have first person experience on a world level, or an actual list of specifics blessed by kawa, meuser, or sommer themselves, I do think the results of the team flying/information sharing mentality speak for themselves. to me--and i daresay others with a more impressive competitive resume--those results ought to include the intelligence gathered through complete use of flarm's capabilities. it does seem cheap, it does seems like shameless leeching to be able to chose one thermal over another based on the fact that you know that frenchman is climbing in 6 knots, but the spaniard is only climbing in 4. a thermal finder would ruin the sport in my opinion, and in that instance it seems to be acting as one. But anyone including myself would to take advantage of that knowledge if it were at hand. now, from what i understand you say it isn't quite as accurate as that, and i accept that point of view. on the other hand, i have heard from others who shall remain nameless that say it is and that they've seen that movie played out. both are matters of opinion.
Maybe the information gathered from flarm is overrated, maybe it isn't. i think the possible scenarios are far too many and complex to dismiss the possibility of learning something useful, especially when trailing the leading in the world championships by 30 points.

what is your assessment about what i've said?

andy
(ND)

August 7th 15, 04:16 PM

I thought the 15m class on day 3 at PAGC was a little bit over the top when it came to using FLARM. By that I mean it brought several guys together pre-start and kept them together for very similar flights and scores. Check it out.

I enjoyed the contest very much. The team flying thing was fun but probably would be an entry barrier to new guys if it were the norm for our regionals and nationals.

XC

August 7th 15, 05:07 PM

When first using FLARM about 10 years ago, I don't remember anybody whinging about being unable to use FLARM for tactical advantage in contests. Those contests were FLARM mandatory.
Not competing, but worked at two 60-glider contests around then. The only complaints were due to people running an old software version, ie 2.x instead of 3.x. This was easily fixed.

Somehow I don't see that mandating FLARM and in stealth mode at contests is a barrier to contest entry. Rentals are inexpensive! From williamssoaring.com:
<<
PowerFLARM Rental Units Now Available in the USA $50 per Contest ($100 if you have previously participated in the rental program)
Glider and tow-plane pilots can rent a PowerFLARM unit for $50 per contest or similar event. The $50 includes postage and return postage.
>>
By not using "the dark side" of the instrument, there is nothing for a first-time renter to learn about tactical use, so the pilot is not at a tactical disadvantage or heads down trying to figure it out.
Jim

Sean Fidler

August 7th 15, 05:53 PM

Andy-

I think you mean well and speak heartfelt words (along with the whole group here)...but I also feel most of this discussion is highly subjective. I would like to see at least some data or proof.

My questions were serious and (hopefully) meaningful. I did not mean to throw you under the bus. I was hoping to get some more information on the use of FLARM at the world level. I think that conversation may be a useful one here as it is more objective (assigned tasks, smaller turn areas, more even pilots, etc).

In the U.S., I honestly don't believe that FLARM has the slightest effect on the results. Some may try their hardest, but it's just to hard to do consistently. Also, FLARM data is the norm at the World Championship level and all but one U.S. Contest in all history. If we run off and adopt "stealth mode," we once again handicap our world level pilots by "watering down" the game.

Perhaps the elite, sophisticated world gliding teams (Germany, Poland, Britian, etc) would be able to do some damage with FLARM data. But good on them because the safety based FLARM technology is equally open to all parties, so it's a level playing field. Again, I see FLARM data as small part of the overall equation. As long as it's level for all, no problem. This is my view.

That said, I have recently heard "campfire stories" of very sophisticated, coordinated use of FLARM at world championships. "Hard to believe" stuff. As it is third hand and I was not there, I can't post it here, sorry. I have also heard the FAI is considering stealth mode requirements. So maybe there is real data out there on how this is changed results, etc. I was hoping to hear more about this and that was the reason for my questions.

I just don't hear any specifics here...I hear broad statements and assumptions.

Sorry to make you feel pinned down like that. Not my intention.

I really enjoyed meeting you at Hobbs and think you have a very bright future in soaring. I look forward to flying with you again soon!

Sean

August 7th 15, 06:17 PM

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Andy-
>
> I think you mean well and speak heartfelt words (along with the whole group here)...but I also feel most of this discussion is highly subjective. I would like to see at least some data or proof.
>
> My questions were serious and (hopefully) meaningful. I did not mean to throw you under the bus. I was hoping to get some more information on the use of FLARM at the world level. I think that conversation may be a useful one here as it is more objective (assigned tasks, smaller turn areas, more even pilots, etc).
>
> In the U.S., I honestly don't believe that FLARM has the slightest effect on the results. Some may try their hardest, but it's just to hard to do consistently. Also, FLARM data is the norm at the World Championship level and all but one U.S. Contest in all history. If we run off and adopt "stealth mode," we once again handicap our world level pilots by "watering down" the game.
>
> Perhaps the elite, sophisticated world gliding teams (Germany, Poland, Britian, etc) would be able to do some damage with FLARM data. But good on them because the safety based FLARM technology is equally open to all parties, so it's a level playing field. Again, I see FLARM data as small part of the overall equation. As long as it's level for all, no problem. This is my view.
>
> That said, I have recently heard "campfire stories" of very sophisticated, coordinated use of FLARM at world championships. "Hard to believe" stuff.. As it is third hand and I was not there, I can't post it here, sorry. I have also heard the FAI is considering stealth mode requirements. So maybe there is real data out there on how this is changed results, etc. I was hoping to hear more about this and that was the reason for my questions.
>
> I just don't hear any specifics here...I hear broad statements and assumptions.
>
> Sorry to make you feel pinned down like that. Not my intention.
>
> I really enjoyed meeting you at Hobbs and think you have a very bright future in soaring. I look forward to flying with you again soon!
>
> Sean

hey sean,

i didn't feel thrown under the bus or pinned down. i was happy to elaborate on my thoughts, since i made a pretty short statement that was contradictory to what i had previously written. this discussion is interesting to me, and i'm glad to take part in it/read everyone else's opinions. on that note, I agree that it IS a subjective discussion.

sadly i can't give you more first hand knowledge of flying with flarm at the world level... YET ;) look forward to flying with you again too!

ND

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 7th 15, 08:55 PM

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:53:32 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:

> I just don't hear any specifics here...I hear broad statements and assumptions.
>

One last effort to put the data we have on the table. I removed Days 1 and 6 (mass landout days) from Harris Hill. This leaves only days that had high completion ratios - only P7, XC and BT flew both 2014 and 2015 15-Meter Nationals and could make informed judgements about how "randomizing" the conditions were for what remained (outside the two landout days, that is).

The result is Harris Hill had an average winners score of 952 versus 869 for Montague, so from a devaluation perspective dropping the two mass landout days makes Harris Hill quantitatively less random. Even so, pilot performance averaged 10% off of what you'd expect from the PRL versus 7% for Montague (and 6.5% if you exclude P7's "random" landout).

I'd add that at Montague I saw lots of pretty complete Flarm setups (I worked on a bunch - doing config files, RF testing and even installed my spare unit in a competitor's glider - which is why people kept seeing 9B in multiple places on course - heh heh). I'd have to say that I think many, if not most, pilots had the ability to use Flarm tactically - I certainly did when I could and there was even a protest based in part on use of Flarm data for tactical purposes. Flarm may not have been in use by everyone to 100% of its ultimate capability, but it was certainly in use by enough people that if it was making a big difference you ought to be able to detect something. HH randomness notwithstanding, the Montague results were pretty orderly - so Flarm leeches were not successfully crawling up the scoresheet - though some may have tried.

The data to-date provides no evidence that people are generating sustained benefit from tactical Flarm usage. In fact, the evidence is that people are NOT generating a sustained benefit. Maybe that will change with time and experience.

This discussion has raised another thought. The single biggest factor in randomizing scores away from what makes sense (at least based on the long term competition records of the pilots) is weather. It has been argued here that it is harder to pick up any signal from Flarm leeching with random weather noise in the scores from tricky days that land out most of the field except for a lucky few. So, should we be disallowing days where less than 2/3 or 3/4 of the fleet finishes? They say contests are won on the weak days, maybe that's bad thing?

I tend to agree with Sean (7T). There seems to be a lot of speculation and supposition and "anecdotalytics" floating about - on all sides. It does appear to me that Stealth mode retains enough warning range for most collision scenarios, but how restricting the broader situational view might cascade into a threat scenario under particular circumstances is unclear and I would want to know a lot more about that. For instance, I have already once mistaken a glider that didn't show up on Flarm for one that was a threat and mistakenly tracked the wrong target until way too late. I suspect trial lawyers don't care if Stealth is 99% as good as no Stealth in the event anything bad happens. That's a concern.

I also tend to agree with 7T in his view that tactical Flarm usage sometimes helps a bit, sometimes hurts a bit. In FAI-style team and gaggle flying it probably can be used to greater benefit as gaggle-hopping is a strategy that can win races (Sebastian Kawa has a view on this point). Gaggle-hopping is a strategy that may be enhanced by, but was not created by, Flarm. It's more a result of FAI scoring philosophy. In any event, the strategy is available to everyone. Also, with or without Flarm, flying more assigned tasks will likely generate more leeching behavior, so if you're opposed to leeching, you might not like ATs either.

I also don't buy the "expensive arms race" argument. Most US racing pilots have Flarm available to them today (if you're really poor I'll loan you my spare, or you can rent one). Most glider pilots have some sort of moving map display - whether it's an LX9000/ClearNav premium computer or an Oudie (basically the same software as the LX) or a smartphone running open source gliding software. They all have Flarm tracking basically for free and new Flarm features will be made available to the broad market (at least that's been the case so far). Turning features off won't make the devices or software any cheaper and they won't not develop them just because racing pilots don't like them - they're great for OLC/buddy flying.

That does leave us with what seems to be the essential point. Does Flarm increase or decrease (some might say ruin) the qualitative experience of glider racing? There's no better feeling than having a strategic inspiration, going off on your own and smoking the field. There's also something disheartening about struggling down low until you find the boomer that saves your day only to have the gaggle roll in right on top of you. Stories of pilots who leeched their way to the podium by following top pilots around have been part of soaring folklore as long as I can remember, but I don't generally think the people on the podium are second-rate and most scoresheets make sense to me most of the time. BUT, there is also GW's sentiment - and it does not seem so rare - that Flarm allows pilots to keep in touch with some of the field and generates more of a sense of racing and some camaraderie in a sport that can be isolating. He argues that that's more fun and makes the sport more accessible to new pilots, even if it doesn't catapult them to the top - or even middle - of the scoresheet. We struggle with limiting the shrinkage of the sport. I'd be curious to know whether newer racing pilots learn more quickly and enjoy the experience more when they can see more of what's going on out of course.

Good discussion - many useful points and perspectives.

9B

Dave Nadler

August 7th 15, 09:28 PM

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
>... I have also heard the FAI is considering stealth mode requirements.

Further proof of a truly stupid idea...
But maybe it will keep them busy so they don't introduce an 11 meter class!

August 8th 15, 03:11 AM

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that Flarm leeching is no factor in contest results. Does anyone think that means tactical use of Flarm is not resulting in more time with eyes in the cockpit? Seems to me that the supposed safety benefit of not being in stealth mode may be negated by pilots fixated on their screens.

August 8th 15, 03:13 AM

Papa3[_2_]

August 8th 15, 03:15 AM

I agree - lots of good discussion.

I would again emphasize though that nobody has yet put the effort into building a true Tactical Leeching Tool. Flarm just provides data and a collision warning algorithm which seems to work extremely well for the purpose for which it was designed. I have been truly impressed at how few spurious warnings I have gotten in either unrestricted or stealth mode. As a safety tool, I love it.

But, please consider what folks could do IF they put their minds to it. Visualizing and presenting the Flarm data for tactical advantage has hardly been tapped at all. Imagine a filtering algorithm that takes in Flarm data from a bunch of gliders. It figures out if this is a "gaggle" (defined by at least 2 gliders circling for at least 30 seconds and climbing, for example). Now, imagine that it smooths the climb data from the gliders that are identified as Gaggle A with an indication of average climb rate (30 second, 60 second, duration of climb) as selected by the user. Imagine that another gaggle (Gaggle B) nearby is similarly filtered and displayed. Color coding is applied with strongest average climbs in Green and decreasing in size and intensity with weaker climbs. Also, the user can set alerts to indicate if specific targets are in Gaggle A or Gaggle B. Okay, Gaggle A is clearly averaging a better climb, and as a bonus P7 is part of the group. This is not 10 years out sort of stuff. I've already written specs for several of these examples.

I suspect that the reason a lot of folks are finding Flarm of limited tactical value right now is largely unfamiliarity with the tool combined with User Interfaces which are not yet optimized for competition. My Flarm routinely provides 7.5km to 8km range, which is basically a corridor 15km wide (left and right). And contrary to statements made in this thread, many thermals are relatively persistent and regenerative. All you have to do to see this in action is to download competition files from a recent contest and replay the flights in maggot race mode on SeeYou. If you synchronize on start time, you can see gliders converging on exactly the same spot often times 10-15 minutes apart when you shift back to real-time. So, having a choice of 2 gaggles displayed each of which is only 3 miles away and KNOWING which gaggle is the stronger climb is a very real tactical advantage. Similar examples apply to the pre-start, straight glides, etc.

Of course, if everyone has it, then maybe the playing field is again level. Except that instead of looking out the window and eyeballing other gliders to figure out which group is climbing better relative to you, you'll be zooming in the gain on your Leeching Window. Sort of like good weather radar operators today who know how to identify the really ugly cells vs. the more benign cells. Maybe that's the exciting next frontier?

P3

August 8th 15, 03:18 AM

John Cochrane[_3_]

August 8th 15, 03:49 AM

So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.

I think we need to get back to a simple principle: Let's see if something is really a problem before we start passing rules against it.

Surely, you guys who want to impose stealth mode can come up with some real, serious, documented problem that real flarms today are causing, not just hypothetical problems of hypothetical future software?

By then we'll all have FAA mandated ADSB displays of all traffic, super cheap drone anti-collision technology showing us where the thermaling birds are, and so on.

John Cochrane

Jonathan St. Cloud

August 8th 15, 06:34 AM

The cadence of transition remains ever present, clocks that bind will be left to rust. Tick tock, tick tock.....

The old days are in the past. This argument is similar to the GPS data loggers versus cameras. The cream always raises to the top. Why limit Flarm. No Flarm data is going to help you out climb, core faster, or fly more efficient than a better pilot.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 7:49:31 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.
>
> I think we need to get back to a simple principle: Let's see if something is really a problem before we start passing rules against it.
>
> Surely, you guys who want to impose stealth mode can come up with some real, serious, documented problem that real flarms today are causing, not just hypothetical problems of hypothetical future software?
>
> By then we'll all have FAA mandated ADSB displays of all traffic, super cheap drone anti-collision technology showing us where the thermaling birds are, and so on.
>
> John Cochrane

Jim White[_3_]

August 8th 15, 07:06 AM

At 02:15 08 August 2015, Papa3 wrote:
>I agree - lots of good discussion. =20
>
>I would again emphasize though that nobody has yet put the effort into
>buil=
>ding a true Tactical Leeching Tool. Flarm just provides data and a
>collisi=
>on warning algorithm which seems to work extremely well for the purpose
>for=
> which it was designed. I have been truly impressed at how few spurious
>wa=
>rnings I have gotten in either unrestricted or stealth mode. As a safety
>to=
>ol, I love it. =20
>
>But, please consider what folks could do IF they put their minds to it.
>V=
>isualizing and presenting the Flarm data for tactical advantage has
hardly
>=
>been tapped at all. Imagine a filtering algorithm that takes in Flarm
>dat=
>a from a bunch of gliders. It figures out if this is a "gaggle"
(defined
>=
>by at least 2 gliders circling for at least 30 seconds and climbing, for
>ex=
>ample). Now, imagine that it smooths the climb data from the gliders
>th=
>at are identified as Gaggle A with an indication of average climb rate
(30
>=
>second, 60 second, duration of climb) as selected by the user. Imagine
>t=
>hat another gaggle (Gaggle B) nearby is similarly filtered and
displayed.
>=
> Color coding is applied with strongest average climbs in Green and
>decreas=
>ing in size and intensity with weaker climbs. Also, the user can set
>aler=
>ts to indicate if specific targets are in Gaggle A or Gaggle B. Okay,
>Gag=
>gle A is clearly averaging a better climb, and as a bonus P7 is part of
>the=
> group. This is not 10 years out sort of stuff. I've already written
>spe=
>cs for several of these examples. =20
>
>I suspect that the reason a lot of folks are finding Flarm of limited
>tacti=
>cal value right now is largely unfamiliarity with the tool combined with
>Us=
>er Interfaces which are not yet optimized for competition. My Flarm
>routin=
>ely provides 7.5km to 8km range, which is basically a corridor 15km wide
>(l=
>eft and right). And contrary to statements made in this thread, many
>the=
>rmals are relatively persistent and regenerative. All you have to do
to
>=
>see this in action is to download competition files from a recent contest
>a=
>nd replay the flights in maggot race mode on SeeYou. If you synchronize
>o=
>n start time, you can see gliders converging on exactly the same spot
>often=
> times 10-15 minutes apart when you shift back to real-time. So,
having
>=
>a choice of 2 gaggles displayed each of which is only 3 miles away and
>KNOW=
>ING which gaggle is the stronger climb is a very real tactical advantage.

>=
> Similar examples apply to the pre-start, straight glides, etc.=20
>
>Of course, if everyone has it, then maybe the playing field is again
>level.=
> Except that instead of looking out the window and eyeballing other
>glider=
>s to figure out which group is climbing better relative to you, you'll be
>z=
>ooming in the gain on your Leeching Window. Sort of like good weather
>rad=
>ar operators today who know how to identify the really ugly cells vs. the
>m=
>ore benign cells. Maybe that's the exciting next frontier? =20
>
>P3
>
>
Astute thinking. Flying the computers is the problem for me.

August 8th 15, 07:52 AM

Well, I am no Luddite, but will there be never be a technology that we ban from our cockpits? Won't we have to draw a line at some point?

I hated turn point cameras and I really would not want to do without GPS, but before all the gadgetry, contests usually filled up or were oversubscribed.

[email protected]

August 8th 15, 08:04 AM

> Surely, you guys who want to impose stealth mode can come up with some real, serious, documented problem that real flarms today are causing, not just hypothetical problems of hypothetical future software?
>
> John Cochrane

John,

The problem is here. FLARM is a great help in finding the best competitors pre-start, following them out the start gate, and good way down the course line. For a short task in weak conditions folks can follow the top guy all the way around. XG never had a chance of hiding out and sneaking away.

This results in artificially similar flights and scores, not reflective of the variety of ability in the race, and make for a duller contest.

Here is a video replay of PAGC Day 3. Let me say that I and my partner would have gladly helped wear a groove around the course line. Those were the rules at this contest and it was clearly the fastest way to get around. 5E had a late start and got stuck low so I waited for him. It cost us.

https://youtu.be/Oti1iLPcTKg

Papa3[_2_]

August 8th 15, 11:47 AM

Papa3[_2_]

August 8th 15, 01:50 PM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 6:47:43 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:49:31 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> > So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> No, but as a leader in the US Rules Committee one would have thought you would be open-minded enough to at least consider the potential long term impacts of new technologies and at least be prepared for the consequences.
>
> It's obvious at this point that you're not, so I'll bow out of this one.
>
> As far as the software is concerned, that's the easy part. The Flarm folks did the difficult part by solving the hardware/firmware/collision algorithm problems. Good on them. Some of us are worried about the second order impacts already today (even with limited capability Flarm leeching has started), and it's easy to see it advancing rapidly from here for anyone with 25+ years in software development.
>
> Out.
> P3

Don't like my tone in this post, so I'll edit it. First cut was early a.m. and BC (before coffee). So, Take 2:

No, but as a leader in the US Rules Committee I think you need to be open-minded enough to at least consider the potential long term impacts of new technologies and be prepared for the consequences. It's obvious that a number of competitor are concerned and feel strongly on this topic, so hopefully that message is getting through .

As far as the software is concerned, that's the easy part. The Flarm folks did the difficult part by solving the hardware/firmware/collision algorithm problems. Good on them. Some of us are worried about the second order impacts already today (even with limited capability Flarm leeching has started), and it's easy to see it advancing rapidly from here.
>
> Out.
> P3

[email protected]

August 8th 15, 01:55 PM

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:49:31 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.
>
> I think we need to get back to a simple principle: Let's see if something is really a problem before we start passing rules against it.
>
> Surely, you guys who want to impose stealth mode can come up with some real, serious, documented problem that real flarms today are causing, not just hypothetical problems of hypothetical future software?
>
> By then we'll all have FAA mandated ADSB displays of all traffic, super cheap drone anti-collision technology showing us where the thermaling birds are, and so on.
>
> John Cochrane

I'll provide here a portion of a report written by one of the major rules thinkers without attribution as I do not have his OK to do so.
What's the problem
Range of Flarm now gives competitors the opportunity of identifying, locating and assessing the climb rate of competitors over 20km away. This has evolved with the production of better Flarm electronics (Powerflarm) and a better understanding of influence and importance of antenna location and design. Whilst the improved performance is most welcome as it now ensures that all installations are seeing and being seen at the important 2km range with much reduced blind spots(2km required for effective collision avoidance head to head), it has dramatically increased the tactical use by competition pilots.
Tactical benefits on task include being able to assess climb rate of others and identify where important pilots are in order to make improved strategic decisions. Even if the targets in view are not "tagged" they give important information for gliders behind to optimise routing and to ensure that if required a follower may ensure they fly the same route. Tactical benefit prior to start is even greater as it allows a full view of the start line area so it is clear where all the start gaggles are located, where key competitors are, whether they have started and sometimes what rate of climb is achieved in the first thermal on task.
It is arguable whether this sort of tactical assistance diminishes the art of racing gliders. I believe it does but this is not the main thrust of this paper. Flarm in isolation is a great safety device that has rightly been encouraged to the position we find ourselves today where it is mandatory in all FAI Cat 1 events. However, it is now very clear from feedback from International competition pilots that the workload in gleaning the "necessary" tactical data from the Flarm device is diminishing or eliminating the apparent added safety that the underlying Flarm provides.
What are pilots doing:-
1 Spending way too much time scanning moving maps for tactical contact detail instead of look out
2 Spending way too much time "tagging" competitors instead of look out to improve tactical content
3 Turning their Flarm units on and off at will to avoid tactical benefit accruing to others
4 Blanking antennas to reduce or eliminate range to avoid tactical benefit accruing to others
5 Installing amplifiers to increase range even further
6 Utilising two port Flarm units with one send/receive and one receive only antenna to maximise the range received but eliminate or restrict transmit range.
7 Changing backwards and forwards from "stealth" to full ON mode to minimize tactical benefit accruing to others but maximising own benefit as required.
Whats the effect
1 Safety is significantly diminished due to significant head in cockpit time inputting and viewing the Flarm for maximum tactical benefit.
2 Following or "leaching" is much easier so the eternal problem of gaggling is further encouraged at the possible cost of safety.
3 It is much easier for pilots of lower skill level to fly at the same XC speed as the best pilots.
What's the solution

Please read and consider with an open mind.
UH

jfitch

August 8th 15, 03:11 PM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 5:55:24 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:49:31 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> > So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.
> >
> > I think we need to get back to a simple principle: Let's see if something is really a problem before we start passing rules against it.
> >
> > Surely, you guys who want to impose stealth mode can come up with some real, serious, documented problem that real flarms today are causing, not just hypothetical problems of hypothetical future software?
> >
> > By then we'll all have FAA mandated ADSB displays of all traffic, super cheap drone anti-collision technology showing us where the thermaling birds are, and so on.
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> I'll provide here a portion of a report written by one of the major rules thinkers without attribution as I do not have his OK to do so.
> What's the problem
> Range of Flarm now gives competitors the opportunity of identifying, locating and assessing the climb rate of competitors over 20km away. This has evolved with the production of better Flarm electronics (Powerflarm) and a better understanding of influence and importance of antenna location and design. Whilst the improved performance is most welcome as it now ensures that all installations are seeing and being seen at the important 2km range with much reduced blind spots(2km required for effective collision avoidance head to head), it has dramatically increased the tactical use by competition pilots.
> Tactical benefits on task include being able to assess climb rate of others and identify where important pilots are in order to make improved strategic decisions. Even if the targets in view are not "tagged" they give important information for gliders behind to optimise routing and to ensure that if required a follower may ensure they fly the same route. Tactical benefit prior to start is even greater as it allows a full view of the start line area so it is clear where all the start gaggles are located, where key competitors are, whether they have started and sometimes what rate of climb is achieved in the first thermal on task.
> It is arguable whether this sort of tactical assistance diminishes the art of racing gliders. I believe it does but this is not the main thrust of this paper. Flarm in isolation is a great safety device that has rightly been encouraged to the position we find ourselves today where it is mandatory in all FAI Cat 1 events. However, it is now very clear from feedback from International competition pilots that the workload in gleaning the "necessary" tactical data from the Flarm device is diminishing or eliminating the apparent added safety that the underlying Flarm provides.
> What are pilots doing:-
> 1 Spending way too much time scanning moving maps for tactical contact detail instead of look out
> 2 Spending way too much time "tagging" competitors instead of look out to improve tactical content
> 3 Turning their Flarm units on and off at will to avoid tactical benefit accruing to others
> 4 Blanking antennas to reduce or eliminate range to avoid tactical benefit accruing to others
> 5 Installing amplifiers to increase range even further
> 6 Utilising two port Flarm units with one send/receive and one receive only antenna to maximise the range received but eliminate or restrict transmit range.
> 7 Changing backwards and forwards from "stealth" to full ON mode to minimize tactical benefit accruing to others but maximising own benefit as required.
> Whats the effect
> 1 Safety is significantly diminished due to significant head in cockpit time inputting and viewing the Flarm for maximum tactical benefit.
> 2 Following or "leaching" is much easier so the eternal problem of gaggling is further encouraged at the possible cost of safety.
> 3 It is much easier for pilots of lower skill level to fly at the same XC speed as the best pilots.
> What's the solution
>
> Please read and consider with an open mind.
> UH

What would concern me more is the "win and all costs" mentality associated with actions such as covering your Flarm antenna as is alleged. In a mandatory Flarm contest, should that not result in disqualification and ejection? The leechers are at least, flying within the rules.

Some years ago I gave up sailboat racing (as did many others - there has been a precipitous drop in participation) in part because for some competitors the sport became all about winning, and little about sailing. For these people, if they cannot win they would not sail which led to an entirely different feel to regattas. Secrecy, cheating, and backbiting replaced comaradarie and egalitarianism. I hope there is no parallel here.

[email protected]

August 8th 15, 03:31 PM

Following on P3's post, this isn't hypothetical in the sense of depending upon some new technology. Thanks to the FLARM folks, the data on glider altitude and position are already available. Everything else is number crunching.

Forget crude displays of climb rate by blip. The first task is to write the code that creates a lift strength vs. height band profile for a thermal (already done for the SN10 years ago) based on the gliders who have been climbing in it. It's not just a snapshot; the software can keep track of anyone in a thermal as long as they're in range.

Then project the future thermal position for wind drift (already available in some nav software). Then project the arrival height at each thermal based on the MC setting (same as arrival height over a waypoint, adjusted for fact that this waypoint moves in the wind). Presto, a display of all the thermals within X miles (X depending on antenna design and placement) with lift profiles and arrival heights.

The next, only slightly more difficult, step is to add an indication of thermal life cycle: i.e., how long has it been there and are climb rates increasing or dying.

So as I top out in my thermal, I'm presented with a handful of alternatives, for each of which I know how far away it is, how high I'll be when I get there, where that arrival height is within the thermal lift band, and the likely lift strength, with an indication of whether I'll arrive before the thermal dies. And all of that will be updated while I'm on the way, of course.

The next step is to offer a recommendation on when to leave the current thermal (which has its own lift-height band and life cycle profiles) in order to reach the next thermal.

The next step is to automatically adjust the MC setting for the projected lift strength for each target thermal, because that's what MacCready theory needs to work well. Yes, for the first time (except for team flying), we'll have a good idea of what the strength of that next thermal is so we don't have to guess. And so what if the gliders marking the next thermal depart before you arrive? The nav system will direct you into the best part of the thermal.

The next step is to optimize the recommended path along the next five or so miles of the course line. Some thermals will justify a larger off course excursion than others. Let the computer calculate when. A little more difficult but it's still just number crunching.

And thanks to the software we'll all have, there will tend to be more gliders in each good thermal so the profile info on those desirable "destinations" will be better, although I can adjust my course to bump the weak thermals, as well. It's not too much of a stretch to think about deriving some airmass movement information by comparing the actual glide tracks of cruising gliders with what they should be given the average performance at a given speed. Exploiting lift streets--the holy grail of fast flying--will become a lot easier when they're painted on the nav screen, on which more and more of my attention will be focused.

This isn't science fiction. The software guys who jump on the FLARM bandwagon will soon have an "amoeba" of reachable thermals to go with their amoeba of reachable landing sites. I'd be shocked if most or all of these features aren't available by next contest season.

Full disclosure: although I'm sold on the safety benefits of FLARM after one contest, I resisted the transition to GPS loggers for years because I believed it would eliminate the need for an important soaring skill (navigation). So I guess I'm hardly in a position to be critical now, at another critical juncture. But somehow I think there's more philosophical opposition to making it significantly easier to leech--as FLARM does--than to making it easier to fly without being able to use a map. We've decried leeching since the arrival of large numbers of composite sailplanes in the 1970s equalized the fields and made it possible for less skilled pilots to blindly follow [and I mean that literally; there are some funny stories about leeches who grimly trailed leading pilots who wandered off course accidentally] more skillful pilots all the way around a task.

Various solutions have been proposed over the years to address leeching. In this case, stealth mode offers an easy way to blunt most of the impact. Will we have another challenge in a future era of ADS-B? Probably. But that shouldn't stop us from addressing this thorny situation now.

Just my opinion based strictly on the competitive aspects. UH's post provocatively addresses the safety angle.

I agree this is a good discussion.

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

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 8th 15, 03:45 PM

Is it "leach" - the removal of minerals from a solid by dissolving in a liquid, or "leech" - a blood-sucking worm?

I always thought it was the second one, but people seem to disagree. Very important to get this right because the solution could be very different depending on the precise definition of the problem.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 8th 15, 04:17 PM

Pondering Hank.

It's really important to fully exercise the logic, fact base and implications of all these concerns - which is why the discussion and back and forth is critical. What are the real drivers of change (technology, scoring systems, task types)? What are the potential implications (midair collisions, undeserving winners of contests, pilot enjoyment, cost of participation and being competitive)? What's real vs speculated/extrapolated? What to do about it (bans/inspections, changes in race format, changes in scoring formulae)?

As Hank knows from his years of service on the RC, all of these issues are investigated, discussed, debated and the implications of potential solutions also discussed and debated in the context of formal and informal input from the pilot community and the communities of people who put on contests, support the U.S. Team, etc.

It's about getting to the best possible answer in consideration of all the implications.

9B

Sean Fidler

August 8th 15, 04:58 PM

Thanks Hank. That is a pretty solid paper.

After reading the paper and hearing of the sophistication with which certain teams are trying to maximize their signal reception and minimize their transmition (covering antennas, custom antennas, powering on/off, amplifiers, turning on and off stealth mode, etc...) I have changed my position.

That is just ridiculous! Im surprised that this was not penalized when discovered. Some of these act are fairly shameful. Reminds me of a guy in sailing using an illegal carbon fibre deck (saving 50 lbs) in a one design class that required fiberglass. Pure cheating. Completely unsportsmanlike.

Either we need to all use the EXACT SAME equipment (a nightmare to enforce) or we should level the playing field and limit the data to the minimum needed to ensure safety (STEALTH v2, more later).

I would suggest "3 km", no ID, altitude only. No climb rate, no heading, no speed, etc. I think 2 km (1.2x miles, suggested in article) is not enough for a head on situation at 120 kts. Maybe even 5 km. But that exact window distance is for others to decide and a fairly minor point as long as it is at least 3km.

Overall, based on the article, I think taking advantage and manipulating FLARM data has already gone out of control.

- Ill formally support the newly recommended, next generation (V2) Stealth mode configuration (not the current configuration that may slightly limit situation awareness of close in gliders that are not currently a collision threat).

I think that confuguration change is quite easy to do and very important.

I hope the IGC -AND- SSA (and other countries) make this rule change quickly and together.

Sean
7T

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 8:55:24 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:49:31 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> > So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.
> >
> > I think we need to get back to a simple principle: Let's see if something is really a problem before we start passing rules against it.
> >
> > Surely, you guys who want to impose stealth mode can come up with some real, serious, documented problem that real flarms today are causing, not just hypothetical problems of hypothetical future software?
> >
> > By then we'll all have FAA mandated ADSB displays of all traffic, super cheap drone anti-collision technology showing us where the thermaling birds are, and so on.
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> I'll provide here a portion of a report written by one of the major rules thinkers without attribution as I do not have his OK to do so.
> What's the problem
> Range of Flarm now gives competitors the opportunity of identifying, locating and assessing the climb rate of competitors over 20km away. This has evolved with the production of better Flarm electronics (Powerflarm) and a better understanding of influence and importance of antenna location and design. Whilst the improved performance is most welcome as it now ensures that all installations are seeing and being seen at the important 2km range with much reduced blind spots(2km required for effective collision avoidance head to head), it has dramatically increased the tactical use by competition pilots.
> Tactical benefits on task include being able to assess climb rate of others and identify where important pilots are in order to make improved strategic decisions. Even if the targets in view are not "tagged" they give important information for gliders behind to optimise routing and to ensure that if required a follower may ensure they fly the same route. Tactical benefit prior to start is even greater as it allows a full view of the start line area so it is clear where all the start gaggles are located, where key competitors are, whether they have started and sometimes what rate of climb is achieved in the first thermal on task.
> It is arguable whether this sort of tactical assistance diminishes the art of racing gliders. I believe it does but this is not the main thrust of this paper. Flarm in isolation is a great safety device that has rightly been encouraged to the position we find ourselves today where it is mandatory in all FAI Cat 1 events. However, it is now very clear from feedback from International competition pilots that the workload in gleaning the "necessary" tactical data from the Flarm device is diminishing or eliminating the apparent added safety that the underlying Flarm provides.
> What are pilots doing:-
> 1 Spending way too much time scanning moving maps for tactical contact detail instead of look out
> 2 Spending way too much time "tagging" competitors instead of look out to improve tactical content
> 3 Turning their Flarm units on and off at will to avoid tactical benefit accruing to others
> 4 Blanking antennas to reduce or eliminate range to avoid tactical benefit accruing to others
> 5 Installing amplifiers to increase range even further
> 6 Utilising two port Flarm units with one send/receive and one receive only antenna to maximise the range received but eliminate or restrict transmit range.
> 7 Changing backwards and forwards from "stealth" to full ON mode to minimize tactical benefit accruing to others but maximising own benefit as required.
> Whats the effect
> 1 Safety is significantly diminished due to significant head in cockpit time inputting and viewing the Flarm for maximum tactical benefit.
> 2 Following or "leaching" is much easier so the eternal problem of gaggling is further encouraged at the possible cost of safety.
> 3 It is much easier for pilots of lower skill level to fly at the same XC speed as the best pilots.
> What's the solution
>
> Please read and consider with an open mind.
> UH

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 8th 15, 05:28 PM

Seems like many of the procedures to enforce turning Flarm on and off or adjusting range are the same or similar to enforcing stealth mode, the primary difference being in one case you are ensuring they don't have too much range and in the other you are ensuring they don't have too little - log files, Flarm ground stations, etc have been proposed for both.

Also worth pondering - in a world with ADS-B we will ultimately end up in a world were stealth mode is effectively voluntary - like today only more so..

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 8th 15, 05:48 PM

Also - one of the main concerns coming out of Europe is OGN, which has cracked Flarm encryption and doesn't need to abide by Stealth protocols. This is mostly open source software and Flarm ground stations with high gain antennas have ranges many multiples of the airborne units. So enterprising pilots/teams can create situations where everyone else is flying around with 2km range and their's is effectively unlimited.

I've got all the components to build a Flarm Ground Station collected - so I can see what it's capable of.

We might have to search you for cell phones before you take off - and make you turn them in.

Stay tuned.

9B

Ron Gleason

August 8th 15, 05:51 PM

On Saturday, 8 August 2015 10:28:15 UTC-6, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Seems like many of the procedures to enforce turning Flarm on and off or adjusting range are the same or similar to enforcing stealth mode, the primary difference being in one case you are ensuring they don't have too much range and in the other you are ensuring they don't have too little - log files, Flarm ground stations, etc have been proposed for both.
>
> Also worth pondering - in a world with ADS-B we will ultimately end up in a world were stealth mode is effectively voluntary - like today only more so.
>
> 9B
If the SSA Competition Rules Committee or Competition Committee decides that stealth mode is required at some level of contests and a rule is implemented the enforcement of the rule *MUST* be automated, just like airspace violations are checked within WINSCORE or SeeYou Competition.

Please do not put yet another level of burden on contest organizers.

[email protected]

August 8th 15, 07:27 PM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
<< Also - one of the main concerns coming out of Europe is OGN, which has cracked Flarm encryption and doesn't need to abide by Stealth protocols. This is mostly open source software and Flarm ground stations with high gain antennas have ranges many multiples of the airborne units. So enterprising pilots/teams can create situations where everyone else is flying around with 2km range and their's is effectively unlimited.>>

Hey, maybe we're making this more complicated than necessary. The solution is to just ban FLARM in competition.

It's a big sky. My first experiences with FLARM over the past month have been good, but I'd been doing just fine without it for 50 years before then. Ironically, I suspect that having been warned of close encounters of which they weren't aware of until FLARM, most competitors would now be conditioned to be MUCH more alert and vigilant than ever before if they didn't have it.

And unlike online weather radar displays, it's not like one guy sneaking a FLARM unit into his glider will provide a competitive advantage, right?

Just trying to help. :) I look forward to hearing of 9B's experiments with FLARM ground stations and high-gain antennas.

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

Tony[_5_]

August 8th 15, 08:13 PM

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> >... I have also heard the FAI is considering stealth mode requirements.
>
> Further proof of a truly stupid idea...
> But maybe it will keep them busy so they don't introduce an 11 meter class!

greetings from the 13.5 meter worlds. FLARM was technically required here but not enforced. The Russians are not equipped. Some guys seem to have stealth some not. Either way I know that I can consistently see a glider before my FLARM picks it up.

I'll try to get some traction on the 11 meter class tomorrow. These long wings on the Silent are starting to get heavy! :)

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 8th 15, 08:21 PM

In the spirit of out of the box thinking...

A radically simpler and non-technical arms race approach to this is simply to apply a "leech tax".

Since we are all scored on GPS traces it would be straightforward and operationally 100% automated to simply add 5-10 seconds to each pilot's time on course for every minute they spend climbing in a thermal that another glider found before them. You get no tax if you arrive within 20 seconds of pilots in the thermal ahead of you and a thermal remains "hot" from a tax perspective until 2 minutes after all the gliders arriving in front of you have left. You can set an upper limit of 5 or 10 minutes of added time or leave it unlimited. Scoring programs could also report leeching statistics for each pilot which would be interesting to see regardless.

That would certainly cut down on visual and electronic leeching and would encourage more pilots to lead out on course, reduced time spent scouting Flarm targets.

Depends on whether leeching is the main concern.

9B

John Cochrane[_3_]

August 8th 15, 08:38 PM

> >
> > No, but as a leader in the US Rules Committee one would have thought you would be open-minded enough to at least consider the potential long term impacts of new technologies and at least be prepared for the consequences.
> >
> > It's obvious at this point that you're not, so I'll bow out of this one..
> >

Message loud and clear, and fear not there will be poll questions and lots of discussion. I apologize if my tone indicated a closed mind, it absolutely is not. I'm just trying to sort through what we're hearing -- is the argument that we should impose stealth because there is a problem now? Or is the argument about potential future technology that must be nipped in the bud?

John Cochrane

[email protected]

August 8th 15, 09:16 PM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 3:21:06 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> In the spirit of out of the box thinking...
>
> A radically simpler and non-technical arms race approach to this is simply to apply a "leech tax".

That's the spirit, 9B! But that problem isn't using a thermal that another pilot found. If I spot someone a few miles away banked up at 60 degrees going up like smoke over Hillary Clinton's email servers, I shouldn't be penalized if I abandon 1 kt. at 1,200 feet and run for it.

On the other hand, if the well-known post-start-gate "towing" pattern is detected where the trailing pilot enters thermal a few wingspans directly behind the leader, levy the tax. Since this is all automated, set a threshold value between two gliders, say 1 to 2 minutes, after which it's assumed the second pilot did enough decision making that it's not leeching. And since this is all automated, if the software detects that the trailing pilot closed the gap during the previous run by a more skillful/lucky path, no penalty.

Papa3[_2_]

August 8th 15, 09:45 PM

I remember reading the term for the first time in a Charlie Spratt Sailplane Racing News from the late 80s or early 90s. It was definitely the little blood-sucking parasite variety. A quick check of the Soaring magazine archive turns up this quite amusing article by George Moffat in 1979:

http://www.ssa.org/Archive/ViewIssue.aspx?year=1979&month=12&page=48

Dave Leonard

August 9th 15, 12:37 AM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 2:45:23 PM UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
> I remember reading the term for the first time in a Charlie Spratt Sailplane Racing News from the late 80s or early 90s. It was definitely the little blood-sucking parasite variety. A quick check of the Soaring magazine archive turns up this quite amusing article by George Moffat in 1979:
>
> http://www.ssa.org/Archive/ViewIssue.aspx?year=1979&month=12&page=48

Check out the old leeching technology from the Oct 1980 Soaring Mag, pg 2.

http://www.ssa.org/Archive/ViewIssue.aspx?year=1980&month=10&page=2

[email protected]

August 9th 15, 12:39 AM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 12:51:17 PM UTC-4, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 August 2015 10:28:15 UTC-6, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Seems like many of the procedures to enforce turning Flarm on and off or adjusting range are the same or similar to enforcing stealth mode, the primary difference being in one case you are ensuring they don't have too much range and in the other you are ensuring they don't have too little - log files, Flarm ground stations, etc have been proposed for both.
> >
> > Also worth pondering - in a world with ADS-B we will ultimately end up in a world were stealth mode is effectively voluntary - like today only more so.
> >
> > 9B
> If the SSA Competition Rules Committee or Competition Committee decides that stealth mode is required at some level of contests and a rule is implemented the enforcement of the rule *MUST* be automated, just like airspace violations are checked within WINSCORE or SeeYou Competition.
>
> Please do not put yet another level of burden on contest organizers.

This was contemplated several years ago. In discussing what I called "US Stealth", I asked Urs at Flarm if the Flarm device could be put into Stealth and locked for a predetermined time so that a single verification, presumably during the practice period, could be done. He indicated that this was quite feasible. If Stealth in competition takes off, obviously scorers all over will want this quickly. This also avoids the problem of not being able to supply a complying log because of a failure.
UH

[email protected]

August 9th 15, 12:43 AM

This is how I see it.
People are talking about situational awareness, and being able to look at your flarm scope and see where other gliders are (without climb rates etc). Okay so, think about all the years that contests had a waiting list because they filled up, so there were a ton of gliders all flying in close proximity without flarm and they didn't have an overwhelming amount of mid-airs, pretty much because everyone was looking out the window. Now if every one has flarm with just gliders no climb rates, altitudes, or contest ids. Now people are going to be looking at their flarm scope for traffic and not looking out the window, where that guy who's flarm antenna got obstructed is, or that power traffic who doesn't use flarm is . . .

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 9th 15, 01:31 AM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 4:43:49 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> This is how I see it.
> People are talking about situational awareness, and being able to look at your flarm scope and see where other gliders are (without climb rates etc).. Okay so, think about all the years that contests had a waiting list because they filled up, so there were a ton of gliders all flying in close proximity without flarm and they didn't have an overwhelming amount of mid-airs, pretty much because everyone was looking out the window. Now if every one has flarm with just gliders no climb rates, altitudes, or contest ids. Now people are going to be looking at their flarm scope for traffic and not looking out the window, where that guy who's flarm antenna got obstructed is, or that power traffic who doesn't use flarm is . . .

That's been hypothesized a lot, but so far the statistics don't bear it out - nor does the science.

The problem is that the human central vision that has detail and allows you to pick out a target is only 2 degrees wide - that's about two thumb widths at arms length. Even if you are looking diligently, scientific studies by NASA, the USAF and the Australian Trasport Safety Bureau (these are just the ones I've read) indicate that your odds of picking up a target that's on a collision course are less than 50/50, possibly as low as 1 in 4, depending on the scenario.

It's easy to pick up targets that AREN'T going to hit you because your peripheral vision is quite broad and designed to pick up movement (collision threats don't move until the wingtips spread apart in your field of vision in the last 2-4 seconds). Because we see a lot of non-threat targets out there, we think that our scan is pretty good. It's not - at least on when it matters the most.

Ask Ramy Yanetz about his near miss over the Sierras. Both pilots had detected the other's Flarm target. Both knew where to look. Neither ever saw the other until they were already passing (angular movement). Only a radio call between a known set of contest IDs - "TG is turning right" - kept them apart. This fact, by the way, is a reason to mandate Flarm (even in Stealth) having contest ID's available rather than hiding them - a radio call "everybody turn right!" is not so useful in in response to an urgent head-to-head alarm at your altitude. Under stealth mode (at least at western TASs) you'll have about 10 seconds to figure out who should zig and who should zag - assuming the alarm happens at max stealth range, rather than because somebody you never saw coming made a turn in your direction.

So, despite the fact that most people are trained on the 1920s doctrine of see-and-avoid, and based on that assert that looking at your Flarm display puts you at greater risk, it is quite likely that in any scenario outside thermalling with other gliders, staring at your Flarm display may be the best thing you can do to avoid running into someone. With ASD-B equipage coming in 2020, it will likely also hold true for power traffic.

No - I am not advocating everyone put their head in the cockpit 100% of the time. A healthy scan certainly is always a good idea - and especially with targets in close. Plus hawks don't carry ADS-B - yet.

9B

Sean Fidler

August 9th 15, 01:33 AM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 7:43:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> This is how I see it.
> People are talking about situational awareness, and being able to look at your flarm scope and see where other gliders are (without climb rates etc).. Okay so, think about all the years that contests had a waiting list because they filled up, so there were a ton of gliders all flying in close proximity without flarm and they didn't have an overwhelming amount of mid-airs, pretty much because everyone was looking out the window. Now if every one has flarm with just gliders no climb rates, altitudes, or contest ids. Now people are going to be looking at their flarm scope for traffic and not looking out the window, where that guy who's flarm antenna got obstructed is, or that power traffic who doesn't use flarm is . . .

----

Hmmm. If one owns POWERFLARM and is moderately experienced at flying contests with it...one would know that a pilot very rarely looks at the FLARM display. When a pilot does get an unexpected warning the first thing you do is redo your visual scan. If that scan fails, you "might" quickly glance at the display in an effort to better ID the conflict location.

That said, glancing at the FLARM display is almost always unnecessary as FLARM also gives the pilot an audio call for the traffic immediately following the beep warning (Example: traffic, 3 O'Clock, Above). If you do decide to look at the display (once you have checked visually and heard the audio prompt) it only takes a small fraction of a second to glance down at the display and see where the traffic is (relative to your current position) and then get eyes back out again continue trying to find it.

All of this happens in a few seconds, max. The warning, the audio prompt, the scan which began immediately upon the initial beep, the glance, the continued scan, etc. Remember, without FLARM you would not know anything was wrong at all at this point.

A competent competition pilot is constantly scanning (visually, not Flarm). Flarm is your traffic co-pilot, helping you scan with audio cues primarily. When you do get a warning on the Flarm (perhaps the glider in a thermal ahead tightens up the turn) and you hear the initial conflict warning beeps, you almost always expect it and knew it was coming based on what you see visually. The timing of this FLARM warning is incredibly accurate and virtually instantaneous. You actually learn what maneuvers will set off a warning and what won't. As a courtesy to other pilots I try not to set the warning off for them if at all possible (it can be irritating).

Back on the other hand, if you get a FLARM warning that you are not expecting (you see no gliders nearby)...its quite startling (and also, unfortunately, just as accurate). You know there is a problem.

One of the most frightening warnings is when a glider that is following you pulls in close behind you on a pull up. You usually cannot see them and the FLARM audio might say...6 o'clock, below and the display shows a glider right on top of you. One just has to deal with those and have a bit of trust.

I must say that I feel the constant stream of statements about FLARM taking pilots eyes off their visual scan out the window is a VERY large misconception. It simply is not true. At least in my experience.

The audio beeps (and synthesized speech guidance) is 99% of what FLARM is to me. I listen to FLARM....and rarely need to look at anything inside the cockpit from a safety perspective. The main reason I have the FlarmView is to download flights more easily.

Dave Nadler

August 9th 15, 01:54 AM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> That said, glancing at the FLARM display is almost always unnecessary
> as FLARM also gives the pilot an audio call for the traffic immediately
> following the beep warning (Example: traffic, 3 O'Clock, Above).

Sorry, the audio output is provided by downstream display devices.
For example Triadis voice product for FLARM, LX9000, ClearNAV, IIRC Oudie, etc.
Voice (audio other than beeps) is not part of FLARM (PowerFLARM core or portable).

A good audio ennuciator is an extremely helpful addition to FLARM!

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave

Tango Eight

August 9th 15, 03:30 AM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 8:31:38 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>Under stealth mode (at least at western TASs) you'll have about 10 seconds to figure out who should zig and who should zag - assuming the alarm happens at max stealth range, rather than because somebody you never saw coming made a turn in your direction.

25 seconds. Stealth mode doesn't reduce the range at which the anti-collision alerts happen. What appears to be true is that you won't see the targets on tactical display until the warning happens.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 9th 15, 03:41 AM

Hmmm...

Not according to the Flarm Dataport Specification 7.03 released on July 30, 2015 that says no target data is put onto the serial port for targets above 2 km in distance. At 17,000' and 110 kts IAS for two head-to-head targets that's a hair over 10 seconds.

9B

Tango Eight

August 9th 15, 04:05 AM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 10:41:24 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Hmmm...
>
> Not according to the Flarm Dataport Specification 7.03 released on July 30, 2015 that says no target data is put onto the serial port for targets above 2 km in distance. At 17,000' and 110 kts IAS for two head-to-head targets that's a hair over 10 seconds.
>
> 9B

I don't have that document (is it on the web anywhere?), but it sounds like you are looking at the description of the $PFLAA sentence (traffic data).

-Evan

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 9th 15, 04:58 AM

It's the PRIV command spec for Stealth Mode

jfitch

August 9th 15, 06:27 AM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Hmmm...
>
> Not according to the Flarm Dataport Specification 7.03 released on July 30, 2015 that says no target data is put onto the serial port for targets above 2 km in distance. At 17,000' and 110 kts IAS for two head-to-head targets that's a hair over 10 seconds.
>
> 9B

Without the target data on the serial port, you will not get a voice enunciation of that target from your third party device.

waremark

August 9th 15, 12:28 PM

What equipment do you have? It sounds really good. (This is to the pilot who says he hardly looks at a display).

I have LX 9000 and Butterfly display. I get voice warnings when I don't need them (I think I get them up to 1000 foot vertical seperation, not interested over 500 feet) and often don't get them when a glider is too close. The Butterfly does not show ID's (I was unable to get it to accept the Flarm database).

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 9th 15, 12:45 PM

True. In Stealth mode you also won't get speed, track and climb rate info and the altitude will be dithered. That makes it hard for your display device to do anything other than 1mi / 1000 ft traffic alerts - which is what LX does with Stealth off anyway.

I'll have to look up whether collision alarms are calculated and passed to the serial port some how for high closing rate threats outside the 2km limit for stealth target blanking. Even if that's teue it's not at all clear that an alarm would come with any traffic display, since no exceptions are mentioned in the spec for blanking this info outside 2km and not every target on a reciprocal heading generates a collision warning sonita possible for converging traffic to get down to 2km and change course towards you. Flarm extrapolates, but it doesn't anticipate maneuvering. My setup is 8-12 km for head-on, so normally I'd pick up a potential threat a lot further out from a visual scan, voice annunciation not withstanding. I think of gliders making a 180 at a turnpoint as a classic scenario. They're invisible, then they're 10+ seconds away and you have an alarm (but maybe not a target on the display until they close within 2km?).

9B

August 9th 15, 01:20 PM

Andy,
Check out FIRMWARE RELEASE NOTES FLARM 6.02 Firmware. As I read it, for any determined threat even outside 2km and +/- 300m vertically you should get an alarm, relative position, relative altitude, climb rate,track and speed but no ID.
XC

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

August 9th 15, 01:22 PM

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:45:17 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> True. In Stealth mode you also won't get speed, track and climb rate info and the altitude will be dithered. That makes it hard for your display device to do anything other than 1mi / 1000 ft traffic alerts - which is what LX does with Stealth off anyway.
>
> I'll have to look up whether collision alarms are calculated and passed to the serial port some how for high closing rate threats outside the 2km limit for stealth target blanking. Even if that's teue it's not at all clear that an alarm would come with any traffic display, since no exceptions are mentioned in the spec for blanking this info outside 2km and not every target on a reciprocal heading generates a collision warning sonita possible for converging traffic to get down to 2km and change course towards you. Flarm extrapolates, but it doesn't anticipate maneuvering. My setup is 8-12 km for head-on, so normally I'd pick up a potential threat a lot further out from a visual scan, voice annunciation not withstanding. I think of gliders making a 180 at a turnpoint as a classic scenario. They're invisible, then they're 10+ seconds away and you have an alarm (but maybe not a target on the display until they close within 2km?).
>
> 9B

Working to stem the tide of technology seems a bit like tilting at windmills. While mandating Stealth buys a bit more time for the "good old days" (a few years) as 9B has pointed out once ADSB happens it nullifies stealth.

Allowance of other electronics (i.e. smartphone/tablet based) makes stealth just the tip of the iceberg.

Maybe a good use of our intellectual effort is to ponder how to sharply reduce the competitive advantage of Flarm (or visual) leeching.

Perhaps the "latest start time" concept advanced by BB has use here? You can start late and use technology to catch up, but you pay a price for it.

9B's "leach tax" concept may have utility here also.

So I am advocating spending more time thinking about how to change the task to sharply decrease the utility of Flarm leeching rather than just debating stealth/nostealth, which seems to me is a relatively short-term instance of the the overall challenge.

QT

[email protected]

August 9th 15, 01:51 PM

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 1:27:50 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > Not according to the Flarm Dataport Specification 7.03 released on July 30, 2015 that says no target data is put onto the serial port for targets above 2 km in distance. At 17,000' and 110 kts IAS for two head-to-head targets that's a hair over 10 seconds.
> >
> > 9B
>
> Without the target data on the serial port, you will not get a voice enunciation of that target from your third party device.

Not correct in all cases.
My Clearnav, with PF in Stealth, calls conflicts with audible "traffic 12 o'clock high". Some other combinations may not do this.
With this setup, as I used in Elmira, there is zero reason to look in the cockpit for any info from Flarm.
For ME, this is the perfect combination of adding additional safety to my scan, and having no tactical affect on the flight.
UH

August 9th 15, 02:04 PM

Have we totally given up and agreed that ADS-B will be required in gliders, too?

Also, isn't it possible to have the same stealth technology in glider ADS-B boxes? It seems as though all the logic has been worked out. As this thread started out saying the stealth mode really works well for collision avoidance.

I am not buying the arguments about enhancing situational awareness. These seem to be coming from folks who haven't tried stealth mode or are wanting to use FLARM to enhance/extend their vision and improve their soaring performance by using thermals others have found and cored. Do we want unlimited use of this to be part of contest soaring where we are trying to determine who are our champions?

As FLARM becomes meshed, that is each FLARM unit transmits all the data it receives to all other units in range and so on, each pilot will have the ability to see what is going on in the whole task area. Again, this quickly takes us to a point where contests are about who can gather the most information from others rather than who can best read the sky.

XC

Tango Eight

August 9th 15, 02:30 PM

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 11:58:09 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> It's the PRIV command spec for Stealth Mode

I was promised a copy of the dataport spec that I still haven't received.

I hope this is a documentation screw up. There's no earthly reason to do it this way.

best,
Evan

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 9th 15, 04:10 PM

Unfortunately, there is no single device you can look to to enforce stealth logic on ADS-B traffic (Garmin will not likely devote a lot of time to algorithms that make traffic invisible) plus even if there were you'd have to figure out how not to blank out fast jets where 2km is probably not appropriate.

Then there is the issue of monkeying with the FAA's traffic system.

It may or may not be required for gliders, but it certainly will be available and given its usefulness for power traffic avoidance, do we really want to ban it?

It's tough to be King Canute - lots of things to worry about.

9B

Sean Fidler

August 9th 15, 04:47 PM

I have an Oudie 2 that does the "talking." If you look at some of my soaring videos on YouTube you can hear the Oudie2 "talking" fairly often. I'll try and find some and post links here.

Thanks for th correction Dave N. I thought it was native to the Flarm Brick/Core. It really should be. Perhaps a speaker option (or standard). Without the audio cues, I think it is a bit dicey trying to cross check location visually on the display. Again, I almost never look at the display anymore.

I am shocked if the LX(xxxx)and ClearNAV do not give audio cues. They don't?

Richard[_9_]

August 9th 15, 04:53 PM

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:30:39 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 11:58:09 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > It's the PRIV command spec for Stealth Mode
>
> I was promised a copy of the dataport spec that I still haven't received.
>
> I hope this is a documentation screw up. There's no earthly reason to do it this way.
>
> best,
> Evan

Data Spec is on this page

FTD-14 bottom of page.

http://flarm.com/support/manuals-documents/

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

Sean Fidler

August 9th 15, 05:00 PM

At the very beginning of this video there are some audio calls from the Oudie via FLARM. If you watch the other videos in the series you will hear numerous others.

http://youtu.be/tW-YF-mePXk

John Cochrane[_3_]

August 9th 15, 11:58 PM

A question:

Another request we are hearing a lot of is the request to make US contests more like worlds, and in particular to support team flying where possible. (Along with simplification)

Flarm is enormously valuable to team flying. Ask anyone who has tried it. The ability to see where your "team mate" is without endless radio chatter, especially if he's behind you, makes the whole thing work better.

While flarm is allowed in worlds (which, granted, may not be forever), is this an important consideration? Similarly, if all the dark arts that UH described are going on at worlds, is getting good at this sort of thing important to US pilots? Or is it better to go our own way?

John Cochrane

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 10th 15, 12:01 AM

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 10:32:19 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 5:51:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 1:27:50 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > > Hmmm...
> > > >
> > > > Not according to the Flarm Dataport Specification 7.03 released on July 30, 2015 that says no target data is put onto the serial port for targets above 2 km in distance. At 17,000' and 110 kts IAS for two head-to-head targets that's a hair over 10 seconds.
> > > >
> > > > 9B
> > >
> > > Without the target data on the serial port, you will not get a voice enunciation of that target from your third party device.
> >
> > Not correct in all cases.
> > My Clearnav, with PF in Stealth, calls conflicts with audible "traffic 12 o'clock high". Some other combinations may not do this.
> > With this setup, as I used in Elmira, there is zero reason to look in the cockpit for any info from Flarm.
> > For ME, this is the perfect combination of adding additional safety to my scan, and having no tactical affect on the flight.
> > UH
>
> This is entirely correct in all cases. Your ClearNav sees and warns only of those things the Flarm puts on its serial port. If it isn't on the serial port, it isn't there for ClearNav (or any other device). The question is, does the Flarm put a traffic warning on the serial port for a collision threat more than 2 km away in stealth mode? As was pointed out, traffic more than 2 km away is not a threat, except in certain circumstances such as fast closing speeds head on under a strong street.

It looks like the spec allows traffic information for targets that generate a collision warning. The tricky part is that this presumes that aircraft changes heading to become a threat. You'd need to understand a bit about how the algorithm sorts head-to-head targets and how close they have to be expected to come to generate an alarm. Based on what I understand about the algorithm it is possible that a target that changes course can go from hidden under Stealth to a threat at a distance between the maximum alarm range and the 2 km Stealth traffic limit and therefore become a bit of a nasty surprise. Most pilots fly pretty straight under cloud streets and in convergence.

Note to users - minimize the snaking around under cloud streets in stealth mode.

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 10th 15, 12:03 AM

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:01:35 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 10:32:19 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 5:51:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 1:27:50 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > > > Hmmm...
> > > > >
> > > > > Not according to the Flarm Dataport Specification 7.03 released on July 30, 2015 that says no target data is put onto the serial port for targets above 2 km in distance. At 17,000' and 110 kts IAS for two head-to-head targets that's a hair over 10 seconds.
> > > > >
> > > > > 9B
> > > >
> > > > Without the target data on the serial port, you will not get a voice enunciation of that target from your third party device.
> > >
> > > Not correct in all cases.
> > > My Clearnav, with PF in Stealth, calls conflicts with audible "traffic 12 o'clock high". Some other combinations may not do this.
> > > With this setup, as I used in Elmira, there is zero reason to look in the cockpit for any info from Flarm.
> > > For ME, this is the perfect combination of adding additional safety to my scan, and having no tactical affect on the flight.
> > > UH
> >
> > This is entirely correct in all cases. Your ClearNav sees and warns only of those things the Flarm puts on its serial port. If it isn't on the serial port, it isn't there for ClearNav (or any other device). The question is, does the Flarm put a traffic warning on the serial port for a collision threat more than 2 km away in stealth mode? As was pointed out, traffic more than 2 km away is not a threat, except in certain circumstances such as fast closing speeds head on under a strong street.
>
Typo corrected.

It looks like the spec allows traffic information for targets that generate a collision warning. The tricky part is that this presumes that NEITHER aircraft changes heading to become a threat. You'd need to understand a bit about how the algorithm sorts head-to-head targets and how close they have to be expected to come to generate an alarm. Based on what I understand about the algorithm it is possible that a target that changes course can go from hidden under Stealth to a threat at a distance between the maximum alarm range and the 2 km Stealth traffic limit and therefore become a bit of a nasty surprise. Most pilots fly pretty straight under cloud streets and in convergence.

Note to users - minimize the snaking around under cloud streets in stealth mode.

9B

[email protected]

August 10th 15, 12:46 AM

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:58:25 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> A question:
>
> Another request we are hearing a lot of is the request to make US contests more like worlds, and in particular to support team flying where possible.. (Along with simplification)
>
> Flarm is enormously valuable to team flying. Ask anyone who has tried it. The ability to see where your "team mate" is without endless radio chatter, especially if he's behind you, makes the whole thing work better.
>
> While flarm is allowed in worlds (which, granted, may not be forever), is this an important consideration? Similarly, if all the dark arts that UH described are going on at worlds, is getting good at this sort of thing important to US pilots? Or is it better to go our own way?
>
> John Cochrane

Clarification- UH did not describe those dark arts in the paper. That was a very high standing UK comp pilot who knows of what he speaks, I believe.
I'm hoping to get an OK for attribution.

UH

[email protected]

August 10th 15, 12:50 AM

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:04:04 AM UTC-4, XC wrote:
> Have we totally given up and agreed that ADS-B will be required in gliders, too?
>
> Also, isn't it possible to have the same stealth technology in glider ADS-B boxes? It seems as though all the logic has been worked out. As this thread started out saying the stealth mode really works well for collision avoidance.
>
> I am not buying the arguments about enhancing situational awareness. These seem to be coming from folks who haven't tried stealth mode or are wanting to use FLARM to enhance/extend their vision and improve their soaring performance by using thermals others have found and cored. Do we want unlimited use of this to be part of contest soaring where we are trying to determine who are our champions?
>
> As FLARM becomes meshed, that is each FLARM unit transmits all the data it receives to all other units in range and so on, each pilot will have the ability to see what is going on in the whole task area. Again, this quickly takes us to a point where contests are about who can gather the most information from others rather than who can best read the sky.
>
> XC

Requirement being presented would be ADSB out so the "system" can see you. It does not mean you have to have and use a display and use ADSB in, particularly in competition. Currently "out and in" would not be contest legal in the US as it is not a permitted 2 way communication.
FWIW
UH

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 10th 15, 03:01 AM

You could set the ADS-B Horizontal and vertical ranges to zero in PowerFlarm. Unfortunately that wouldn't stop people from putting a Garmin ADS-B unit that communicates to IOS or Android devices via WiFi in, say, the tail fin battery box or some other not obvious location. Receivers are pretty cheap and easy.

Ultimately, on-demand inspections might be required.

9B

[email protected]

August 10th 15, 01:33 PM

2 cents from a Rookie :) so take it for what it's worth.

I put my FlARM on Stealth for the Nationals - worked just as good to find people I could not see quickly and were close enough that is was comforting to find them.

I bought Flarm originally to see power traffic coming down out of a cloud on IFR when I get a little too close to cloud base - it still does that nicely.

When I am at home if I want to know where other gliders are I just call them on the radio and they tell me location, height and if they have "great lift" - so I am not sure if/why I will change the FLARM config file.

I have competed in pretty high level sports and have no disire to gain tactical advantage by seeing other gliders outside on eyesight range - true sport is about the inner game, which is where satisfaction really lives :) Some winners are never satisfied with their performance.

Stealth worked well :) makes sense for contests.

WH

[email protected]

August 10th 15, 01:47 PM

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 1:57:41 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Excerpt from the BGA on this issue (July 2015)
>
> See https://members.gliding.co.uk/2015/07/07/competition-rule-book-amendment-flarm-stealth-mode/
>
> "Following the Standard and 15m Nationals, the chairmen of the BGA comps, airspace and safety committees have consulted the relevant technical experts and as a consequence consider that the current 'Stealth' settings designed in by FLARM need to be changed so that the competition issues are resolved in a way that does not compromise non-gliding or external traffic awareness benefits. Therefore having considered the available advice, the Executive Committee has agreed to stop the trial for the remainder of this season's National competitions. The next National competition starts on 11th July. Pilots are free to make their own choices about use of FLARM.
>
> The competitions committee and others will engage with the FLARM manufacturer with the aim of addressing all the identified issues in time for the next competition season.
>
> Pilots are reminded that whilst electronic collision warning equipment can enhance pilots' awareness by providing most useful warnings, such equipment cannot and must not replace a good systematic visual lookout scan, and that it is necessary to avoid any in-cockpit equipment from distracting from the visual lookout scan."
>
> Seems BGA is looking into changing Stealth mode settings to reduce contest advantage without affecting situational awareness. This seems a sensible approach to me. Perhaps we can also hook in with the BGA discussions with FLARM, since the compromise approach already has momentum and seems to address concerns about current stealth mode configuration?
>
> Peter Deane

This in a message this morning form Russell Cheetham in the UK.
Hi Hank

As you say we revisited the mandating of stealth for Nationals after one event. The principle was widely accepted and applauded by most pilots but our Executive committee cancelled it due to pressure from outside stakeholders.. I have to say, when we designed the new stealth mode, we didn't think much about the outside stakeholders but it seems that there is some fitting of Powerflarm in the small jet sector so they can see gliders in the choke points around some of the busy airfields with no controlled airspace. Also the airfield controllers at these small airports have been installing Powerflarm tracking to help them to identify targets in and around their airspace. I am not sure in the end whether this improved conspicuousy will be used as an excuse to grab more controlled airspace once they see how much traffic there really is or as hoped to keep the airspace available for all GA users???

Anyway, the BGA decided that it was prudent to reputation to cancel the trail that from an outsiders perspective reduced the range of a great safety device from 10-15km to 2km.

Where do we go from from here?

The BGA has a commitment to come back and mandate an improved mode that will only influence those pilots that are required to set the mode. In other words, the competition pilots will only see a limited distance and get limited data whilst those not involved in the competition can have full range on all completion targets. Unfortunately, the benefit of cheating will be greater because at present a cheater only sees in full on mode non-competition gliders and any other cheaters so there is little incentive.

We hope, with the assistance of IGC to get Flarm to replace stealth mode with an IGC competition mode.(Stealth by name sends all the wrong messages to the outside stakeholders too) and have already started this dialogue.

Due to the issues identified and a "bug" the IGC did not mandate stealth for European Championship in Hungary as they intended.

The bug is that currently Naviter, LX Nav and LX Navigation devices display stealth targets with an incorrect directional icon. This is confusing for situation awareness. The problem is that once tracking direction data is not provided, the software handles the problem incorrectly and so displays a North up icon rather than resorting to interpolation of fixes as was supposed to happen. I understand Flarm have a fix in testing so that the computer software developers don't need to make changes - however, I expect by the time it is released and uploaded it will be too late for this season and am hoping we will be well on the way to a NEW mode by then.

We would be VERY interested in feedback from your trials so that this feedback can be used to develop the specification of any revised mode.

Cheers

Russell

[email protected]

August 11th 15, 11:54 PM

If this isnt stating the obvious, why not simply propose 'contest mode' (replacing stealth mode) which suppresses ID and climb rate, everything else full range, and have done with it?

Stealth mode connotations go away. Awareness is maintained. Electronic leeching reduced..Contest folks hopefully happy (is that possible?)

Work with BGA folks with coordinated approach to the FLARM chappies - will still take a while to work out I'm sure.

Any takers?

[email protected]

August 12th 15, 12:19 AM

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:54:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> If this isnt stating the obvious, why not simply propose 'contest mode' (replacing stealth mode) which suppresses ID and climb rate, everything else full range, and have done with it?
>
> Stealth mode connotations go away. Awareness is maintained. Electronic leeching reduced..Contest folks hopefully happy (is that possible?)
>
> Work with BGA folks with coordinated approach to the FLARM chappies - will still take a while to work out I'm sure.
>
> Any takers?

The most useful is still "where are the guys that are out front?"
Example Mifflin 3 or 4 years ago- Do I cross the Stone Valley or do I go to Mill Creek? The guys with the good Flarm knew to go to Mill Creek.
Based on what we know from Russell, expect somewhat larger range, and naming something like "competition mode" or such.
The Brits very much wish to know our thinking.
UH

[email protected]

August 12th 15, 05:19 AM

I agree with UH. Climb rates are useful but can change a lot by the time you get to that tantalizing gaggle ahead even without FLARM. But just knowing where the gliders in front of you are can make all the difference. Example: Elmira the last day 1 1/2 legs into a big MAT at the edge of an enormous blue hole. I had the option of heading back to Elmira under the clouds for a sure thing finish at an incredibly slow speed. The thermals hadn't been all that reliable under the clouds. "Am I crazy for heading out into the void? Where did everyone go?" The first thermal in the blue was 4 kts. (that's good for around here, for the benefit of our Western comrades) so I kept going. But I relaxed a little when a couple of gliders came into view a few miles ahead. If I had had full-range FLARM, there would have been no decision to make. Call it what you want, providing collision warnings while revealing as little info as possible in "gaggle radar" mode is the way to go. If you want easy, get a motor.

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

John Carlyle

August 13th 15, 06:29 PM

This extremely interesting thread started out focusing on using Stealth mode at a US Nationals contest, resulting from a feeling that Flarm was being used as a tactical device during a contest conducted under FAI rules (rules which we know encourage gaggling). During the discussion others stated their belief that non-Stealth Flarm was unsafe because it resulted in too much head down time, and several (tongue-in-cheek?) software specifications were given to improve non-Stealth Flarm leeching. The use of Flarm as a good situational awareness tool (suggested by some) seemed to be discounted because of claims of leeching.

But no solid evidence was presented that leeching really is a problem in US contests. Andy (9B) did an analysis which showed that the use of Flarm in Stealth mode resulted in worse contest finish performance by top pilots than they achieved when using non-Stealth Flarm. However, case for the use of Flarm for being used for leeching was only made anecdotally (at best) by others.

Before changes are made to the US rules regarding Flarm usage, I think it should be determined if leeching is really happening in US contests. This should be possible to determine by (1) defining quantitatively what leeching is, and (2) examining contest log files for instances meeting the definition.

A major hurdle, of course, is the definition of leeching. It's clear you're leeching if you follow someone within a mile of their tail all around the task. But, if KS passes me and I follow him 5 minutes to the next thermal where I lose him, is that leeching? How about if I happen to use 4 out of the 12 thermals he's used in a TAT, but our courses are different? What if all the thermals I use were also used by different top pilots in different classes within a few minutes of me arriving?

If leeching can only be defined by "I'll know it when I see it", then perhaps an adaptation of OLC's MeetingPoints function might help point out places to examine manually to see if leeching is occurring. But one way or another, looking for instances of leeching really should be done to determine if we really have a problem, before we go further on deciding what to do with Flarm in contests.

-John, Q3

[email protected]

August 13th 15, 07:51 PM

Don't want to get off topic - as a beginner in the Sport of Sailplane contests, but a veteran of competitive sports - this whole "Leeching" thing - such a ugly word.

So if one of the best pilots as described above (KS) passes me and I try to stay with him - that's a bad thing?? (as if I could). Wow, there are allot of sports with leeches, running, car racing, sailboats racing...... as a matter of fact it is hard to think of one that you do and don't try to follow the best person.

FLARM on the other hand - I can under stand that when a glider gets so far away that you can't see them - and this technology allows you to do what your eyes can not - that seems to me to be unfair and unwanted. Especially since vision (both eyesight and the ability to interpret what we see) is a important aspect of our sport.

I chatted with some experienced guys - they all seem to agree - have a Flarm and set it to 50 miles so you know where everyone is........ works well to make you go faster, but is wrong. and I thought when I bought my Flarm it was to keep from bumping into other gliders and to avoid them bumping into me - I do not need to see gliders much further than a mile or two or three to accomplish that.

Stealth seemed to make sense in a contest - just like not allowing your crew to look at SPOT and call you to tell you which way to go.

I hope I am not a future "Leecher" :) but man if I can stay with Karl someday , now that would be impressive :)

WH

Jim White[_3_]

August 13th 15, 09:14 PM

Staying with a top pilot is a SKILL. It is not the skill of gliding well
but it is a skill nevertheless. I know of real experts in this. Flarm radar
undermines this skill so that we can all do it!

Do we want our sport to be about flying tactics or flying skill. Seems to
me that we should protect the latter whenever we can.

Jim

[email protected]

August 13th 15, 09:58 PM

It's OK to fly with top pilots on a task. When it's your turn to lead out (you're on top of the gaggle or you're on the same level and the other pilot has led out a couple of times), go. If you don't, you're a leech.

If you see other gliders up ahead (i.e., markers) and pick the best gaggle, take advantage of the few circles they wasted coring it to roll in underneath and gain a little ground trying to repeat the process and leapfrog a stack or two, you're opportunistic, not a leech. And maybe a daily winner, although eventually you'll end up having to find thermals yourself. And you better hope that your late start doesn't leave you floundering out on course when the day dies early and the first starters are gleefully announcing their finishes (note: switch off radio at the first hint).

Are you willing to leave early, alone, convinced it's the best chance to get around the course at good speed before the day dies early? Stop reading right now; your only anxiety should be whether the two pilots who started just behind you are leeches or if they'll contribute to getting around the course.

If you're flying with other pilots and constantly evaluating whether they're making the right decisions and willing to go your own way, you're not leeching. You may share the same thermals, but the minute one of you thinks you have a better idea, he or she is gone, perhaps pursued by the other pilot(s).

If you're trailing another pilot and he/she suddenly disappears (FLARM fails you, you're heads down, the mother ship reels him/her in), do you panic because you have no idea what to do next? (don a scarlet "L") Or do you push on, regretting the loss of the company, especially if it's blue, but not dismayed. (independent)

Pre GPS, the acid test was: if you lose your "tow", do you even know where you are? Leeching can be hard work and they often weren't able to navigate and fly at the same time. GPS was the first gift to leeches. FLARM is the second.

When you leave a thermal, do several of you spread out horizontally convinced that you know better than the others where the good air is? Do you take advantage of numbers in the blue to sample more air, then converge on the happy pilot who finds a good thermal--which sometimes is you? Not a leech. Or is your biggest fear the whole day that you'll lose the pilot(s) ahead of you and be left alone? If you have to ask.... :)

Do you fly along with a top pilot for a few thermals just to see what it is that he/she does differently in the vain hope that you can do it, too? Not a leech. Is your best skill determining whom to follow each day, determined to ride around in his/her wake? You could give lessons to aspiring leeches.

Do you stop and circle every time a top pilot does, whether it's 1 kt. or 6 kt., and have no idea why? Do you linger at the top long after the climb rate has fallen off because the guy you're with is slightly below you? Shame on you!

From an analytical perspective, there are few single actions that define leeching. Externally it's patterns of behavior over time. Internally, it's the way someone thinks.

If you're concerned about being a leech, you probably aren't. If one person has ever made a comment that implies you might not be flying independently enough, you probably are even if you're in denial.

Fear not, it's possible to graduate out of the leech ranks. If your average placings plummet, it confirms the diagnosis. If you start winning contests, you were a good, if annoying, student. :)

Yes, leeching is a skill. So is robbing banks.

Good luck and have fun. It's a great sport despite the quibbling about the rules.

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

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 14th 15, 12:51 AM

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:29:55 AM UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
> This extremely interesting thread started out focusing on using Stealth mode at a US Nationals contest, resulting from a feeling that Flarm was being used as a tactical device during a contest conducted under FAI rules (rules which we know encourage gaggling). During the discussion others stated their belief that non-Stealth Flarm was unsafe because it resulted in too much head down time, and several (tongue-in-cheek?) software specifications were given to improve non-Stealth Flarm leeching. The use of Flarm as a good situational awareness tool (suggested by some) seemed to be discounted because of claims of leeching.
>
> But no solid evidence was presented that leeching really is a problem in US contests. Andy (9B) did an analysis which showed that the use of Flarm in Stealth mode resulted in worse contest finish performance by top pilots than they achieved when using non-Stealth Flarm. However, case for the use of Flarm for being used for leeching was only made anecdotally (at best) by others.
>
> Before changes are made to the US rules regarding Flarm usage, I think it should be determined if leeching is really happening in US contests. This should be possible to determine by (1) defining quantitatively what leeching is, and (2) examining contest log files for instances meeting the definition.
>
> A major hurdle, of course, is the definition of leeching. It's clear you're leeching if you follow someone within a mile of their tail all around the task. But, if KS passes me and I follow him 5 minutes to the next thermal where I lose him, is that leeching? How about if I happen to use 4 out of the 12 thermals he's used in a TAT, but our courses are different? What if all the thermals I use were also used by different top pilots in different classes within a few minutes of me arriving?
>
> If leeching can only be defined by "I'll know it when I see it", then perhaps an adaptation of OLC's MeetingPoints function might help point out places to examine manually to see if leeching is occurring. But one way or another, looking for instances of leeching really should be done to determine if we really have a problem, before we go further on deciding what to do with Flarm in contests.
>
> -John, Q3

I'm working on it.

It is entirely possible to quantify how much leaching is going on by looking at all the flight logs together. Percent of thermals, climb time and altitude gained in your own thermal versus one that was found by someone else. It is also possible to quantify which of the "borrowed" climbs would have been visible under stealth versus no stealth, by looking at the distance to the course line being flown. Lastly, it is possible to measure how much benefit is generated by having a thermal marked for you in terms of comparative climb rates for leeched versus self-sourced thermals. It's more complicated, but it may be possible to document consecutive climbs with the same glider ahead of you. Three climbs in a row is "leechier" that picking up a single marker and then going your own way. Gaggle flying makes this exercise, um, complicated.

I've gotten several PM suggestions on "leech-y" contest days to look at to aid in this effort - thank you to those who made the effort.

9B

Papa3[_2_]

August 14th 15, 04:07 AM

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:29:55 PM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
> The use of Flarm as a good situational awareness tool (suggested by some) seemed to be discounted because of claims of leeching.
>
> -John, Q3

So, I'd love it if someone could define "situational awareness" in the context of FLARM given that it already has extensive algorithms designed to identify and prioritize threats. So, there's a glider 3 miles ahead and 1500 feet above me climbing at 2kts. What's the "situation" that I need to be aware of? I agree it's great to get a feel for where folks are out ahead or beside you from a comfort perspective. Whether or not you are trying to latch on to the other gliders, knowing the "situation" that others have headed out and are still in the air is great tactical information. But what's the safety angle (assuming there is one)?

P3

Alexander Swagemakers[_2_]

August 14th 15, 08:04 AM

There was a project in Germany called the "Pulk Pranger" which basically translates to "gaggle pillory" or "leeching pillory. It was a software which scored each participant of a competition for the amount of leeching he/she did. If I remember correctly the rules defined that the first 4 entrants of a thermal are not leeching. All subsequent entrants received leeching points for the duration of their climb. Just like normal competition scoring there was a daily leeching score and an overall leeching champion at the end of the competition.

A quick google search shows the following github project:
https://github.com/thelightwasbrighter/pulkpranger

John Carlyle

August 14th 15, 02:26 PM

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:29:55 PM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
> > The use of Flarm as a good situational awareness tool (suggested by some) seemed to be discounted because of claims of leeching.
> >
> > -John, Q3
>
> So, I'd love it if someone could define "situational awareness" in the context of FLARM given that it already has extensive algorithms designed to identify and prioritize threats. So, there's a glider 3 miles ahead and 1500 feet above me climbing at 2kts. What's the "situation" that I need to be aware of? I agree it's great to get a feel for where folks are out ahead or beside you from a comfort perspective. Whether or not you are trying to latch on to the other gliders, knowing the "situation" that others have headed out and are still in the air is great tactical information. But what's the safety angle (assuming there is one)?
>
> P3
Like most things, it depends. If you're at altitude, the fact that someone is 3 miles ahead, 1500 feet above and climbing at 2 kt is irrelevant. If, however, you find yourself at 2500 AGL over tiger country past the point of no return after having started the crossing at a safe altitude, it could be a lifesaver if your Flarm tells you that someone 3 miles ahead, 1500 feet above and climbing at 2 kt, ie, you know that the sink decreases in a certain direction.

-John, Q3

John Carlyle

August 14th 15, 02:55 PM

JB,

Interesting response, thanks. If I understand correctly, you're saying if you fly your ship according to decisions you yourself make, you're not a leech.

But your second example confuses me, especially in the context of this thread. You say "If you see other gliders up ahead (i.e., markers) and pick the best gaggle, take advantage of the few circles they wasted coring it to roll in underneath and gain a little ground trying to repeat the process and leapfrog a stack or two, you're opportunistic, not a leech." But if I interpret others on this thread correctly, they're saying if you use Flarm to do that instead of using your eye, then you ARE a leech.

Can you help me understand the difference?

-John, Q3

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 4:58:31 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> It's OK to fly with top pilots on a task. When it's your turn to lead out (you're on top of the gaggle or you're on the same level and the other pilot has led out a couple of times), go. If you don't, you're a leech.
>
> If you see other gliders up ahead (i.e., markers) and pick the best gaggle, take advantage of the few circles they wasted coring it to roll in underneath and gain a little ground trying to repeat the process and leapfrog a stack or two, you're opportunistic, not a leech. And maybe a daily winner, although eventually you'll end up having to find thermals yourself. And you better hope that your late start doesn't leave you floundering out on course when the day dies early and the first starters are gleefully announcing their finishes (note: switch off radio at the first hint).
>
> Are you willing to leave early, alone, convinced it's the best chance to get around the course at good speed before the day dies early? Stop reading right now; your only anxiety should be whether the two pilots who started just behind you are leeches or if they'll contribute to getting around the course.
>
> If you're flying with other pilots and constantly evaluating whether they're making the right decisions and willing to go your own way, you're not leeching. You may share the same thermals, but the minute one of you thinks you have a better idea, he or she is gone, perhaps pursued by the other pilot(s).
>
> If you're trailing another pilot and he/she suddenly disappears (FLARM fails you, you're heads down, the mother ship reels him/her in), do you panic because you have no idea what to do next? (don a scarlet "L") Or do you push on, regretting the loss of the company, especially if it's blue, but not dismayed. (independent)
>
> Pre GPS, the acid test was: if you lose your "tow", do you even know where you are? Leeching can be hard work and they often weren't able to navigate and fly at the same time. GPS was the first gift to leeches. FLARM is the second.
>
> When you leave a thermal, do several of you spread out horizontally convinced that you know better than the others where the good air is? Do you take advantage of numbers in the blue to sample more air, then converge on the happy pilot who finds a good thermal--which sometimes is you? Not a leech. Or is your biggest fear the whole day that you'll lose the pilot(s) ahead of you and be left alone? If you have to ask.... :)
>
> Do you fly along with a top pilot for a few thermals just to see what it is that he/she does differently in the vain hope that you can do it, too? Not a leech. Is your best skill determining whom to follow each day, determined to ride around in his/her wake? You could give lessons to aspiring leeches.
>
> Do you stop and circle every time a top pilot does, whether it's 1 kt. or 6 kt., and have no idea why? Do you linger at the top long after the climb rate has fallen off because the guy you're with is slightly below you? Shame on you!
>
> From an analytical perspective, there are few single actions that define leeching. Externally it's patterns of behavior over time. Internally, it's the way someone thinks.
>
> If you're concerned about being a leech, you probably aren't. If one person has ever made a comment that implies you might not be flying independently enough, you probably are even if you're in denial.
>
> Fear not, it's possible to graduate out of the leech ranks. If your average placings plummet, it confirms the diagnosis. If you start winning contests, you were a good, if annoying, student. :)
>
> Yes, leeching is a skill. So is robbing banks.
>
> Good luck and have fun. It's a great sport despite the quibbling about the rules.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

Papa3[_2_]

August 14th 15, 07:30 PM

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 9:26:33 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:

> Like most things, it depends. If you're at altitude, the fact that someone is 3 miles ahead, 1500 feet above and climbing at 2 kt is irrelevant. If, however, you find yourself at 2500 AGL over tiger country past the point of no return after having started the crossing at a safe altitude, it could be a lifesaver if your Flarm tells you that someone 3 miles ahead, 1500 feet above and climbing at 2 kt, ie, you know that the sink decreases in a certain direction.
>
> -John, Q3

Wow - I'd argue that the scenario you describe is just about the last "situation" I'd want to be relying on FLARM to bail me out of. Low and desperate and staring at the "thermal finder" vs. looking outside at the terrain for thermal sources, searching for hawks, looking at the wind relative to a small ridge line - whatever.

FWIW, one of the truly scary things I've witnessed as a result of blind leeching (or maybe just "hanging on to the pack and hoping") is some really scary landouts and one crash (into the trees in the Juniata River gap at Lewistown). I can see people using FLARM as another source of that blind hope ("well, the scope says there are three guys out over the trees climbing through 5,000, so here goes...")

Not to twist this scenario beyond recognition, but it's that sense of self-reliance and resourcefulness that many of us who have been racing for years really relish. At some point, it's just you and your senses vs. the weather and you need to make it work.

Anyway, I've said my piece on this. I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions (with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and judgement.

P3

Tango Eight

August 14th 15, 08:26 PM

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 2:30:23 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
>At some point, it's just you and your senses and all the **** you can see on your smart phone vs. the weather and you need to make it work.

Fixed for you. /sarc

btw, Erik, interested in an RC position? You'd get my vote.

-Evan

Dave Nadler

August 14th 15, 09:54 PM

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 2:51:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I chatted with some experienced guys - they all seem to agree -
> have a Flarm and set it to 50 miles so you know where everyone is........

FLARM does not have anywhere near 50 mile range.
Perhaps the "experts" you've been talking to, well, aren't...

[email protected]

August 14th 15, 10:33 PM

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 4:54:43 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 2:51:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > I chatted with some experienced guys - they all seem to agree -
> > have a Flarm and set it to 50 miles so you know where everyone is........
>
> FLARM does not have anywhere near 50 mile range.
> Perhaps the "experts" you've been talking to, well, aren't...

Maybe overstating, which is obvious. Substitute "max available range" if it makes your anal self feel better.
He makes his point with respect to his philosophy.

UH

[email protected]

August 14th 15, 11:11 PM

Good question. Someone can leech more easily with FLARM in non-stealth mode.. Someone else who's making their own decisions can also use gaggles/markers more easily. Periodically we have to address the role we want technology to play in changing the nature of soaring competition. Anything that makes soaring easier--from GPS to longer-range FLARM to onboard satellite maps to remote thermal sensing--will provoke discussion. I don't think there's a magic answer or rule that can be applied universally.

In this case, unrestricted FLARM makes it easier to leech without adding much in the way of safety over stealth-mode FLARM. So my view is why let technology encourage behavior that we've thought less than desirable for decades? But it is just my view.

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

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 14th 15, 11:59 PM

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 12:04:36 AM UTC-7, Alexander Swagemakers wrote:
> There was a project in Germany called the "Pulk Pranger" which basically translates to "gaggle pillory" or "leeching pillory. It was a software which scored each participant of a competition for the amount of leeching he/she did. If I remember correctly the rules defined that the first 4 entrants of a thermal are not leeching. All subsequent entrants received leeching points for the duration of their climb. Just like normal competition scoring there was a daily leeching score and an overall leeching champion at the end of the competition.
>
> A quick google search shows the following github project:
> https://github.com/thelightwasbrighter/pulkpranger

Do you know who the developer is? Github has no contact info and the script has, um, issues.

9B

John Cochrane[_3_]

August 15th 15, 01:57 AM

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 3:11:40 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Good question. Someone can leech more easily with FLARM in non-stealth mode. Someone else who's making their own decisions can also use gaggles/markers more easily. Periodically we have to address the role we want technology to play in changing the nature of soaring competition. Anything that makes soaring easier--from GPS to longer-range FLARM to onboard satellite maps to remote thermal sensing--will provoke discussion. I don't think there's a magic answer or rule that can be applied universally.
>
> In this case, unrestricted FLARM makes it easier to leech without adding much in the way of safety over stealth-mode FLARM. So my view is why let technology encourage behavior that we've thought less than desirable for decades? But it is just my view.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

MInor note: It has always been possible and allowed to put yourself in stealth mode. If you don't want people leeching off you, put yourself in stealth mode and go for it.

[email protected]

August 15th 15, 05:30 AM

<< MInor note: It has always been possible and allowed to put yourself in stealth mode. If you don't want people leeching off you, put yourself in stealth mode and go for it.>>

I'm flashing on "The Hunt for Red October" with submarines running in quiet mode listening on passive sonar with an occasional active ping when attacking. Between changing FLARM modes and popping little tinfoil hats on the antennas when in a good thermal, we won't have time to play with the other toys in the cockpit.

No problem, though. Next step is remote control of the FLARM status by the flight computer: stealth (most of the time), "non-emitting" mode (automatically in any thermal of MacCready value or above), and normal mode (when seeking a longer-range look ahead) at the press of a virtual button. I can't wait! :)

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

Jim White[_3_]

August 15th 15, 08:36 AM

At 20:54 14 August 2015, Dave Nadler wrote:
>On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 2:51:19 PM UTC-4,
>wrote:
>> I chatted with some experienced guys - they all seem to agree -
>> have a Flarm and set it to 50 miles so you know where everyone
is........
>
>

If FLARM did have 50 mile range this could tell you a lot
about the conditions ahead. As a thermal finder pretty
useless at that range.

I went to a talk by Erazem of LXNAV in March. He said
that LXNAV are looking to include live data to and from
the cloud during flight in order to provide the pilot with
this information. We shall have to ban or nobble the LX9000
when that happens!

Jim

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 15th 15, 02:02 PM

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 9:30:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:

>
> No problem, though. Next step is remote control of the FLARM status by the flight computer: stealth (most of the time), "non-emitting" mode (automatically in any thermal of MacCready value or above), and normal mode (when seeking a longer-range look ahead) at the press of a virtual button. I can't wait! :)
>

Isn't that even better than stealth mode? No useful information is transmitted. Totally automated. Problem solved. We could even mandate it.

John Carlyle

August 15th 15, 02:59 PM

Wow, indeed Erik. You'd reject additional help from Flarm in showing you a possible way out of a jam? When all you'd have to do is glace quickly at the radar when you heard a beep, then fuse that information with your outside search?

And you'd reject this help from Flarm because of a sense of pride in self-reliance and resourcefulness? Is that the same sense of pride that accepts the help of GPS, moving maps and flight computers?

I think your strong dislike of Flarm stems from something much deeper than pride.

-John, Q3

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 2:30:23 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> Wow - I'd argue that the scenario you describe is just about the last "situation" I'd want to be relying on FLARM to bail me out of. Low and desperate and staring at the "thermal finder" vs. looking outside at the terrain for thermal sources, searching for hawks, looking at the wind relative to a small ridge line - whatever.
>
> FWIW, one of the truly scary things I've witnessed as a result of blind leeching (or maybe just "hanging on to the pack and hoping") is some really scary landouts and one crash (into the trees in the Juniata River gap at Lewistown). I can see people using FLARM as another source of that blind hope ("well, the scope says there are three guys out over the trees climbing through 5,000, so here goes...")
>
> Not to twist this scenario beyond recognition, but it's that sense of self-reliance and resourcefulness that many of us who have been racing for years really relish. At some point, it's just you and your senses vs. the weather and you need to make it work.
>
> Anyway, I've said my piece on this. I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions (with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and judgement.
>
> P3

Sean Fidler

August 15th 15, 04:02 PM

Next step is hacking your competitors FLARM and making their screens display Dilbert cartoons.

[email protected]

August 15th 15, 04:14 PM

John/Q3, I gave you an honest (if lengthy) answer about leeching and you chose to be argumentative in your response. Fine. But your intentional misrepresentation of Erik's comment goes further. He said he was done (I know the feeling) so I'll jump in again on this point because a few people might actually believe your distortion of his position.

Erik didn't say he would reject help from FLARM. He said this was the last situation in which he would want to RELY on it: i.e., low, no place to land, few options. And I agree. Without getting into how you would allow yourself to get into that situation in the first place, a "FLARM radar" image of a few gliders circling up ahead is no guarantee of a workable thermal. It's the same way that savvy motorglider pilots talk about never relying on their engine to get them out of trouble. If it works, great. If it doesn't, though, they always have an alternative.

Not having a psychology degree or paranormal powers, I don't have any idea what you're referring to when you say his "strong dislike of FLARM stems from something much deeper than pride." Are you talking some kind of childhood trauma? :)

I can say that Erik, like me, thinks that FLARM is a very good addition to safety. But he's also said, and I agree, that we should limit its use to safety, not to providing a look ahead that invites certain people (not mentioning names) to blindly follow other pilots without making their own decisions OR to trust technology to bail them out of making bad decisions, as both FLARM and GPS have the potential to do. And yes, before you counter, I know of at least one nearly disastrous outlanding caused by a pilot blindly following his early GPS-enabled flight computer down to pattern height on final glide before, in sudden sink, bothering to look out to see what the landing prospects were (nearly nonexistent).

Misuse of FLARM also begs for another technical arms race of better antennas, ground station repeaters, FLARM cloaking devices, etc. It's soaring, not video games. We've consistently rejected remote thermal finding devices in our rules for a combination of reasons. To me, FLARM in non-stealth mode is on the borderline. I'll go further and say that if we continue to allow the use of FLARM for remote sensing, we're hypocritical if we don't allow the use of IR imaging, cloud-based aggregation of FLARM and SPOT data, and other ways of displaying distant thermals, updrafts, and flight tracks on a screen. And that will make the cost of a FLARM device seem like small change indeed.

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

[email protected]

August 15th 15, 04:17 PM

On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 9:02:48 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 9:30:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> >
> > No problem, though. Next step is remote control of the FLARM status by the flight computer: stealth (most of the time), "non-emitting" mode (automatically in any thermal of MacCready value or above), and normal mode (when seeking a longer-range look ahead) at the press of a virtual button. I can't wait! :)
> >
>
> Isn't that even better than stealth mode? No useful information is transmitted. Totally automated. Problem solved. We could even mandate it.

I'm in. The rules-based algorithm to make it happen is trivial. Forget all the nonsense about safety and let's welcome gliding to the 21st century!

JB

Dave Walsh

August 15th 15, 04:32 PM

At 15:02 15 August 2015, Sean Fidler wrote:
>Next step is hacking your competitors FLARM and making
their screens
>display Dilbert cartoons.
>
No, no, no, far too obvious! What you need is an electronic
"box" that garbles the Flarm data to show the opposition that
you are climbing at only 1 knot when in fact you are climbing
at 6 knots.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 15th 15, 06:41 PM

On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 8:02:44 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Next step is hacking your competitors FLARM and making their screens display Dilbert cartoons.

Is there a "Like" button on r.a.s.?

[email protected]

August 15th 15, 07:13 PM

On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 1:42:01 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 8:02:44 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > Next step is hacking your competitors FLARM and making their screens display Dilbert cartoons.
>
> Is there a "Like" button on r.a.s.?

On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 1:42:01 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 8:02:44 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > Next step is hacking your competitors FLARM and making their screens display Dilbert cartoons.
>
> Is there a "Like" button on r.a.s.?

I "liked" the idea of broadcasting misinformation about climb rates, myself.. We're clearly not thinking imaginatively enough. How about drones to spoof a prominent competitor's ID and climb rate in the middle of a sinkhole? Or "transponder chaff" that is deployed in a thermal to persist an ID/climb rate long after the pilot departs?

Tinfoil hats over FLARM antennas is SO crude.

JB

John Carlyle

August 16th 15, 04:56 PM

JB,

Thank you for your posting. I truly appreciate your taking the time to do so.

It seems clear that we're taking past one another. Maybe that's because we've never met and don't know each other's personality or background, or maybe because we can't get important clues from intonation or body language on what is actually meant, since text doesn't convey such clues. For example, you say I was argumentative when I was simply asking for a clarification about what I saw as an important inconsistency in your honest answer on leeching, which you posted in a <discussion> group.

Perhaps one day we'll actually meet and, if you're willing, talk about this important issue face to face. For now, let's agree to disagree and just drop it.

-John, Q3

On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 11:14:22 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> John/Q3, I gave you an honest (if lengthy) answer about leeching and you chose to be argumentative in your response. Fine. But your intentional misrepresentation of Erik's comment goes further. He said he was done (I know the feeling) so I'll jump in again on this point because a few people might actually believe your distortion of his position.
>
> Erik didn't say he would reject help from FLARM. He said this was the last situation in which he would want to RELY on it: i.e., low, no place to land, few options. And I agree. Without getting into how you would allow yourself to get into that situation in the first place, a "FLARM radar" image of a few gliders circling up ahead is no guarantee of a workable thermal. It's the same way that savvy motorglider pilots talk about never relying on their engine to get them out of trouble. If it works, great. If it doesn't, though, they always have an alternative.
>
> Not having a psychology degree or paranormal powers, I don't have any idea what you're referring to when you say his "strong dislike of FLARM stems from something much deeper than pride." Are you talking some kind of childhood trauma? :)
>
> I can say that Erik, like me, thinks that FLARM is a very good addition to safety. But he's also said, and I agree, that we should limit its use to safety, not to providing a look ahead that invites certain people (not mentioning names) to blindly follow other pilots without making their own decisions OR to trust technology to bail them out of making bad decisions, as both FLARM and GPS have the potential to do. And yes, before you counter, I know of at least one nearly disastrous outlanding caused by a pilot blindly following his early GPS-enabled flight computer down to pattern height on final glide before, in sudden sink, bothering to look out to see what the landing prospects were (nearly nonexistent).
>
> Misuse of FLARM also begs for another technical arms race of better antennas, ground station repeaters, FLARM cloaking devices, etc. It's soaring, not video games. We've consistently rejected remote thermal finding devices in our rules for a combination of reasons. To me, FLARM in non-stealth mode is on the borderline. I'll go further and say that if we continue to allow the use of FLARM for remote sensing, we're hypocritical if we don't allow the use of IR imaging, cloud-based aggregation of FLARM and SPOT data, and other ways of displaying distant thermals, updrafts, and flight tracks on a screen. And that will make the cost of a FLARM device seem like small change indeed.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

[email protected]

August 17th 15, 04:23 AM

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 11:56:54 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
> JB,
>
> Thank you for your posting. I truly appreciate your taking the time to do so.
>
> It seems clear that we're taking past one another. Maybe that's because we've never met and don't know each other's personality or background, or maybe because we can't get important clues from intonation or body language on what is actually meant, since text doesn't convey such clues. For example, you say I was argumentative when I was simply asking for a clarification about what I saw as an important inconsistency in your honest answer on leeching, which you posted in a <discussion> group.
>
> Perhaps one day we'll actually meet and, if you're willing, talk about this important issue face to face. For now, let's agree to disagree and just drop it.
>
> -John, Q3

John,

Upon rereading my post, I see that I came across rather harshly. My apologies to you and anyone else I might have offended with my somewhat enthusiastic reply.

I agree your response to my "leeching" riff wasn't argumentative. I guess I reacted that way after the fact because of your subsequent response to Erik Mann's posting where you misunderstood his position and questioned his motives. He's a close friend and is rather busy with some non-soaring stuff right now so I leaped into the fray because I know what that kind of thing does when it happens to me.

Perhaps a better way would have been for you to inquire what other factors he might have considered rather than to just state boldly that his strong dislike of FLARM (which he doesn't have) was motivated by "something much deeper than pride" (a statement I'm still mulling over, wondering what you had in mind). I think Erik stated his position pretty well so I won't repeat it again.

He and I do share an opinion that isn't universal, and that may be at the root of the confusion. Neither one of us warmly welcomes the arrival of technology that reduces the traditional skills that good soaring pilots have. We're very comfortable with technology--both of us work in that field--but there's something about making one's own decisions (beyond whom to follow for the day) that makes soaring attractive. It also makes it more uncertain and frustrating at times, which is why I suspect not everyone takes the same position.

There's lots of room in soaring for all types of enthusiasts. Where we sometimes encounter friction is in the area of contest rules, which is what we're discussing now. I look forward to meeting you so we can improve on the imperfect level of communication offered by USENET discussion groups. :)

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

waremark

August 20th 15, 09:38 AM

As a glider pilot who flies XC for fun, whether or not in a competition, I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If tactical use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it - and am pretty convinced by this discussion that I need to upgrade my LX9000 Flarm with an external Powerflarm. My tactical use is never going to make me a National Champion - is it really going to change who is Champion?

August 20th 15, 02:04 PM

I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions (with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and judgement.
>
> P3

EXACTLY! that's what i was trying to say. i just couldn't word it properly.

[email protected]

August 20th 15, 04:56 PM

<>

<>

The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring competition.

We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.

Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest levels? Unquestionably yes; navigation ceased to be a relevant skill and excellence at reading/guessing the weather for AAT and MAT tasks came to the fore.

Did it change the nature of competition? Yes, even to the extent of changing the starting/finishing process; opening up the types of tasks we fly--a plus; and for the first time allowing--through the use of SeeYou--each pilot to study in exquisite detail exactly how he/she and every other pilot flew each day's tasks. It's amusing to think back now to a time when the only clues we often had about how someone smoked the field were the few carefully chosen (and sometimes obfuscating) comments he/she made in the next morning's pilots' meeting.

Did it increase the ease and enjoyment of competition flying? Certainly it's easier to get around the course now and I think most would agree it's less frustrating.

Did it increase the cost and technical complexity of the sport? Arguably yes; early adopters spent thousands of dollars to make the transition from cheaper handheld commercial GPS units (which themselves were startlingly expensive compared with today's consumer-grade prices) to soaring-specific loggers. It's worth remembering that the technology race had already begun, however, with vario/flight director systems that imputed the wind from pilot-updated position locations and remote compass sensors.

Finally, did it change who wins contests? Probably not, although certain more navigationally challenged pilots benefited disproportionately. :)

I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.

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

Ron Gleason

August 20th 15, 05:39 PM

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 09:56:06 UTC-6, wrote:
> <>
>
> <>
>
> The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring competition.
>
> We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.
>
> Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest levels? Unquestionably yes; navigation ceased to be a relevant skill and excellence at reading/guessing the weather for AAT and MAT tasks came to the fore.
>
> Did it change the nature of competition? Yes, even to the extent of changing the starting/finishing process; opening up the types of tasks we fly--a plus; and for the first time allowing--through the use of SeeYou--each pilot to study in exquisite detail exactly how he/she and every other pilot flew each day's tasks. It's amusing to think back now to a time when the only clues we often had about how someone smoked the field were the few carefully chosen (and sometimes obfuscating) comments he/she made in the next morning's pilots' meeting.
>
> Did it increase the ease and enjoyment of competition flying? Certainly it's easier to get around the course now and I think most would agree it's less frustrating.
>
> Did it increase the cost and technical complexity of the sport? Arguably yes; early adopters spent thousands of dollars to make the transition from cheaper handheld commercial GPS units (which themselves were startlingly expensive compared with today's consumer-grade prices) to soaring-specific loggers. It's worth remembering that the technology race had already begun, however, with vario/flight director systems that imputed the wind from pilot-updated position locations and remote compass sensors.
>
> Finally, did it change who wins contests? Probably not, although certain more navigationally challenged pilots benefited disproportionately. :)
>
> I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).
>
> One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

Chip you state 'I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).'

I agree that the Rules Committee has a tough time here but they *MUST* lead the way provide specific guidance for organizers regarding stealth mode. IMO there is no way an organizer should be forced to make this decision, just look at the varied opinions here. I see where PF mandatory is an easy decision, stealth mode decision is till an unknown.

Ron Gleason

Sean Fidler

August 20th 15, 07:08 PM

FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition Mode), there will still be leeches. They will just have to leech more tightly (visually). I am still completely unconvinced that a pilot can take advantage of a supposed strong thermal (or gaggle) identified solely by FLARM and outside of visual range. I would love to see some SEEYOU evidence of that (I would be impressed with even ONE example). So far, astonishingly after the dramatic statements up and down this thread, I have seen nothing in terms of a replay example. I honestly do not believe that one can leech effectively outside of visual range. This is simply overhyped.

This debate really comes down to people who don't like/want change and people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation) into the mix. I don't mind Flarm or competitors seeing me on their screen. Its fun to see how other pilots are doing around me to be honest or to notice them being there when I probably would have missed them visually. This experience is much like Condor (highly competitive) with the visual range setting.. We turn it off in the big races (see FLARM v10.0 with perfect information), but leave it on for the easier going nightly events (last I checked). This definitely is to help beginners stay in touch and it is just fun to see how the race is progressing in real time (racing) rather than being alone and "sneaking around" all day only to see what happens in the evening (after calculating scoring for AAT, HAT's...you know the drill).

My ONLY problem with FLARM is that an arms race will (has) develop(ed) with special antennas, amplifiers, tin foil hats (antenna covers), etc. The game will be to gain an unfair advantage with the "tool." As with all games, there will be prodigies at this new variable (skill). No other technology really allows that large of a variance in the usability of the information.. A GPS logger works or it does not. Varios are, for the most part, all the same. There is really not much difference between a smart phone with XC Soar (free) and an LX 9000 ($5000). I am still unconvinced that the information FLARM provides is highly actionable but you CAN modify level of value to you to your competitors. This is unique.

With FLARM, I have done some research and there are some clear methods to stacking the deck in ones favor. in other words, CHEATING! That is a big red flag. If necessary, I would simply have to master these "techniques." No big deal, but unfortunate to people who don't want to manage another variable. For these reasons, I am supporting Stealth Competition Mode. But, if assurances could be made that the potential of each Flarm was the same (impossible), I would be fine with leaving it alone and accepting the new technology.

In general, I think it is dangerous to let the RC ban or limit anything more than they already have.......BUT...this one makes good sense for the 3-4 years before ADSB. Then it will be weapons free again and we will not be able to "ban" it.

This is a another very difficult decision for the RC. I will vote for COMPETITION MODE.

Sean

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> <>
>
> <>
>
> The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring competition.
>
> We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.
>
> Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest levels? Unquestionably yes; navigation ceased to be a relevant skill and excellence at reading/guessing the weather for AAT and MAT tasks came to the fore.
>
> Did it change the nature of competition? Yes, even to the extent of changing the starting/finishing process; opening up the types of tasks we fly--a plus; and for the first time allowing--through the use of SeeYou--each pilot to study in exquisite detail exactly how he/she and every other pilot flew each day's tasks. It's amusing to think back now to a time when the only clues we often had about how someone smoked the field were the few carefully chosen (and sometimes obfuscating) comments he/she made in the next morning's pilots' meeting.
>
> Did it increase the ease and enjoyment of competition flying? Certainly it's easier to get around the course now and I think most would agree it's less frustrating.
>
> Did it increase the cost and technical complexity of the sport? Arguably yes; early adopters spent thousands of dollars to make the transition from cheaper handheld commercial GPS units (which themselves were startlingly expensive compared with today's consumer-grade prices) to soaring-specific loggers. It's worth remembering that the technology race had already begun, however, with vario/flight director systems that imputed the wind from pilot-updated position locations and remote compass sensors.
>
> Finally, did it change who wins contests? Probably not, although certain more navigationally challenged pilots benefited disproportionately. :)
>
> I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).
>
> One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

Sean Fidler

August 20th 15, 07:40 PM

FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition Mode), there have always been and will always be leeches. I am still completely unconvinced that a pilot can take advantage of a supposed strong thermal (or gaggle) identified solely by FLARM and outside of visual range. I would love to see some SEEYOU evidence of that (I would be impressed with even ONE example). So far, astonishingly after the dramatic statements up and down this thread, I have seen nothing in terms of a replay example. I just honestly do not believe that one can leech effectively outside of visual range. This is simply overhyped in my mind until I see real examples.

This debate comes down to people who don't like/want tech and people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation) into the mix. I don't mind Flarm or competitors seeing me on their screen. Its fun to see how other pilots are doing around me to be honest. Its fun when I notice them being there when I had missed them visually. This experience is much like Condor (highly competitive by the way) with the visual range setting. Condor racers turn it off in the big races (Stealth Mode), but leave it on for the easier going nightly events (last I checked). For beginner and advanced Condor pilots alike, it is simple fun to see how the race is progressing (at least within mile or two) in real time (racing) rather than being alone and "sneaking around" by yourself all day only to see what happens in the evening (after calculating scoring for AAT, HAT's...you know the drill).. We are also talking on "the radio" with TeamSpeak (program for gaming chat).

My ONLY problem with FLARM is that an arms race may (has) develop(ed) with special antennas, amplifiers, tin foil hats (antenna covers intended to block signal), etc. The game is to maximize an unfair advantage for yourself and to maximize the disadvantage for competitors. As with all games, there will be prodigies (tech savvy) at this new variable (skill). No other soaring technology really allows such a large of a variance in the usability of the available information. A GPS logger works or it does not. Varios are, for the most part, all the same. There is really not much difference between a smart phone with XC Soar (free) and an LX 9000 ($5000). While I am still unconvinced that the information FLARM provides is highly actionable (tactical), you CAN modify level of value to you to your competitors. This is quite unique, quite unsportsmanlike and quite sad.

With FLARM, I have done some more research and there are some clear, inexpensive and easy methods to "stacking the deck" in ones favor. In other words, FLAT OUT CHEATING! This is a big red flag. All the little intangibles such as IDing competitors in the start area or tracking them add up. One can easily exploit this advantage. If necessary, we would all simply have to learn how to manage and eventually master these "techniques." No big deal, but unfortunate to people who don't want to manage another variable. For these reasons, I support Stealth Competition Mode.

That said, if assurances could be made that the potential of each Flarm was the same (impossible), I would be fine with leaving it alone and accepting the new technology. Its fun and fairly harmless if equally available. In general, I think it is dangerous to let the RC ban or limit anything more than they already have.......BUT...this one makes good sense.....for the 3-4 years before ADSB :-). Then it will be weapons free electronic "vision" again and we will not be able to "ban" it.

This is a another very difficult decision for the RC. Do we accept it now or hold out a few years? I will vote for COMPETITION MODE. I also vote for strict rules against tin foil :-) and any non approved equipment (antennas, amplifiers, trained pets with excellent vision, etc) in the cockpit.

Bob Whelan[_3_]

August 20th 15, 08:40 PM

As a non-contest-participating but
thoroughly-enamored-with-just-about-all-facets-of-soaring sailplane pilot, I'm
enjoying this particular thread for multiple reasons.

By way of trying to more clearly illustrate a point I'll make below, I've
taken the liberty of rearranging (and editing for brevity's sake) the order of
the two posts below, because the rational engineer in me kinda choked on what
seems to me a gross misrepresentation/oversimplification of a reasoned and
thoughtfully expressed point of view. So count me as someone who has no
problem with agreeing to disagree, but who does have a problem with
misrepresentation of a another's view along the way to expressing one's own
opinion. :)

On 8/20/2015 12:08 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4,
> wrote:
>> <> use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it ->>
>>
>> <> glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and
>> judgement. EXACTLY! >>
>>
>> The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit
>> I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in
>> contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs
>> very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around
>> course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to
>> vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying
>> anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring
>> competition.
>>
>> We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then
>> mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.
>>
>> Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest
>> levels?
<Major snip>
>>
>> One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to
>> safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals
>> and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests
>> (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to
>> compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.
>>
>> Chip Bearden ASW 24 "JB" U.S.A.

> FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition Mode),
> there will still be leeches.
<Snip>
>
> This debate really comes down to people who don't like/want change and
> people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation) into
> the mix.
<Snip>
>
> Sean

For the record, I've never met either of the above posters (and after this
whiny post, both may hope to keep things that way!)...

Geez Louise, Sean, do you REALLY imagine JB's argument comes down to his view
on change? (I, for one, don't. Were I to attempt to put words in JB's mouth
I'd probably say something like: "This debate really comes down to people who
wish to limit the use of FLARM to the vision 'sold to the gliding community by
FLARM's creators,' and those who would like to use ALL of its
presently-perceived capabilities.")

Respectfully,
Bob W.

Sean Fidler

August 20th 15, 08:56 PM

Bob, eh...where to begin?

If you look carefully...I was not quoting anyone else. It was not in response to any other comments. My post stands alone as my personal opinion. TALK ABOUT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND PUTTING WORDS INTO ONES MOUTH!

Honestly, nice try. Cute. But unfortunately entirely ineffective.

Allow me to suggest that you have a drink, relax I think you are wound a little tight today.

I too am thoroughly enamored with the mind of the soaring pilot. Entertaining for sure but often making literally no sense and adding literally no value.

Sean

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 3:40:35 PM UTC-4, Bob Whelan wrote:
> As a non-contest-participating but
> thoroughly-enamored-with-just-about-all-facets-of-soaring sailplane pilot, I'm
> enjoying this particular thread for multiple reasons.
>
> By way of trying to more clearly illustrate a point I'll make below, I've
> taken the liberty of rearranging (and editing for brevity's sake) the order of
> the two posts below, because the rational engineer in me kinda choked on what
> seems to me a gross misrepresentation/oversimplification of a reasoned and
> thoughtfully expressed point of view. So count me as someone who has no
> problem with agreeing to disagree, but who does have a problem with
> misrepresentation of a another's view along the way to expressing one's own
> opinion. :)
>
> On 8/20/2015 12:08 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4,
> > wrote:
> >> < >> use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it ->>
> >>
> >> < >> glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and
> >> judgement. EXACTLY! >>
> >>
> >> The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit
> >> I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in
> >> contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs
> >> very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around
> >> course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to
> >> vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying
> >> anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring
> >> competition.
> >>
> >> We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then
> >> mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.
> >>
> >> Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest
> >> levels?
> <Major snip>
> >>
> >> One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to
> >> safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals
> >> and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests
> >> (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to
> >> compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.
> >>
> >> Chip Bearden ASW 24 "JB" U.S.A.
>
> > FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition Mode),
> > there will still be leeches.
> <Snip>
> >
> > This debate really comes down to people who don't like/want change and
> > people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation) into
> > the mix.
> <Snip>
> >
> > Sean
>
> For the record, I've never met either of the above posters (and after this
> whiny post, both may hope to keep things that way!)...
>
> Geez Louise, Sean, do you REALLY imagine JB's argument comes down to his view
> on change? (I, for one, don't. Were I to attempt to put words in JB's mouth
> I'd probably say something like: "This debate really comes down to people who
> wish to limit the use of FLARM to the vision 'sold to the gliding community by
> FLARM's creators,' and those who would like to use ALL of its
> presently-perceived capabilities.")
>
> Respectfully,
> Bob W.

Jonathan St. Cloud

August 20th 15, 10:21 PM

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 8:56:06 AM UTC-7, wrote:

> One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

I have been away from soaring for almost 13 years, just started soaring again this last March. I was pleasantly surprised how the instrumentation has changed, including PF and unpleasantly surprised that two of my favorite places to fly were shut down and now where I do fly from only a hand full of pilots fly on any given weekend instead of the 20 plus. Just a thought but Chip has an important point, making it easier to to compete. I know there is another thread on this matter, but the cream always raises to the top, stealth mode or not, GPS or not. Maybe the rules committee should consider in the rules process anything that induces more pilots to fly competitions and thus fly with great pilots, learning from them. This way we feed and seed our sport.

I wonder when do we hit critical mass on the downside, where glider ports cannot make enough to stay in business, contests only have a few pilots and manufacturers move on to making other things.

BobW

August 20th 15, 11:02 PM

On 8/20/2015 1:56 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Bob, eh...where to begin?
>
> If you look carefully...I was not quoting anyone else. It was not in
> response to any other comments. My post stands alone as my personal
> opinion. TALK ABOUT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND PUTTING WORDS INTO ONES MOUTH!
>
> Honestly, nice try. Cute. But unfortunately entirely ineffective.
>
> Allow me to suggest that you have a drink, relax I think you are wound a
> little tight today.
>
> I too am thoroughly enamored with the mind of the soaring pilot.
> Entertaining for sure but often making literally no sense and adding
> literally no value.
>
> Sean
>
> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 3:40:35 PM UTC-4, Bob Whelan wrote:
>> As a non-contest-participating but
>> thoroughly-enamored-with-just-about-all-facets-of-soaring sailplane
>> pilot, I'm enjoying this particular thread for multiple reasons.
>>
>> By way of trying to more clearly illustrate a point I'll make below,
>> I've taken the liberty of rearranging (and editing for brevity's sake)
>> the order of the two posts below, because the rational engineer in me
>> kinda choked on what seems to me a gross
>> misrepresentation/oversimplification of a reasoned and thoughtfully
>> expressed point of view. So count me as someone who has no problem with
>> agreeing to disagree, but who does have a problem with misrepresentation
>> of a another's view along the way to expressing one's own opinion. :)
>>
>> On 8/20/2015 12:08 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4,
>>> wrote:
>>>> <>>> tactical use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it ->>
>>>>
>>>> <>>> (with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for
>>>> skill and judgement. EXACTLY! >>
>>>>
>>>> The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I
>>>> admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict:
>>>> whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function
>>>> it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of
>>>> getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed
>>>> opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are
>>>> and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we
>>>> are about soaring competition.
>>>>
>>>> We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and
>>>> then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight
>>>> logging.
>>>>
>>>> Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest
>>>> levels?
>> <Major snip>
>>>>
>>>> One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to
>>>> safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira
>>>> Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite
>>>> fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it
>>>> easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider
>>>> as a valid parameter.
>>>>
>>>> Chip Bearden ASW 24 "JB" U.S.A.
>>
>>> FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition
>>> Mode), there will still be leeches.
>> <Snip>
>>>
>>> This debate really comes down to people who don't like/want change and
>>> people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation)
>>> into the mix.
>> <Snip>
>>>
>>> Sean
>>
>> For the record, I've never met either of the above posters (and after
>> this whiny post, both may hope to keep things that way!)...
>>
>> Geez Louise, Sean, do you REALLY imagine JB's argument comes down to his
>> view on change? (I, for one, don't. Were I to attempt to put words in
>> JB's mouth I'd probably say something like: "This debate really comes
>> down to people who wish to limit the use of FLARM to the vision 'sold to
>> the gliding community by FLARM's creators,' and those who would like to
>> use ALL of its presently-perceived capabilities.")
>>
>> Respectfully, Bob W.

I'm prolly gonna regret this, but the anal part of me insists I not let this
slide into silent oblivion, since it reasonably appears I'm being accused of
putting words in someone else's mouth...

So, OK, your reply to my post raised a smidgen of doubt in my mind...had I or
had I not seen a post from you, where a rather lengthy response was top-posted
to another rather lengthy post from JB? (That dual-input post was the post to
which I replied by changing the order and then editing-by-snipping.) Turns out
I had, both on nntp.aioe.org and news.eternal-september.org as read via
Thunderbird. I went back and looked in those places because where I first
looked for archival material - Google's archives - showed only a single,
sans-JB post from you in this thread...though it also shoes a recently deleted
post, which I'm guessing is the one from which I edited?

I'm not asking for an explanation, simply attempting to set my little part of
this particular record straight.

If I seem to have put words in your mouth that you feel are unwarranted, I
apologize.

Bob W.

Papa3[_2_]

August 21st 15, 12:13 AM

Since you asked. Last day of Dannsville 2014 (avaialbe on the SSA Website). If you pick my file, UH, SM, XC, MS, and W3 at minimum, you can see that I made two critical decisions thanks to FLARM. First, I was able to see where a few guys were out of the gate and headed in that direction. Note: It was a very unusual task (don't go there - we know your feelings on MATs). There was a choice of 3 or 4 waypoints as the first turn. It was also very hazy with a crazy mixed cloudbase with some climbs going up much higher than the surrounding cloudbase. When I started, I was out of visual range of the others who had chosen Loon Lake as the first turn. So, that made Decision #1 easy (where to go first). I then picked up MS climbing via FLARM and made a beeline for him. Good climb, but wasn't happy where he was going after that. Good news - several gliders off to the right per FLARM. I'll go there since I already have tactical advantage (i.e. I won the Start Gate). Decision #2 helped by FLARM. From there, SM, XC, and I made up a very nice working group that did EXACTLY what good working groups do - one guy would lead out and the other would spread out. SM and I were in 18M span with XC in 15, so all XC had to do was to stay with us and not get dumped. He's way too good a pilot to get dumped, and he ended up winning the day (as he should).

So, there's a real-world example of where FLARM helped make some critical early decisions that got me connected with the pack and then helped me get connected with a good working group. The 4-5 minutes I gained put me in second for the day, just out of first.

Not earth-shattering stuff, but shaving off a few minutes several times in a contest is usually the difference between 1st and "just out of podium range."

P3

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 21st 15, 07:19 AM

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:

Took a look at this - thanks. Observations in-line.

> Since you asked. Last day of Dannsville 2014 (avaialbe on the SSA Website). If you pick my file, UH, SM, XC, MS, and W3 at minimum, you can see that I made two critical decisions thanks to FLARM. First, I was able to see where a few guys were out of the gate and headed in that direction. Note: It was a very unusual task (don't go there - we know your feelings on MATs). There was a choice of 3 or 4 waypoints as the first turn. It was also very hazy with a crazy mixed cloudbase with some climbs going up much higher than the surrounding cloudbase. When I started, I was out of visual range of the others who had chosen Loon Lake as the first turn.

(It looks like everybody was in a thermal together, some headed out and you went back and too a couple of turns in another thermal and left three minutes later. When the others (UH, XC, SM) set course for the first turn you were 0.22 miles away, so you probably had a decent idea where they were headed - or could have known - without Flarm. On a hazy day whether you'd have been able to spot them visually (or get within the requisite 1.25 stealth miles) is not clear).

So, that made Decision #1 easy (where to go first). I then picked up MS climbing via FLARM and made a beeline for him. Good climb, but wasn't happy where he was going after that.

(Well, it was a good climb for MS, who was the first one in the thermal - 3..3 knots. The second glider in the thermal was SM, less than a mile in trail who got 3.8 knots. After that was 44, 1.7 miles behind MS, who only got 2..6 knots. You were 4.25 miles back and got there 4 minutes later. For your Flarm leeching prize you were awarded...1.4 knots and 269 feet of climb (this is all per SeeYou). You also made a 90-degree left turn to get to the next thermal that MS found 3.5 miles away. He got a 2.8 knot climb. 44 was Stealth mode leech distance behind and was awarded 2.4 knots. You were a full 3.75 miles behind and by the time you got to this thermal you were alerted to by the magic of Flarm you were able to achieve...1.4 knots. Had you gone straight and run into the same thermal as UH, XC and SM who knows what you'd have gotten - they achieved 1.4-1.6 knots, so a little bit better that you got with your Flarm-inspired deviation. It's not clear if the deviation was off course, or you just turned early - I didn't load the waypoints, or your flight claim).

Good news - several gliders off to the right per FLARM. I'll go there since I already have tactical advantage (i.e. I won the Start Gate). Decision #2 helped by FLARM.

(You had about 7 miles separation when you set out from the prior thermal. From that point on, you and the other three were on a converging course (does your Flarm get 7 miles or was that just happenstance? It was more or less the course you were on already). It looks like you deviated more steeply to meet up with them from about two miles apart, which probably cost you a fraction of a mile. It's not clear that Flarm did you any good on this as you would have met up anyway - at least with Stealth mode - if it was pea-soup hazy maybe you wouldn't have ever gotten an actual eyeball on anyone.)

From there, SM, XC, and I made up a very nice working group that did EXACTLY what good working groups do - one guy would lead out and the other would spread out. SM and I were in 18M span with XC in 15, so all XC had to do was to stay with us and not get dumped. He's way too good a pilot to get dumped, and he ended up winning the day (as he should).

(Loose team flying out on course has been common practice for generations, not really related to Flarm. We could invoke penalties for "team flying" anytime any gliders take two or more thermal in a row together - per their IGC files. It would be pretty easy. However, despite the "cheaty" nature of it, I think people kind of enjoy it. The "stay with the group and win on handicap" is harder than it seems, but even so there have been occasional calls to"legislate" it away).

> So, there's a real-world example of where FLARM helped make some critical early decisions that got me connected with the pack and then helped me get connected with a good working group. The 4-5 minutes I gained put me in second for the day, just out of first.

(I'd have to load all the waypoints and the task, but it appears that the Flarm-related activities actually hurt you slightly (slower climbs that the non-leechers, by a good margin. It seems from the flight data that you actually earned your second by flying better on the non-leechy parts of your flight.

BTW, as I go through the "leechy" contest days people have sent me to look at, this is becoming a common theme. The first glider in a thermal pretty consistently gets the best climb. OTOH, followers - particularly as they get more than a mile or two behind - pretty consistently get substantially poorer climbs. I won't claim it as a universal truth but if you think for a minute how pilots decide whether to stop for a thermal they found versus one someone else is already climbing in you can start to see how the performance statistics would get skewed. Chasing someone else's thermal from more than a mile or two out is often a sucker's bet, and the worst part is you don't even know you were snookered until the flight is over and you can look at all the logs.

Veeery interestink.

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 21st 15, 08:50 AM

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> Good news - several gliders off to the right per FLARM. I'll go there since I already have tactical advantage (i.e. I won the Start Gate).

(Also, you didn't really catch them from your late start - they all flew three miles further to pick up a different first turn and you cut the corner off. For sure you got to see other pilots on Flarm and make decisions and that left the impression of gaining an advantage, but most of the Flarm-induced temptations you went for seem to have had a neutral to negative effect on overall performance. It's a bit hard to tell between neutral and negative because the part of the flight you didn't fly together as a working group had a different first turnpoint and the end result was different by only +/- 11 points - less than 1 mph).

9B

August 21st 15, 12:44 PM

It seems that this discussion about whether FLARM should part of contest flying has been turned into a discussion of leeching where leeching is following one pilot or one group of pilots.

Beyond that, FLARM can be used to unnaturally jump from one group to another or find that thermal you desperately need. By unnaturally I mean seeing beyond visual range, detecting and selecting climb rates of others with electronically enhanced capabilities. FLARM also help see where pilots are heading leaving a MAT turn point and how many gliders are going that way.

So it is more than just tailing a guy. A lot more information is presented to the decision making pilot taking full advantage of FLARM.

Where do you draw the line? If you believe there should be no line, okay, then we are talking about a sport where all the information possibly gathered through the internet or people on the ground also become part of the race..

Sailplane racing is a sport not an unlimited frontier. It is motor-less flight after all. From the very first day there have been limits set to define the sport.

Let's proactively determine what we want our sport to be. What kind of sport would fishing be if anything were allowed? If baseball players were allowed to hit with any kind of bat, the stadiums would have to be expanded every few years and the cheap seats would have to be 550 yards away.

XC

Papa3[_2_]

August 21st 15, 12:47 PM

Hi Andy,

I think you missed the forest for the trees with your fine-grained analysis.. There were two or three very important decisions I made based on FLARM. Two of them worked out. Getting to the start gaggle (I'd been behind a wall of cloud a couple of miles away) and seeing where the start gaggle went (come fly NY in August some time - you'll understand what it means to "lose" somebody 3 miles out of the gate). The second was deviating very distinctly toward MS (90 degrees off my original course line). Again, whether it worked out better or worse doesn't matter - it put me into the general area of the other glider and I was able to bounce two climbs from/with him. That altitude is what let me hook back up with the rest of the fleet later on down track.

Everything after the above was pure visual/classic gaggle flying. It was wonderful. No FLARM required for that. I love a "good working group" of 3 or 4 gliders, but it's not clear that I would've been in that group if I hadn't had FLARM in the first place.

Sean asked for an example where someone used FLARM to achieve tactical results. Given that it was only my 5th day ever flying with it, I'm pretty happy that I was able to get any information out of it.

Off to sit in the back of a 2-33 in the sweltering heat for a few hours for some instructing duty. Yay.

P3

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 2:19:19 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
>
> Took a look at this - thanks. Observations in-line.
>
> > Since you asked. Last day of Dannsville 2014 (avaialbe on the SSA Website). If you pick my file, UH, SM, XC, MS, and W3 at minimum, you can see that I made two critical decisions thanks to FLARM. First, I was able to see where a few guys were out of the gate and headed in that direction. Note: It was a very unusual task (don't go there - we know your feelings on MATs). There was a choice of 3 or 4 waypoints as the first turn. It was also very hazy with a crazy mixed cloudbase with some climbs going up much higher than the surrounding cloudbase. When I started, I was out of visual range of the others who had chosen Loon Lake as the first turn.
>
> (It looks like everybody was in a thermal together, some headed out and you went back and too a couple of turns in another thermal and left three minutes later. When the others (UH, XC, SM) set course for the first turn you were 0.22 miles away, so you probably had a decent idea where they were headed - or could have known - without Flarm. On a hazy day whether you'd have been able to spot them visually (or get within the requisite 1.25 stealth miles) is not clear).
>
> So, that made Decision #1 easy (where to go first). I then picked up MS climbing via FLARM and made a beeline for him. Good climb, but wasn't happy where he was going after that.
>
> (Well, it was a good climb for MS, who was the first one in the thermal - 3.3 knots. The second glider in the thermal was SM, less than a mile in trail who got 3.8 knots. After that was 44, 1.7 miles behind MS, who only got 2.6 knots. You were 4.25 miles back and got there 4 minutes later. For your Flarm leeching prize you were awarded...1.4 knots and 269 feet of climb (this is all per SeeYou). You also made a 90-degree left turn to get to the next thermal that MS found 3.5 miles away. He got a 2.8 knot climb. 44 was Stealth mode leech distance behind and was awarded 2.4 knots. You were a full 3.75 miles behind and by the time you got to this thermal you were alerted to by the magic of Flarm you were able to achieve...1.4 knots. Had you gone straight and run into the same thermal as UH, XC and SM who knows what you'd have gotten - they achieved 1.4-1.6 knots, so a little bit better that you got with your Flarm-inspired deviation. It's not clear if the deviation was off course, or you just turned early - I didn't load the waypoints, or your flight claim).
>
> Good news - several gliders off to the right per FLARM. I'll go there since I already have tactical advantage (i.e. I won the Start Gate). Decision #2 helped by FLARM.
>
> (You had about 7 miles separation when you set out from the prior thermal.. From that point on, you and the other three were on a converging course (does your Flarm get 7 miles or was that just happenstance? It was more or less the course you were on already). It looks like you deviated more steeply to meet up with them from about two miles apart, which probably cost you a fraction of a mile. It's not clear that Flarm did you any good on this as you would have met up anyway - at least with Stealth mode - if it was pea-soup hazy maybe you wouldn't have ever gotten an actual eyeball on anyone.)
>
>
> From there, SM, XC, and I made up a very nice working group that did EXACTLY what good working groups do - one guy would lead out and the other would spread out. SM and I were in 18M span with XC in 15, so all XC had to do was to stay with us and not get dumped. He's way too good a pilot to get dumped, and he ended up winning the day (as he should).
>
> (Loose team flying out on course has been common practice for generations, not really related to Flarm. We could invoke penalties for "team flying" anytime any gliders take two or more thermal in a row together - per their IGC files. It would be pretty easy. However, despite the "cheaty" nature of it, I think people kind of enjoy it. The "stay with the group and win on handicap" is harder than it seems, but even so there have been occasional calls to"legislate" it away).
>
> > So, there's a real-world example of where FLARM helped make some critical early decisions that got me connected with the pack and then helped me get connected with a good working group. The 4-5 minutes I gained put me in second for the day, just out of first.
>
> (I'd have to load all the waypoints and the task, but it appears that the Flarm-related activities actually hurt you slightly (slower climbs that the non-leechers, by a good margin. It seems from the flight data that you actually earned your second by flying better on the non-leechy parts of your flight.
>
> BTW, as I go through the "leechy" contest days people have sent me to look at, this is becoming a common theme. The first glider in a thermal pretty consistently gets the best climb. OTOH, followers - particularly as they get more than a mile or two behind - pretty consistently get substantially poorer climbs. I won't claim it as a universal truth but if you think for a minute how pilots decide whether to stop for a thermal they found versus one someone else is already climbing in you can start to see how the performance statistics would get skewed. Chasing someone else's thermal from more than a mile or two out is often a sucker's bet, and the worst part is you don't even know you were snookered until the flight is over and you can look at all the logs.
>
> Veeery interestink.
>
> 9B

[email protected]

August 21st 15, 01:56 PM

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 2:19:19 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
>
> Took a look at this - thanks. Observations in-line.
>
> > Since you asked. Last day of Dannsville 2014 (avaialbe on the SSA Website). If you pick my file, UH, SM, XC, MS, and W3 at minimum, you can see that I made two critical decisions thanks to FLARM. First, I was able to see where a few guys were out of the gate and headed in that direction. Note: It was a very unusual task (don't go there - we know your feelings on MATs). There was a choice of 3 or 4 waypoints as the first turn. It was also very hazy with a crazy mixed cloudbase with some climbs going up much higher than the surrounding cloudbase. When I started, I was out of visual range of the others who had chosen Loon Lake as the first turn.
>
> (It looks like everybody was in a thermal together, some headed out and you went back and too a couple of turns in another thermal and left three minutes later. When the others (UH, XC, SM) set course for the first turn you were 0.22 miles away, so you probably had a decent idea where they were headed - or could have known - without Flarm. On a hazy day whether you'd have been able to spot them visually (or get within the requisite 1.25 stealth miles) is not clear).
>
> So, that made Decision #1 easy (where to go first). I then picked up MS climbing via FLARM and made a beeline for him. Good climb, but wasn't happy where he was going after that.
>
> (Well, it was a good climb for MS, who was the first one in the thermal - 3.3 knots. The second glider in the thermal was SM, less than a mile in trail who got 3.8 knots. After that was 44, 1.7 miles behind MS, who only got 2.6 knots. You were 4.25 miles back and got there 4 minutes later. For your Flarm leeching prize you were awarded...1.4 knots and 269 feet of climb (this is all per SeeYou). You also made a 90-degree left turn to get to the next thermal that MS found 3.5 miles away. He got a 2.8 knot climb. 44 was Stealth mode leech distance behind and was awarded 2.4 knots. You were a full 3.75 miles behind and by the time you got to this thermal you were alerted to by the magic of Flarm you were able to achieve...1.4 knots. Had you gone straight and run into the same thermal as UH, XC and SM who knows what you'd have gotten - they achieved 1.4-1.6 knots, so a little bit better that you got with your Flarm-inspired deviation. It's not clear if the deviation was off course, or you just turned early - I didn't load the waypoints, or your flight claim).
>
> Good news - several gliders off to the right per FLARM. I'll go there since I already have tactical advantage (i.e. I won the Start Gate). Decision #2 helped by FLARM.
>
> (You had about 7 miles separation when you set out from the prior thermal.. From that point on, you and the other three were on a converging course (does your Flarm get 7 miles or was that just happenstance? It was more or less the course you were on already). It looks like you deviated more steeply to meet up with them from about two miles apart, which probably cost you a fraction of a mile. It's not clear that Flarm did you any good on this as you would have met up anyway - at least with Stealth mode - if it was pea-soup hazy maybe you wouldn't have ever gotten an actual eyeball on anyone.)
>
>
> From there, SM, XC, and I made up a very nice working group that did EXACTLY what good working groups do - one guy would lead out and the other would spread out. SM and I were in 18M span with XC in 15, so all XC had to do was to stay with us and not get dumped. He's way too good a pilot to get dumped, and he ended up winning the day (as he should).
>
> (Loose team flying out on course has been common practice for generations, not really related to Flarm. We could invoke penalties for "team flying" anytime any gliders take two or more thermal in a row together - per their IGC files. It would be pretty easy. However, despite the "cheaty" nature of it, I think people kind of enjoy it. The "stay with the group and win on handicap" is harder than it seems, but even so there have been occasional calls to"legislate" it away).
>
> > So, there's a real-world example of where FLARM helped make some critical early decisions that got me connected with the pack and then helped me get connected with a good working group. The 4-5 minutes I gained put me in second for the day, just out of first.
>
> (I'd have to load all the waypoints and the task, but it appears that the Flarm-related activities actually hurt you slightly (slower climbs that the non-leechers, by a good margin. It seems from the flight data that you actually earned your second by flying better on the non-leechy parts of your flight.
>
> BTW, as I go through the "leechy" contest days people have sent me to look at, this is becoming a common theme. The first glider in a thermal pretty consistently gets the best climb. OTOH, followers - particularly as they get more than a mile or two behind - pretty consistently get substantially poorer climbs. I won't claim it as a universal truth but if you think for a minute how pilots decide whether to stop for a thermal they found versus one someone else is already climbing in you can start to see how the performance statistics would get skewed. Chasing someone else's thermal from more than a mile or two out is often a sucker's bet, and the worst part is you don't even know you were snookered until the flight is over and you can look at all the logs.
>
> Veeery interestink.
>
> 9B

In many cases it is not all about a better climb, i.e. picking from a couple option to climb a bit faster, but about getting a climb at all, or at least going toward an area that is working.
At Dansville that day the real question out of the start was "will we get any climb at all, or end up at Avoca. Seeing others climbing ahead, and where, was a very big advantage.
Another less clear example is Elmira on day 6 this year. It was desperation start time with a big hole to cross somehow from low altitude. Those of us that got through the early part of the flight went to the blue more to the north. Others went to the really dark stuff more west. If they could have seen us climbing on Flarm, though poorly, I'm sure some would have come to us instead of lawn darting.
UH

Sean Fidler

August 21st 15, 04:50 PM

Now we are having a good discussion! I think real world examples are good for everyone and if they show trends, a solid argument. I'm super busy at work, wedding tomorrow but I will look at these examples and put them on YouTube for the gang.

I will still try my best to disprove the tactical information presented by Flarm is high value or easily actionable, but I am open to the chance it is valuable. My reasoning for instituting stealth/comp mode is the variance in info available via cheating (a red flag)...not that it is really that helpful.

Sean

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 21st 15, 05:11 PM

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 5:56:05 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 2:19:19 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> >
> > Took a look at this - thanks. Observations in-line.
> >
> > > Since you asked. Last day of Dannsville 2014 (avaialbe on the SSA Website). If you pick my file, UH, SM, XC, MS, and W3 at minimum, you can see that I made two critical decisions thanks to FLARM. First, I was able to see where a few guys were out of the gate and headed in that direction. Note: It was a very unusual task (don't go there - we know your feelings on MATs). There was a choice of 3 or 4 waypoints as the first turn. It was also very hazy with a crazy mixed cloudbase with some climbs going up much higher than the surrounding cloudbase. When I started, I was out of visual range of the others who had chosen Loon Lake as the first turn.
> >
> > (It looks like everybody was in a thermal together, some headed out and you went back and too a couple of turns in another thermal and left three minutes later. When the others (UH, XC, SM) set course for the first turn you were 0.22 miles away, so you probably had a decent idea where they were headed - or could have known - without Flarm. On a hazy day whether you'd have been able to spot them visually (or get within the requisite 1.25 stealth miles) is not clear).
> >
> > So, that made Decision #1 easy (where to go first). I then picked up MS climbing via FLARM and made a beeline for him. Good climb, but wasn't happy where he was going after that.
> >
> > (Well, it was a good climb for MS, who was the first one in the thermal - 3.3 knots. The second glider in the thermal was SM, less than a mile in trail who got 3.8 knots. After that was 44, 1.7 miles behind MS, who only got 2.6 knots. You were 4.25 miles back and got there 4 minutes later. For your Flarm leeching prize you were awarded...1.4 knots and 269 feet of climb (this is all per SeeYou). You also made a 90-degree left turn to get to the next thermal that MS found 3.5 miles away. He got a 2.8 knot climb. 44 was Stealth mode leech distance behind and was awarded 2.4 knots. You were a full 3.75 miles behind and by the time you got to this thermal you were alerted to by the magic of Flarm you were able to achieve...1.4 knots. Had you gone straight and run into the same thermal as UH, XC and SM who knows what you'd have gotten - they achieved 1.4-1.6 knots, so a little bit better that you got with your Flarm-inspired deviation. It's not clear if the deviation was off course, or you just turned early - I didn't load the waypoints, or your flight claim).
> >
> > Good news - several gliders off to the right per FLARM. I'll go there since I already have tactical advantage (i.e. I won the Start Gate). Decision #2 helped by FLARM.
> >
> > (You had about 7 miles separation when you set out from the prior thermal. From that point on, you and the other three were on a converging course (does your Flarm get 7 miles or was that just happenstance? It was more or less the course you were on already). It looks like you deviated more steeply to meet up with them from about two miles apart, which probably cost you a fraction of a mile. It's not clear that Flarm did you any good on this as you would have met up anyway - at least with Stealth mode - if it was pea-soup hazy maybe you wouldn't have ever gotten an actual eyeball on anyone..)
> >
> >
> > From there, SM, XC, and I made up a very nice working group that did EXACTLY what good working groups do - one guy would lead out and the other would spread out. SM and I were in 18M span with XC in 15, so all XC had to do was to stay with us and not get dumped. He's way too good a pilot to get dumped, and he ended up winning the day (as he should).
> >
> > (Loose team flying out on course has been common practice for generations, not really related to Flarm. We could invoke penalties for "team flying" anytime any gliders take two or more thermal in a row together - per their IGC files. It would be pretty easy. However, despite the "cheaty" nature of it, I think people kind of enjoy it. The "stay with the group and win on handicap" is harder than it seems, but even so there have been occasional calls to"legislate" it away).
> >
> > > So, there's a real-world example of where FLARM helped make some critical early decisions that got me connected with the pack and then helped me get connected with a good working group. The 4-5 minutes I gained put me in second for the day, just out of first.
> >
> > (I'd have to load all the waypoints and the task, but it appears that the Flarm-related activities actually hurt you slightly (slower climbs that the non-leechers, by a good margin. It seems from the flight data that you actually earned your second by flying better on the non-leechy parts of your flight.
> >
> > BTW, as I go through the "leechy" contest days people have sent me to look at, this is becoming a common theme. The first glider in a thermal pretty consistently gets the best climb. OTOH, followers - particularly as they get more than a mile or two behind - pretty consistently get substantially poorer climbs. I won't claim it as a universal truth but if you think for a minute how pilots decide whether to stop for a thermal they found versus one someone else is already climbing in you can start to see how the performance statistics would get skewed. Chasing someone else's thermal from more than a mile or two out is often a sucker's bet, and the worst part is you don't even know you were snookered until the flight is over and you can look at all the logs.
> >
> > Veeery interestink.
> >
> > 9B
>
> In many cases it is not all about a better climb, i.e. picking from a couple option to climb a bit faster, but about getting a climb at all, or at least going toward an area that is working.
> At Dansville that day the real question out of the start was "will we get any climb at all, or end up at Avoca. Seeing others climbing ahead, and where, was a very big advantage.
> Another less clear example is Elmira on day 6 this year. It was desperation start time with a big hole to cross somehow from low altitude. Those of us that got through the early part of the flight went to the blue more to the north. Others went to the really dark stuff more west. If they could have seen us climbing on Flarm, though poorly, I'm sure some would have come to us instead of lawn darting.
> UH

If I take UH's and P3's observations together I think we come to an interesting group of insights.

First, there is growing evidence that typically Flarm leeching gives below-average climbs and is therefore a detriment to performing at the highest level on any given task. Many thermals are variable in strengths and leaders tend to find the strong bubbles (or they wouldn't stop to climb). Followers at more than a mile or so have increasing trouble finding the good part of the thermal.

Aside - Eric, as I look at your trace you caught the lead guys not because you used Flarm to find superior climbs (they were actually slightly weaker), but because you flew 3-4 miles less distance by cutting the first turn, which nearly exactly offset starting 3-4 miles behind them. I'm sure it was reassuring to find the pre-start gaggle, but it's not clear that you got any advantage from it - short of not landing out on a weak day, which is hard to prove would have happened since no one landed out on that leg that I could see.

Second, there is the case of desperation mode as UH points out. The "find any lift or land out" situation like Day 6 at HH. This is the situation where a Flarm target just might prevent you from lawn darting. For me it raises a question. Do we want to increase or decrease the probability that missing (or finding) one thermal on an iffy day determines who wins a contest? There are all sorts of provisions in the rules to devalue days like this, but it's no secret that the days where around half the field lands out are the ones that really make or break your position on the scoresheet. It also may partly explain why the HH results didn't map to the PRL rankings very well (UH made this point waaaaay up in this thread somewhere - random weather days scramble the scoreheeet, despite devaluation). I think this point has some merit - though the circumstances are VERY rare. What that means is Stealth mode increases the odds that the best pilots will get knocked out of contention for reasons that are beyond their control (finding a random thermal that everyone else misses). Is that a good thing or a bad thing for the fairness and enjoyment of sailplane racing? Put another way - do we want to decide races mostly in the air or increasingly via the landout?

More food for thought.

Off to Truckee to fly in the smoke of California wildfires.

9B

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

August 21st 15, 05:25 PM

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 9:11:52 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:

> Aside - Eric, as I look at your trace you caught the lead guys not because you used Flarm to find superior climbs (they were actually slightly weaker), but because you flew 3-4 miles less distance by cutting the first turn, which nearly exactly offset starting 3-4 miles behind them. I'm sure it was reassuring to find the pre-start gaggle, but it's not clear that you got any advantage from it - short of not landing out on a weak day, which is hard to prove would have happened since no one landed out on that leg that I could see.

Sorry EriK - don't know why I keep typo-ing your name - :-(

Also - we are talking about 11 points of leeching benefit (that is hard to directly attribute to Flarm leeching since it got you poorer climbs. However, if I take UH's suggestion as to the Flarm benefit you got, the alternative may have been a P3 landout. Which would have been a better result for judging your performance that day - a maximum of 11 points of leeching benefit or a landout penalty for not staying with the gaggle much more closely at the start? Remember, before Flarm people still were able to gaggle up, leech, etc. They just did it by staying close enough to read the other guys' contest numbers.

9B

kirk.stant

August 21st 15, 06:44 PM

I've waited a long time to jump into this fascinating thread so will keep my comments short:

What's the big deal with "leeching"? It's a race - almost all other racing sports encourage close racing! That way small differences in skill are accentuated and the luck factor is reduced.

I'm all for full use of FLARM. I like knowing where everyone is (not like there is a big crowd at races these days).

For you guys who want to go off on your own and exercise your magical skills alone - three words: On Line Contest.

I like the challenge of outclimbing someone, and running a better energy line, and flying a more aggressive final glide. Winning by seconds, as XX wrote.

If "leeching" brings a few newbies into the race scene, great! What is the chance of someone leeching his way onto the US world team?

And for that matter, if FLARM is becoming a tactical tool at the Worlds, shouldn't we be training to use that way in our Regional and National races?

So my vote (if it comes to that) is NO to Stealth mode. Bring on the tech!

Kirk
66
Happily PFing since 2013

[email protected]

August 21st 15, 08:57 PM

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 1:44:19 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> I've waited a long time to jump into this fascinating thread so will keep my comments short:
>
> What's the big deal with "leeching"? It's a race - almost all other racing sports encourage close racing! That way small differences in skill are accentuated and the luck factor is reduced.
>
> I'm all for full use of FLARM. I like knowing where everyone is (not like there is a big crowd at races these days).
>
> For you guys who want to go off on your own and exercise your magical skills alone - three words: On Line Contest.
>
> I like the challenge of outclimbing someone, and running a better energy line, and flying a more aggressive final glide. Winning by seconds, as XX wrote.
>
> If "leeching" brings a few newbies into the race scene, great! What is the chance of someone leeching his way onto the US world team?
>
> And for that matter, if FLARM is becoming a tactical tool at the Worlds, shouldn't we be training to use that way in our Regional and National races?
>
> So my vote (if it comes to that) is NO to Stealth mode. Bring on the tech!
>
> Kirk
> 66
> Happily PFing since 2013

From the information I'm seeing, Flarm in a reduced capability mode(competition mode or such)will almost certainly be in effect at the WGC level.
I'm curious as to how you will feel when your 2 friends team fly using the capabilities of Flarm to keep track of each other, including climb rates, without needing to talk on the radio. I, for one, will be seriously not happy.
How about weather radar?
How about near real time display of all competitors position, track, altitude, and climb rate?
How about the crew sending tactical info to the pilot?
The question becomes how far do we open the door and what are the likely affects on our sport?
UH

Andrzej Kobus

August 21st 15, 09:12 PM

Hank, you or RC will not be able to ban ADS-B out and neither will IGC.

[email protected]

August 21st 15, 09:36 PM

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 4:12:30 PM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> Hank, you or RC will not be able to ban ADS-B out and neither will IGC.

The question will be what will be permissible to be displayed in the cockpit when flying in competition.
UH

Jonathan St. Cloud

August 21st 15, 10:09 PM

Just some general musings but I wonder if limiting technology will work for long. The Stratus 2S will display all ADS-B traffic and and also weather and synthetic vision. In a few years we might all have to have ADS-B out. The Air Avionics transponder already will transmit ADS-B if linked to a GPS.. Seems like more and more gliders are opting to install transponders.

An example of limiting technology is to not allow cloud flying instruments (butterfly, LX S80, Bohli compass) yet all the smart phones and tablets have apps for horizon. Cloud flying is already illegal, true leeching will leave you with no respect from fellow competitors. If someone wants to cheat I am pretty sure they will find a way.

I would say embrace technology advances so no one has an advantage. Through the ages of competition it is proven that you have to be the best to win.

Remember the debate over GPS loggers, who wants to go back to the days of no GPS?

kirk.stant

August 21st 15, 10:27 PM

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 2:57:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> From the information I'm seeing, Flarm in a reduced capability mode(competition mode or such)will almost certainly be in effect at the WGC level.
> I'm curious as to how you will feel when your 2 friends team fly using the capabilities of Flarm to keep track of each other, including climb rates, without needing to talk on the radio. I, for one, will be seriously not happy.
> How about weather radar?
> How about near real time display of all competitors position, track, altitude, and climb rate?
> How about the crew sending tactical info to the pilot?
> The question becomes how far do we open the door and what are the likely affects on our sport?
> UH

I think it would be fun! The more info the better, and the person/team that uses it the best, and flies the best, will still win.

All sports change to absorb new technology - look at the America's cup or Formula 1! Nothing prevents a CM from declaring Stealth mode - but how often do we declare NO-GPS and break out our charts and cameras!

And if it means crews become more involved in our racing - that would be great!

Who knows - maybe all the cool tech would attract a new generation of contest pilots - so maybe it's the juniors we need to be asking about all this.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

MNLou

August 21st 15, 11:15 PM

I too have waited a while to weigh in. Here is my $0.02 -

I purchased and installed FLARM to be a tool to avoid a mid-air collision with another aircraft. We should not do anything to reduce the effectiveness of FLARM for that purpose. If the current Stealth mode does reduce the effectiveness, I am strongly against using it.

If we want to lobby the FLARM folks to create a Competition mode that keeps the current level of collision avoidance information while masking all other info, fine.

If we want to fly with the current collision avoidance effectiveness with all the other data, that's fine too. However, I believe it will unavoidably lead to more "head down" time.

Lou

BobW

August 22nd 15, 12:23 AM

On 8/21/2015 3:27 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 2:57:12 PM UTC-5,
> wrote:
>>
>> From the information I'm seeing, Flarm in a reduced capability
>> mode(competition mode or such)will almost certainly be in effect at the
>> WGC level. I'm curious as to how you will feel when your 2 friends team
>> fly using the capabilities of Flarm to keep track of each other,
>> including climb rates, without needing to talk on the radio. I, for one,
>> will be seriously not happy. How about weather radar? How about near real
>> time display of all competitors position, track, altitude, and climb
>> rate? How about the crew sending tactical info to the pilot? The question
>> becomes how far do we open the door and what are the likely affects on
>> our sport? UH
>
> I think it would be fun! The more info the better, and the person/team that
> uses it the best, and flies the best, will still win.
>
> All sports change to absorb new technology - look at the America's cup or
> Formula 1!

By way of Devil's advocacy...when I look at America's Cup and Formula 1, I see
two of the most expensive sports in the world; both have been that way for
"quite some time now." Arguably, each has *always* been at the pinnacles of
their respective sports' costs. You might even argue that both today are
examples of "If you build it, they will come," sorts of sports in audience
terms. How exactly might we make that work in soaring?

FWIW, in both sports, there's far more participation in headcount terms in the
lesser expensive spectra...

Bob W.

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 22nd 15, 01:22 AM

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:23:09 -0600, BobW wrote:

> On 8/21/2015 3:27 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
>> On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 2:57:12 PM UTC-5,
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From the information I'm seeing, Flarm in a reduced capability
>>> mode(competition mode or such)will almost certainly be in effect at
>>> the WGC level. I'm curious as to how you will feel when your 2 friends
>>> team fly using the capabilities of Flarm to keep track of each other,
>>> including climb rates, without needing to talk on the radio. I, for
>>> one, will be seriously not happy. How about weather radar? How about
>>> near real time display of all competitors position, track, altitude,
>>> and climb rate? How about the crew sending tactical info to the pilot?
>>> The question becomes how far do we open the door and what are the
>>> likely affects on our sport? UH
>>
>> I think it would be fun! The more info the better, and the person/team
>> that uses it the best, and flies the best, will still win.
>>
>> All sports change to absorb new technology - look at the America's cup
>> or Formula 1!
>
> By way of Devil's advocacy...when I look at America's Cup and Formula 1,
> I see two of the most expensive sports in the world; both have been that
> way for "quite some time now." Arguably, each has *always* been at the
> pinnacles of their respective sports' costs. You might even argue that
> both today are examples of "If you build it, they will come," sorts of
> sports in audience terms. How exactly might we make that work in
> soaring?
>
> FWIW, in both sports, there's far more participation in headcount terms
> in the lesser expensive spectra...
>
With all due respect, the active participation in headcount terms is
bugger all. 20 or so drivers in F1 and under 20 yachts with crews of
around 10 in the AmCup aren't exactly large numbers of participants in
global terms. The numbers who will take the trouble to go to the track to
watch are also pretty insignificant compared to the headcount of those
whose total participation consists of vegging out in front of the goggle
box.

This is the exact opposite of soaring, where almost the entirety of
people involved in the sport are either active participants or those who
have stopped flying due to infirmity or age. We have almost no passive
spectators and I, for one, am happy with this situation because soaring,
along with ocean sailing racing and mountaineering, is one of the least
spectator-friendly sports in existence.

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

BobW

August 22nd 15, 02:57 AM

On 8/21/2015 6:22 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:23:09 -0600, BobW wrote:
>
<Snip>
>> By way of Devil's advocacy...when I look at America's Cup and Formula 1,
>> I see two of the most expensive sports in the world; both have been that
>> way for "quite some time now." Arguably, each has *always* been at the
>> pinnacles of their respective sports' costs. You might even argue that
>> both today are examples of "If you build it, they will come," sorts of
>> sports in audience terms. How exactly might we make that work in
>> soaring?
>>
>> FWIW, in both sports, there's far more participation in headcount terms
>> in the lesser expensive spectra...
>>
> With all due respect, the active participation in headcount terms is
> bugger all. 20 or so drivers in F1 and under 20 yachts with crews of
> around 10 in the AmCup aren't exactly large numbers of participants in
> global terms. The numbers who will take the trouble to go to the track to
> watch are also pretty insignificant compared to the headcount of those
> whose total participation consists of vegging out in front of the goggle
> box.
>
> This is the exact opposite of soaring, where almost the entirety of
> people involved in the sport are either active participants or those who
> have stopped flying due to infirmity or age. We have almost no passive
> spectators and I, for one, am happy with this situation because soaring,
> along with ocean sailing racing and mountaineering, is one of the least
> spectator-friendly sports in existence.
>
>
Thanks for clarifying what I attempted poorly to suggest in my 2nd paragraph.
In the U.S., the Sports Car Club of America (to name one of the national
groups promoting "average Joe" racing for weekend warriors) might be
considered analogous to SSA and its membership when comparing SCCA to Formula
1, where the aoaring equivalent of Formula 1 doesn't exist...and never will
exist in any of my imaginary futures, except maybe in some perverted form in
support of nationally-backed warfare.

The point I sought to make is that in soaring - just as with automobile and
sailboat racing - there's some sort of inverse correlation between the cost
barriers to entry and participation levels. "Qu'elle surprise!"

Bob W.

[email protected]

August 22nd 15, 05:34 AM

Time for a bit of tough love:

Anyone that knowingly or willingly disables or permits to be disabled, diminishes or otherwise attenuates the function of a Flarm device should be tarred, feathered and excommunicated from the sport. I don't want to be in the same sky as you and your greedy, self-centred use of an aid to collision avoidance. As leeching doesn't impede the sports worst nor best (performance wise), I view you as being in the middle of the pack. Frustrated by your own inadequacies you jealously guard your position under the misguided notion that the world wants to steal your performance from you. Newsflash: you aren't as good as you think you are and your performance isn't a magic bullet for your competitors. As it takes two hands to clap (two gliders to splinter?) your selfishness could have very morbid consequences. How about we intermittently fiddle with your ripcord?

I compete for fun so I'm not going to pretend I'm as performance-orientated as some of the other posters within this topic. I reconcile my performance at the end of the day with one person - me. I can't do that if I've followed someone else around the sky.

CJ

And for the record, I'm:
Anti leaching
Anti team flying (unless specifically permitted)
Pro Flarm

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 22nd 15, 01:09 PM

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:57:06 -0600, BobW wrote:

> The point I sought to make is that in soaring - just as with automobile
> and sailboat racing - there's some sort of inverse correlation between
> the cost barriers to entry and participation levels. "Qu'elle surprise!"
>
Not trying to nit pick, but is cost really as much of a deterrent to
participating in these sports as the time and mental effort you need to
put in to get and maintain the necessary skills? When you consider the
prices people are happy to pay for spectator seats or the latest &
greatest curved-screen TV just to sit and watch other people exercising
said skills I really do wonder.

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

[email protected]

August 22nd 15, 04:54 PM

> Not trying to nit pick, but is cost really as much of a deterrent to
> participating in these sports as the time and mental effort you need to
> put in to get and maintain the necessary skills? When you consider the
> prices people are happy to pay for spectator seats or the latest &
> greatest curved-screen TV just to sit and watch other people exercising
> said skills I really do wonder.

Yes. Yes. Yes. The demand for soaring is not inelastic and, with all due respect, you're in denial to pretend otherwise.

Will cost deter someone who deeply desires to fly more than anything else in the world? Probably not; there are ways to fly sailplanes--and even compete--on a budget. But those diehards are not the ones we're talking about. It's the folks who have disposable income but a lot of different ways to spend it that swell the ranks.

Yes, there are other obstacles to soaring, especially to compete, among them (as you say) the time and effort it takes to get good at it. But money is important, too, especially when there are so many other ways to spend it these days, many of which can be shared with family members and enjoyed much more of the time than gliding (or racing cars or even sailing).

So we can make soaring (and I'm speaking mostly about competition since that's my focus) as expensive and difficult to access as possible. Or we can recognize that life is all about choices and tradeoffs, and do what we can to make it easier for the rest of us to participate. I've been in soaring since 1965. At one point it was the central focus of my life. Everything I did was planned around it, in particular contests. But I've been forced by circumstances to be out of flying a few times--and because I'm active, I've found other ways to challenge myself. And guess what? My life didn't end. :)

I'm older now, with different priorities. And I have two daughters in expensive American universities. And I'm divorced, which--though amicable--has had an impact on my financial situation. So frankly, if I hadn't been fortunate to buy my ASW 24 23 years ago (before children) and didn't know that it was still competitive today, I probably wouldn't be in soaring now. And if I had to buy $5,000 to $10,000 worth of avionics and tech gadgets to stay competitive, I probably wouldn't either.

So take it from someone who, over the past 50 years, has displayed about as much commitment to this sport as all but the most rabid and accomplished U..S. World Team pilots, COST MATTERS! End of rant. :)

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

jfitch

August 22nd 15, 05:21 PM

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 9:34:28 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Time for a bit of tough love:
>
> Anyone that knowingly or willingly disables or permits to be disabled, diminishes or otherwise attenuates the function of a Flarm device should be tarred, feathered and excommunicated from the sport. I don't want to be in the same sky as you and your greedy, self-centred use of an aid to collision avoidance. As leeching doesn't impede the sports worst nor best (performance wise), I view you as being in the middle of the pack. Frustrated by your own inadequacies you jealously guard your position under the misguided notion that the world wants to steal your performance from you. Newsflash: you aren't as good as you think you are and your performance isn't a magic bullet for your competitors. As it takes two hands to clap (two gliders to splinter?) your selfishness could have very morbid consequences. How about we intermittently fiddle with your ripcord?
>
> I compete for fun so I'm not going to pretend I'm as performance-orientated as some of the other posters within this topic. I reconcile my performance at the end of the day with one person - me. I can't do that if I've followed someone else around the sky.
>
> CJ
>
> And for the record, I'm:
> Anti leaching
> Anti team flying (unless specifically permitted)
> Pro Flarm

'I compete for fun' - That right there is your problem.

When winning becomes more important than competing, all kinds of weird things happen. I will note that I just discussed this with three recent national champions, none of them were particularly concerned about Flarm or leeching.

kirk.stant

August 22nd 15, 06:10 PM

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 11:21:41 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

> When winning becomes more important than competing, all kinds of weird things happen. I will note that I just discussed this with three recent national champions, none of them were particularly concerned about Flarm or leeching.

Exactly.

But back to the technology.

Sorry, I don't buy the "keep the cost down and it will grow" argument. Name ONE sport where that is happening. Look at the evolution of sailboats, windsurfers, race cars, gliders, bicycles (!), even track and field (priced a pair of running shoes lately?). Unless you intentionally freeze the technology, you are going to get an "arms race".

Now I have nothing against strict single-class rules - I used to race Lasers and they are about as identical as can be - but even there the serious competitors spend all sorts of cash on every possible legal tweak and high tech gizmo.

Sorry guys, the technology horse has bolted - you will see (at the upper levels of the sport) all sorts of fancy (and at first, expensive) technology. Which is exactly what happened when varios were invented, then when composite technology was introduced, then when nav/glide computers were introduced, then when GPS was introduced...PF, and by extension, remote tracking/enhanced situational awareness, is just the latest innovation that will be embraced by the sport and, IMO, make it more fun and appealing to the new generation of pilots. And since it's mainly electronics, the cost will invariably come down (Moore's law, etc.); just as how the once expensive state of the art racing gliders of the past eventually become the club ships and sports class racers of the "common man".

You hear pilots complaining that all these "aids" take away from what we are "measuring" in a glider race. I disagree. What a glider race is all about is speed: How fast can you make it around a task. And anything that allows you to go faster in a glider is progress.

Otherwise, we would all be floating around in Weihes staring at our pellet varios and trying to figure our where we are on our sectional charts, while preparing to land out in some horrible place...

So I say "Bring it on! Pump all the data into my cockpit that technology can access, and let me figure out how to use it to go faster!

And as an aside, my wife/crew, who used to love working start and finish gates, said that she would love to be involved in passing real time info to me inflight during a race - I really think real time involvement would be a way to expose more people to racing.

Oh, and, at least for me, a top of the line new open class glider is just as unattainable as an F-1 seat or the helm of an America's cup racer - so the comparison, while a bit of a tongue-in-cheek one, is valid for me!

Great thread,

Cheers,

Kirk
66