If You've Flown a FLARM Stealth Contest, Vote Here [Archive]

December 5th 15, 03:39 PM

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:30:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Lots of earnest opinions, some more strident than others. Lots of confident statements about what works, doesn't work, is possible, is futile, is inevitable.
>
> So let's keep it simple: if you have flown in a contest at any level where stealth was mandated (not necessarily mandatory FLARM, but if FLARM was used, it had to be in stealth mode), what was your experience?
>
> If you HAVEN'T flown in a stealth-mandatory contest, DON'T POST. You had your chance to speculate and make your opinions heard (some of you many, many times) over in "Is FLARM Helpful?" :) We could run this over on Survey Monkey, et al., but I think it's useful to track the responses on this forum..
>
> My view based on the Elmira nats in 2015: FLARM under stealth provided the collision avoidance and situational awareness intended without changing the tactics or strategy of the competitive flying significantly.
>
> My vote: "yes" for mandatory stealth mode.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

I helped organize the 2015 Std./15m Nationals in Elmira where we used FLARM in stealth mode. Flying with the stealth was fine with plenty of collision avoidance. Administratively, it presented no real problems.

I also flew the Pan American Glider Contest with IGC rules. I liked the IGC rules generally. The rules allow team flying and full usage of FLARM. Because of this I know FLARM displays are definitely being used tactically. I even used FLARM this way myself. Any pilot would be at a disadvantage if they didn't. I feel strongly this use of FLARM is a bad thing for sailplane racing.

To use another analogy because some think I am being a luddite. When we went from maps and cameras to GPS it was like writers moving from pen and paper or a typewriter to a word processor or a computer. It made writing, or in our case navigating, easier and faster. Unlimited use of FLARM in contests often amounts to plagiarism or stealing some else's work. The idea that everyone doing it will lead to some bright new future for our sport is wrong minded in my opinion. Use of unlimited FLARM displays in contests will lead to reduced brilliance.

XC

[email protected]

December 5th 15, 04:40 PM

Two points:

Elmira flying is very different than the flying in Utah, or in the west in general. Thus the results of Elmira are not valid universally applied.

Hasn't the ICG already concluded that the current stealth mode does not provide enough situational awareness, and is not acceptable for mandated use due to safety, coupled with the fact that the company that developed and makes Flarm recommends against the use of stealth? This is why the IGC is working with Flarm to develop a modified stealth mode that provides more situational awareness while removing tactical information?

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 5th 15, 04:44 PM

Interesting question - Flarm is a single code base by a single developer. Glider displays are multiple code bases by multiple developers who don't all support the same contest rules, which vary by country and contest format. Also, position reporting technologies are available on multiple, non-glider platforms (including iOS and Android) made by companies that don't care about gliding at all, and the implementations of ADS-B vary by country (eg UAT and ADS-R providing TIS-B traffic - including transponders - as well as weather radar - a different but similar topic).

This yields two issues: 1) who is going to corral all the developers and make them comply? 2) how do we want to allocate the very limited programmer capacity for developing soaring computers and displays for the coming decades.

9B

[email protected]

December 5th 15, 04:51 PM

I'm actually pleased this case that a pilot's answer to one question can be linked to his/her answers to other questions. We should note, however, that answers to the first two questions--which contain borderline personally identifiable information--could be used by the survey authors to narrow the identity of a respondent. While this is hardly worthy of Edward Snowden, it might encourage some of us to be more temperate in answering the last two "tell us what you really think" questions. :)

Alternatively, dispense with the promised anonymity entirely next year and collect enough data to know, for example, how many of those with strong opinions about ADS-B or transponders or the siting of national contests are flying a full-race Open Class supership vs. a 20+ year-old Standard or Club Class glider. Soaring pilots don't appear to be shy about expressing their opinions for the record.

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

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 5th 15, 05:41 PM

Missing the issue, I think.

Vote here if you will refuse to go to contests that mandate stealth mode.

Vote here if you will not run a contest that mandates stealth mode -- either you think it's unwise, you think it adds to your legal liability, or you think it's a pointless PITA.

The RC used to be concerned above all about participation; attracting organizers (harder and harder) and pilots. If 11 pilots are annoyed that someone might be able to leech them from 4 miles away rather than have to stick on their tail to follow them around visually, and those pilots want some complex enforcement mechanism to stop it, well, tough. Just like the complaints we got over 0.001 handicap differences, 1 pound/sq ft wingloading differences, and so on.

Chip's phrasing of the question takes for granted that we have the same number of pilots and contests at which to play with the rules. An unwise assumption.

The sentiment out west where I am now is pretty clear: for many pilots, this could be the the final definitive excuse not to come to contests. OLC, "fun meets" and "fly ins" are taking over from sanctioned contests.

As I proselytize among the OLC, I hear "the tasks are too short, I don't like the tight gaggles, I don't want to take out my true-trak or satellite weather, I want to talk to my buddies on the radio" and so on. "I don't want to hobble my flarm" both for safety and fun (let's not forget the 40% who say it adds to their overall enjoyment, and the many respondents here who say they use flarm to keep track of buddies on XC flights) will add one more to the list, and hard to argue with.

As I talk to potential contest managers to drum up support for sanctioned regionals, I hear long complaints about the complexity of procedures. Dealing with the inevitable snafus of stealth mode enforcement? Not happening. This will be at best one more fictional rule with no enforcement (weights at regionals, disabling of AHRS, no cell phones or data in flight, no radio communication).

We need to get back to the principles of fun, participation, simplicity, safety. If some bozo thinks he's going to with the nationals by staring at his flarm radar and not looking out the window, good luck to him. If he gets 23d place rather than 35th, well, ok.

John Cochrane BB

[email protected]

December 5th 15, 05:57 PM

Andy, how different is this from the definition of Standard Class? The FAI/IGC established it in the 1950s, the German glider manufacturers allegedly colluded in the 1960s to rewrite the rule about terminal velocity dive brakes, and each country's aero club can do whatever they want (as the U.S. did with flap timers around 1980 and again a few years ago to handicap older gliders).

Or "approved flight recorders", the definition of which varies widely from country to country.

Within the U.S., is it standards? Or enforcement?

I'll grant you a dispensation from the "don't post if you haven't flown" mandate to respond. :)

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

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 5th 15, 06:28 PM

Hmm, does there seem to be a geographical divide of opinions?

What have the European countries decided on this matter?

It is clear where the actual designer and manufacture of the technology stands on the matter!

Isn't Stanford a top University, only hiring the smartest?

Didn't Chip actually coached another poster on RAS how to get a parachute older than the industry mandated 20 year life span repacked so it could continue being used?

Can't we all be friends?

Tim Newport-Peace[_2_]

December 5th 15, 06:38 PM

At 17:57 05 December 2015, wrote:
>Andy, how different is this from the definition of Standard Class? The
>FAI/=
>IGC established it in the 1950s, the German glider manufacturers
allegedly
>=
>colluded in the 1960s to rewrite the rule about terminal velocity dive
>brak=
>es, and each country's aero club can do whatever they want (as the U.S.
>did=
> with flap timers around 1980 and again a few years ago to handicap older
>g=
>liders).
>
>Or "approved flight recorders", the definition of which varies widely
from
>=
>country to country.
>
???
An Approved Flight Recorder is one currently on the list maintained by IGC
(GFAC). If it's not on the list, it is not an "Approved Flight Recorder".
The specification of an Approved Flight Recorder is published by IGC.
Endof.

Did you mean "Position Recorders"?

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 5th 15, 06:48 PM

Hmm, anyone noticed a clear geographical divide in opinions?

What have the European countries decided on this issue?

It is clear what the designer and manufacturer of this technology recommends regarding stealth mode.

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

December 5th 15, 07:04 PM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 1:48:42 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Hmm, anyone noticed a clear geographical divide in opinions?
>
> What have the European countries decided on this issue?
>
> It is clear what the designer and manufacturer of this technology recommends regarding stealth mode.

The US Rules Committee is participating with the BGA, IGC and FLARM to consider changes to Stealth mode to address concerns related to providing robust collision avoidance without turning FLARM data into a tactical tool. While the final result is whatever FLARM decides, we are awaiting the changes and will evaluate their suitability in US contests when the information is available.

Yes, there is an E/W split on FLARM issues. Western high altitude, high speed flight can be quite different from the East.

John Godfrey (QT)
RC Chair

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 5th 15, 07:09 PM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 7:39:29 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:

> To use another analogy because some think I am being a luddite. When we went from maps and cameras to GPS it was like writers moving from pen and paper or a typewriter to a word processor or a computer. It made writing, or in our case navigating, easier and faster. Unlimited use of FLARM in contests often amounts to plagiarism or stealing some else's work. The idea that everyone doing it will lead to some bright new future for our sport is wrong minded in my opinion. Use of unlimited FLARM displays in contests will lead to reduced brilliance.

_______________________

Luddite is an overly dramatic term - but I do think you are revising history a bit. I recall serious and impassioned debates over the years on lots of technology topics. I recently spoke to one of the former members of the RC who voted against allowing GPS. His reasons were about changing the spirit of glider racing.

I got lost every single day one particularly hazy Regionals at Cordele. Not just a little lost - a LOT lost. I got so lost one day at the Standard Class Nationals at Hutchinson that I had to land in a plowed field (every small town in Kansas looks the same from the air unless they label their rooftops - which only some do). Navigation by dead reckoning is definitely a skill and managing final glides without a computer to do all the math for you was part of how races were won and lost back in the 70s and 80s. There was a time when having a calculator in a high school math test was considered cheating. Same argument for gliding - 'stupid' people who couldn't work a wiz wheel would achieve scores they didn't deserve and contest results would be invalid.

We got over it.

I truly don't see material differences in the principles involved here and I see the magnitude of the changes in racing from Flarm or weather radar or even a God-map of every track on course as less transformative to the sport than, say, being able to mark a thermal I climbed in, head out in to the blue to make some needed miles or a turnpoint, and come back to it for a saving climb (though not always - and rarely as good the climb as when I left). Speed to fly variometers make much more difference in scores than tracking a pilot 3 miles ahead of you - who you would otherwise track at 1.5 miles ahead of you (with a much better result if actual data from races is a guide). Materials technologies have transformed glider performance enabling thinner, lighter, ultra laminar flow airfoils that allow for cruise climbing, leaving thermalling skills - and older generations of gliders - effectively in the dustbin competitively.

We ought to come to a collective view on what is the most perfect and pure technology level for the sport, that of 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005 or 2015? Our views of these things evolve over time - perhaps it is generational or perhaps we all get comfortable with technological progress. As a person who needs to think up rules and procedures to restrict, inspect, detect, report, enforce and penalize when we want to hold back the tide of technological progress I can tell you that this is one of the more challenging and onerous ones for organizers because it will all work on the one thing no one is going to get pilots to give up - the $50-500 phone they already carry in their pocket. The pace of technological change from the Internet of Things, Cloud and Mobile is only accelerating, so fasten your safety belts.

Even for pilots who flew the 2015 Nationals the view on what to do for Nationals was statistically evenly split between stealth mandatory and not mandatory by rule. Nationals pilots voted slightly against mandating stealth by rule for Regionals. For everyone else expressing an opinion it was more than 2:1 against - and we didn't even poll all the OLC guys we'd like to attract to racing, but you probably know already what they think. However, rule-making is not purely democratic, and it shouldn't be the case that we simply take votes and write rules to enforce the popular views of the moment. We elect people to the RC to take a deeper and longer view of things and help keep the sport thoughtfully ahead of the evolutions and trends that impact it - and hopefully make it more accessible, enjoyable and fair in the process. What pilots want and think is an input - but only an approximate guide.

As for me, I prefer more contest participation over more contest technology inspection. Putting up technological barriers is mostly a wasteful and ultimately fruitless exercise - and I believe fruitless in this case will get here faster than most people think - perhaps as fast as 2016 or 2017.

9B

(Sorry Chip I didn't fly Harris Hill - but I plan to fly Nephi if that helps)

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 5th 15, 07:34 PM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 9:57:27 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Andy, how different is this from the definition of Standard Class? The FAI/IGC established it in the 1950s, the German glider manufacturers allegedly colluded in the 1960s to rewrite the rule about terminal velocity dive brakes, and each country's aero club can do whatever they want (as the U.S. did with flap timers around 1980 and again a few years ago to handicap older gliders).
>
> Or "approved flight recorders", the definition of which varies widely from country to country.
>
> Within the U.S., is it standards? Or enforcement?
>
> I'll grant you a dispensation from the "don't post if you haven't flown" mandate to respond. :)
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

It is different in that setting standards for glider manufacturers, which by the way, also serve the interests of technological evolution, rather than retarding it - think 18-meter class, 2-seat, 20-meter class, 13.5-meter class (okay, not so much). More classes, more glider sales. If you are setting standards for gliders that are primarily designed and built to serve the buyers who race - and that's mostly what happens - you will get compliance from the manufacturers or they will sell far, far fewer gliders.

In this case the technology is significantly designed and built to serve much, much bigger markets than gliders. Transponders and ADS-B server general and commercial aviation, cellphones serve a market of well over a billion people. I think it will be hard to get Garmin or Apple, or Google to put in technology to restrict what information glider pilots can use. You could ban these things, but banning a device that can pick up transponder-equipped aircraft without ADS-B via TIS-B traffic services is a safety benefit near many airports, so requiring glider pilots to rip said equipment out to race seems problematic, as does restricting the acceptable range of manufacturers only to more high-priced bespoke soaring devices.

There are other examples, but that one is most prominent in my mind. I won't even get in to the cheating opportunities this opens up, but they are manifold. (Now I am sure to get the body-cavity search at Nephi).

9B

[email protected]

December 5th 15, 08:15 PM

It would be hypocritical of me, indeed, to criticize others for lengthy posts! But it will take me a few days to assimilate Andy's latest contributions. :)

So let me respond to a few factual issues, as opposed to the sometimes-well-reasoned-but-speculative opinions being posted here now that apparently some have lost interest in the previous post and migrated to my "stealth veterans vote here" thread.

For the record, I just wanted to poll people who've actually tried a stealth contest, not solicit more editorial content from those who threaten to quit soaring--if it even survives--if stealth is mandated in Nationals. The results aren't necessarily definitive regarding our future direction.

Tim, I was referring to whatever each country allows for national contests. The U.S. has generally required approved flight recorders but I understand each country makes the call.

Jonathon, I suggest you re-read my posting about parachutes, which refers to the PIA recommendation of 20 years. My experience is that riggers often adhere to that rec although many admit that it's much more a liability/insurance issue than a practical one. Others, having more confidence or fewer assets, run some tests and make the determination on a case-by-case basis. Everything I discussed is, to the the best of my knowledge, both ethical and legal. I'm sure, in your eagerness to express your opinion, you didn't mean to imply otherwise.

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

[email protected]

December 5th 15, 09:11 PM

Yeah, 9B, they should definitely inspect you and your glider very carefully next summer. You're a troublemaker. :)

Hope to see you there.

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

[email protected]

December 5th 15, 09:11 PM

Yeah, 9B, they should definitely inspect you and your glider very carefully next summer. You're a troublemaker. :)

Hope to see you there.

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

jfitch

December 5th 15, 10:05 PM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 5:20:56 AM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:30:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Lots of earnest opinions, some more strident than others. Lots of confident statements about what works, doesn't work, is possible, is futile, is inevitable.
> >
> > So let's keep it simple: if you have flown in a contest at any level where stealth was mandated (not necessarily mandatory FLARM, but if FLARM was used, it had to be in stealth mode), what was your experience?
> >
> > If you HAVEN'T flown in a stealth-mandatory contest, DON'T POST. You had your chance to speculate and make your opinions heard (some of you many, many times) over in "Is FLARM Helpful?" :) We could run this over on Survey Monkey, et al., but I think it's useful to track the responses on this forum.
> >
> > My view based on the Elmira nats in 2015: FLARM under stealth provided the collision avoidance and situational awareness intended without changing the tactics or strategy of the competitive flying significantly.
> >
> > My vote: "yes" for mandatory stealth mode.
> >
> > Chip Bearden
> > ASW 24 "JB"
> > U.S.A.
>
> Here is the data from the pilot poll limited to pilots who reported at Harris Hill Participants
>
> Flarm in Nationals
> FlarmMandatory 11
> OrgnzrChoice 5
> PilotChoice 7
>
> Stealth In Nationals
> StealthMandatory 13
> OrgnzrChoice 4
> PilotChoice 6
> StealthProhibited 1
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> RC Chair

The vote from Elmira was 13 for stealth mandatory out of a field of 41 entrants. That is a less than ringing endorsement.

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 5th 15, 10:36 PM

Going way off subject here but is there a mission or objective statement for the SSA sanctioning of contests? What are the goals?

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 1:48:42 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> The US Rules Committee is participating with the BGA, IGC and FLARM to consider changes to Stealth mode to address concerns related to providing robust collision avoidance without turning FLARM data into a tactical tool. While the final result is whatever FLARM decides, we are awaiting the changes and will evaluate their suitability in US contests when the information is available.
>
> Yes, there is an E/W split on FLARM issues. Western high altitude, high speed flight can be quite different from the East.
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> RC Chair

December 5th 15, 10:38 PM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 5:05:14 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 5:20:56 AM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:30:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > Lots of earnest opinions, some more strident than others. Lots of confident statements about what works, doesn't work, is possible, is futile, is inevitable.
> > >
> > > So let's keep it simple: if you have flown in a contest at any level where stealth was mandated (not necessarily mandatory FLARM, but if FLARM was used, it had to be in stealth mode), what was your experience?
> > >
> > > If you HAVEN'T flown in a stealth-mandatory contest, DON'T POST. You had your chance to speculate and make your opinions heard (some of you many, many times) over in "Is FLARM Helpful?" :) We could run this over on Survey Monkey, et al., but I think it's useful to track the responses on this forum.
> > >
> > > My view based on the Elmira nats in 2015: FLARM under stealth provided the collision avoidance and situational awareness intended without changing the tactics or strategy of the competitive flying significantly.
> > >
> > > My vote: "yes" for mandatory stealth mode.
> > >
> > > Chip Bearden
> > > ASW 24 "JB"
> > > U.S.A.
> >
> > Here is the data from the pilot poll limited to pilots who reported at Harris Hill Participants
> >
> > Flarm in Nationals
> > FlarmMandatory 11
> > OrgnzrChoice 5
> > PilotChoice 7
> >
> > Stealth In Nationals
> > StealthMandatory 13
> > OrgnzrChoice 4
> > PilotChoice 6
> > StealthProhibited 1
> >
> > John Godfrey (QT)
> > RC Chair
>
> The vote from Elmira was 13 for stealth mandatory out of a field of 41 entrants. That is a less than ringing endorsement.

32 contestants at that contest which includes 1 guest pilot. I estimate 5 flew with portable classic FLARM and at least 7 had no FLARM at all. Total respondents to the poll question 24 from the contest.

XC

Stealth In Nationals
> > StealthMandatory 13
> > OrgnzrChoice 4
> > PilotChoice 6
> > StealthProhibited 1

December 5th 15, 10:47 PM

Looking at the both question you can see a similar number of folks don't think FLARM should be required at all.

I guess you can read the results however you want.

XC

December 5th 15, 10:49 PM

> The vote from Elmira was 13 for stealth mandatory out of a field of 41 entrants. That is a less than ringing endorsement.

Looking at the both questions you can see a similar number of folks don't think FLARM should be mandatory.

I guess you can read the results however you desire.

XC

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 5th 15, 10:58 PM

>
> The US Rules Committee is participating with the BGA, IGC and FLARM to consider changes to Stealth mode to address concerns related to providing robust collision avoidance without turning FLARM data into a tactical tool. While the final result is whatever FLARM decides, we are awaiting the changes and will evaluate their suitability in US contests when the information is available.

Then we can start an interesting debate on the wisdom of forcibly implementing degradation of a collision avoidance system for 2016, based on a spec that is not yet written, software not coded, not debugged, not tried in real world conditions, and all the "oh, I didn't think of thats" discovered.

For example, suppose we can see further head on. Joe sees Larry, shifts left.. whoops, there was Bob, blanked out because he wasn't a collision threat.. Oh yeah... Or Joe zooms up, but we handn't thought that at 15,000' you can gain 1,000' in a zoomie. Oh yeah... Or someone translated meters to feet wrong.

Just about the whole RC has extensive experience with software development. Really guys, would you ever do this in the real world?

John Cochrane BB

December 5th 15, 11:09 PM

Two years ago we weren't afraid to go flying in the West or the East. FLARM is introduced and all of a sudden this is all terribly dangerous. Please stop trying to scare everyone into seeing it your way.

XC

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 5th 15, 11:29 PM

Actually, sane pilots have been afraid of midairs, west and east, for a long time. In my time on the rules committee, concern over midairs has been most pilots' number one safety worry. The owens valley pilots developed a whole protocol about high speed oncoming traffic.

Then flarm came along, offering some - -not perfect -- help on this topic. Wise pilots should still be very "afraid" of midairs.

Now it is proposed to force all pilots to intentionally degrade flarm. You can't argue that this does not have some safety implications. The question is simple: how much safety degradation it has, how much you care about that, how much loss of enjoyment it has (knowing where your buddies are, etc.) vs. how much doing so improves (or not) the quality of contest soaring. Once everyone has gotten used to the technology (see the GPS wars)

John cochrane BB

[email protected]

December 5th 15, 11:42 PM

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:30:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Lots of earnest opinions, some more strident than others. Lots of confident statements about what works, doesn't work, is possible, is futile, is inevitable.
>
> So let's keep it simple: if you have flown in a contest at any level where stealth was mandated (not necessarily mandatory FLARM, but if FLARM was used, it had to be in stealth mode), what was your experience?
>
> If you HAVEN'T flown in a stealth-mandatory contest, DON'T POST. You had your chance to speculate and make your opinions heard (some of you many, many times) over in "Is FLARM Helpful?" :) We could run this over on Survey Monkey, et al., but I think it's useful to track the responses on this forum..
>
> My view based on the Elmira nats in 2015: FLARM under stealth provided the collision avoidance and situational awareness intended without changing the tactics or strategy of the competitive flying significantly.
>
> My vote: "yes" for mandatory stealth mode.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

As only the 4th pilot, by my count, to ring in, I will provide my personal view of my experience at Elmira.
I had no unfavorable issues with Stealth at Elmira. My sense was that there was no degradation of safety. I heard of no safety concerns voiced. Possibly there were, but I did not hear them. I did hear one or two in disagreement with the decision to implement Stealth mode, based upon the individual's personal philosophy. Not surprising.
I liked being able to sneak away at the start knowing that my competitors would not be able to use to use Flarm radar to track me and use my flight decisions as data for their decision.
I liked my principle opponent no knowing when I went in the middle of a task when I slipped away and made a big points day on him.
On another day I didn't much like not having radar when my principle opponent got the hot climb at a critical point and whupped us all badly.
Live by the sword- die by the sword.
What I am sure of is that we each scored based upon our decisions, without radar help. I personally would like to stay with this long held general character of our sport.
I do know of a couple pilots that had technical difficulties with the Flarms staying in Stealth. One landed back to correct the problem and unfortunately got hurt in his score that day due to the timing of his land back and relight.
As requested above, this was my experience.
UH

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 5th 15, 11:44 PM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 3:10:06 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> Two years ago we weren't afraid to go flying in the West or the East. FLARM is introduced and all of a sudden this is all terribly dangerous. Please stop trying to scare everyone into seeing it your way.
>
> XC

Yes, let's keep things in proper perspective and fact-based.

We killed a handful per decade in glider midairs in the US - a lot more died in stall/spin trying to make a low save - which is part of the romance of the sport I'm told (making low saves, not the still/spin part). Flarm will still yield benefits under stealth, though somewhat degraded in ways that are not totally predictable just yet.

It's ultimately a cost/benefit analysis. Some fractional number of additional accidents that are virtually impossible to predict or calculate with any accuracy (maybe some from collisions, maybe some from thermalling too low or being forced to land from missing the'save' thermal you never saw but could have - if you believe the leeching benefit scenarios) against a benefit of less enjoyable flying for most pilots (if you believe the pilot survey), more pilot anxiety from relying on collision alarms versus conflict avoidance, more work for organizers, more work and expense (for zero incremental revenues) for people who make soaring instruments and less leeching paranoia for a dozen or two dozen pilots (again, if you believe the survey), but unmeasurable impact on contest results (if you believe "leech-y"contest data analysis).

Wait a minute, that's a negative number. Costs are slightly negative (though really negative if it happens to you) and benefits are negative for (almost) everyone. Yet we persist as the technology tide rolls in...

9B

[email protected]

December 5th 15, 11:45 PM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 5:36:29 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Going way off subject here but is there a mission or objective statement for the SSA sanctioning of contests? What are the goals?
>
>Read paragraph 1.1 of the rules. It differs between Regionals and Nationals.
This is the closest to your request.
UH

[email protected]

December 5th 15, 11:59 PM

jfitch

December 6th 15, 01:02 AM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 6:29:43 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Actually, sane pilots have been afraid of midairs, west and east, for a long time. In my time on the rules committee, concern over midairs has been most pilots' number one safety worry. The owens valley pilots developed a whole protocol about high speed oncoming traffic.
> >
> > Then flarm came along, offering some - -not perfect -- help on this topic. Wise pilots should still be very "afraid" of midairs.
> >
> > Now it is proposed to force all pilots to intentionally degrade flarm. You can't argue that this does not have some safety implications. The question is simple: how much safety degradation it has, how much you care about that, how much loss of enjoyment it has (knowing where your buddies are, etc.) vs. how much doing so improves (or not) the quality of contest soaring.. Once everyone has gotten used to the technology (see the GPS wars)
> >
> > John cochrane BB
>
> Now that is more like it, John. How safe do we want to make our adventurous sport? "Safe as shuffleboard" is not the answer I would suggest. (Safe as a ham radio club, though fitting, doesn't have the same ring.)
>
> http://www.theledger.com/article/20070218/NEWS/702180382
>
> I agree. Be on the look out for midairs at all times. You'll never be as safe as sitting in your arm chair at home.
>
> For years now we have pursued this goal of making soaring ultimately safe.. The young people are just not interested in soaring thanks to this kind of thinking and this is a problem.
>
> XC

"For years now we have pursued this goal of making soaring ultimately safe. The young people are just not interested in soaring thanks to this kind of thinking and this is a problem. "

You are going to have to explain that one to me. Young people aren't interested in soaring, but not being dangerous enough has to be about the last reason on the long list.

I have never felt that Flarm resulted in a huge increase in safety. It is a major increase in enjoyment for me and a lot of other pilots though, and I think enjoyment would rank very high (if not #1) on the reason young people - on anyone - would be interested in the sport.

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 6th 15, 03:40 AM

> You are going to have to explain that one to me. Young people aren't interested in soaring, but not being dangerous enough has to be about the last reason on the long list.
>

Amen. I have also noticed over the years that technophobia and passion for the old ways of doing things correlates with age. Young and new pilots do not see some great disaster in cockpit electronics. They're very comfortable with technology.

John Cochrane BB

[email protected]

December 6th 15, 04:56 AM

Since requesting input this morning from pilots who flew at Elmira, I've been misquoted, misinterpreted, and ignored. I feel like I'm married again. Just kidding!

13 of the 24 Elmira pilots who apparently voted in the pilots' poll favored mandatory stealth. That's 54%+ of those who tried it liked it enough to want it mandatory. If I were into playing statistical games, I might say this is a clear majority in favor!

Or how about this: 100% of the pilots responding to my "voting" request today who flew at Elmira favor mandatory stealth.

But I sense that facts aren't really important. Positions are so inflexible that data that support or can be manipulated into supporting a position are gleefully trumpeted. Less convenient data are ignored or dismissed with "yes, but I know better."

I didn't have a position until Elmira. I hadn't even flown with FLARM until then. I tried stealth and liked it. And after I flew another FLARM contest in the fall--without stealth--I confirmed that I liked stealth better, for all the reasons I've already listed.

A few other thoughts: People speak of the "GPS wars" as if it were a dark time in the land when ignorance and superstition ruled. I was quite vocal in opposing GPS when it first appeared, for several reasons.

Cost was the big one. The early Cambridge loggers cost in the neighborhood of $3,000, IIRC. I initially bought a consumer handheld unit for $200. When I finally was forced to buy an approved logger, the price was down to ONLY $1,200. That was still too much, especially for guys who had less than $20,000 in their whole rigs, but at least I'd helped delay things. That was really what I was after all along: just to slow things down.

I'm not a technophobe. My undergraduate degree was in engineering, I did some early coding on mainframes, I've been using PCs since the DOS days, I've been on the Internet since you had to know some Unix to set up a connection, and I've worked as an IT consultant for 16 years. One thing I sometimes have to gently counsel clients is that technology is never a goal; it's always a means to an end. Sometimes young pilots lose sight of that. :)

As for my passion for the "old ways", I admit that another reason for opposing GPS was that navigation used to be part of the game. There were certain pilots who could be relied upon to get lost at least once per contest. I'm not referring to you, 9B; you didn't have to confess. And BB, you don't have to confess if you don't want to. :)

Overnight with GPS, their placings shot up. I don't think it's simplistic to say they didn't get better; we just dumbed down the game. At that point, we probably didn't have any choice, though. GPS was widely available and the hue and cry from navigationally challenged pilots was getting pretty shrill.

Finally, I was offended, frankly, by all the talk of how GPS would improve safety by eliminating the "dangerous" high-speed start. In reality, I know of at least one pilot who nearly crashed watching his final glide unreel on the GPS screen until he was too low to find a decent field. And I suspect everyone else did what I did--eliminated the safety cushion I had dialed in to account for uncertainty of my position and just cut it even finer on final glides. I was also offended by all the talk about how GPS would make soaring more accessible and more fun, and how contest participation would surge as a result. Sure.

So, yeah, there are some parallels between FLARM stealth and GPS. :)

I should also speak to the comment about making soaring as safe as shuffleboard. I'm for safety as much as almost anyone. I've given myriad safety talks. 20+ years ago I paid a premium to get Gerhard Waibel's ASW 24 with its safety cockpit, then added canopy wire deflector bars, an ELT, an onboard water system and a pee system, and a 6-point harness to prevent submarining in a crash. I secured everything that could come loose. I've lost both my father and my best friend to glider crashes, plus other pilots I've known. I think I know my limits and I try to fly within them, recognizing that I sometimes make mistakes. I've eagerly welcomed the added security I believe FLARM provides and I don't believe stealth compromises that.

But...if soaring were 100% risk free, it wouldn't have the same appeal. I like knowing I can push as hard as I want, limited only by fear and my assessment of my skills. I especially like competition flying because it inspires me to push myself to do as well as I can against the best pilots. Playing shuffleboard with them just doesn't do it for me.

So, sorry. I don't have a death wish but I don't think we should try to take every bit of adventure out of competition soaring. BB probably knows where I'm going with this and it's unrelated to FLARM but I'll say it anyway: I like the finish gate and low passes. They're fun. Soaring is appealing in part because it isn't perfectly safe. So yeah, I understand why the sanitized version, dumbed down so anyone with radar can follow the fast guys around, wouldn't have the same appeal to everyone. If that's what you want, go play video games.

For the rest of you, let's see what pilots think after Nephi.

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

December 6th 15, 05:11 AM

That was a reference to a 2 mile/1000 ft. finish ring at Hobbs. Super dull to anyone observing from the ground. Finishes can be safe and still have some appeal to observers on the ground. There is a compromise position.

I don't want to start a whole new subject here but this is just an example of how we've pushed for ultimate safety and lost other parts of the sport. I should have said that more clearly before.

FLARM is similar in this way. Use the safety word to win your argument for FLARM and unlimited resources in the cockpit because who can argue with safety. But ultimately the sport loses something.

XC

Bravo Zulu

December 6th 15, 12:00 PM

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 9:30:42 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Lots of earnest opinions, some more strident than others. Lots of confident statements about what works, doesn't work, is possible, is futile, is inevitable.
>
> So let's keep it simple: if you have flown in a contest at any level where stealth was mandated (not necessarily mandatory FLARM, but if FLARM was used, it had to be in stealth mode), what was your experience?
>
> If you HAVEN'T flown in a stealth-mandatory contest, DON'T POST. You had your chance to speculate and make your opinions heard (some of you many, many times) over in "Is FLARM Helpful?" :) We could run this over on Survey Monkey, et al., but I think it's useful to track the responses on this forum..
>
> My view based on the Elmira nats in 2015: FLARM under stealth provided the collision avoidance and situational awareness intended without changing the tactics or strategy of the competitive flying significantly.
>
> My vote: "yes" for mandatory stealth mode.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

I flew at HH nats and i have a power flarm Brick installed in BZ. I dont care one way or the other. I have had far more false positives than is helpful. To me false positives are distracting and confusing in that I cant tell whether the alert is for the one i can see or the one i dont see. I dont use it tactically because 1, I can't read the small numbers well. 2. i dont care to drive 2 or 3 miles off course because some glider has 1/2 knot better climb rate than I do. I have also had some "good positive" alerts but they are the exception. I will come to the contest whether Flarm in any mode is mandatory.

Andrzej Kobus

December 6th 15, 01:52 PM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 11:56:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Since requesting input this morning from pilots who flew at Elmira, I've been misquoted, misinterpreted, and ignored. I feel like I'm married again. Just kidding!
>
> 13 of the 24 Elmira pilots who apparently voted in the pilots' poll favored mandatory stealth. That's 54%+ of those who tried it liked it enough to want it mandatory. If I were into playing statistical games, I might say this is a clear majority in favor!
>
> Or how about this: 100% of the pilots responding to my "voting" request today who flew at Elmira favor mandatory stealth.
>
> But I sense that facts aren't really important. Positions are so inflexible that data that support or can be manipulated into supporting a position are gleefully trumpeted. Less convenient data are ignored or dismissed with "yes, but I know better."
>
> I didn't have a position until Elmira. I hadn't even flown with FLARM until then. I tried stealth and liked it. And after I flew another FLARM contest in the fall--without stealth--I confirmed that I liked stealth better, for all the reasons I've already listed.
>
> A few other thoughts: People speak of the "GPS wars" as if it were a dark time in the land when ignorance and superstition ruled. I was quite vocal in opposing GPS when it first appeared, for several reasons.
>
> Cost was the big one. The early Cambridge loggers cost in the neighborhood of $3,000, IIRC. I initially bought a consumer handheld unit for $200. When I finally was forced to buy an approved logger, the price was down to ONLY $1,200. That was still too much, especially for guys who had less than $20,000 in their whole rigs, but at least I'd helped delay things. That was really what I was after all along: just to slow things down.
>
> I'm not a technophobe. My undergraduate degree was in engineering, I did some early coding on mainframes, I've been using PCs since the DOS days, I've been on the Internet since you had to know some Unix to set up a connection, and I've worked as an IT consultant for 16 years. One thing I sometimes have to gently counsel clients is that technology is never a goal; it's always a means to an end. Sometimes young pilots lose sight of that. :)
>
> As for my passion for the "old ways", I admit that another reason for opposing GPS was that navigation used to be part of the game. There were certain pilots who could be relied upon to get lost at least once per contest. I'm not referring to you, 9B; you didn't have to confess. And BB, you don't have to confess if you don't want to. :)
>
> Overnight with GPS, their placings shot up. I don't think it's simplistic to say they didn't get better; we just dumbed down the game. At that point, we probably didn't have any choice, though. GPS was widely available and the hue and cry from navigationally challenged pilots was getting pretty shrill.
>
> Finally, I was offended, frankly, by all the talk of how GPS would improve safety by eliminating the "dangerous" high-speed start. In reality, I know of at least one pilot who nearly crashed watching his final glide unreel on the GPS screen until he was too low to find a decent field. And I suspect everyone else did what I did--eliminated the safety cushion I had dialed in to account for uncertainty of my position and just cut it even finer on final glides. I was also offended by all the talk about how GPS would make soaring more accessible and more fun, and how contest participation would surge as a result. Sure.
>
> So, yeah, there are some parallels between FLARM stealth and GPS. :)
>
> I should also speak to the comment about making soaring as safe as shuffleboard. I'm for safety as much as almost anyone. I've given myriad safety talks. 20+ years ago I paid a premium to get Gerhard Waibel's ASW 24 with its safety cockpit, then added canopy wire deflector bars, an ELT, an onboard water system and a pee system, and a 6-point harness to prevent submarining in a crash. I secured everything that could come loose. I've lost both my father and my best friend to glider crashes, plus other pilots I've known. I think I know my limits and I try to fly within them, recognizing that I sometimes make mistakes. I've eagerly welcomed the added security I believe FLARM provides and I don't believe stealth compromises that.
>
> But...if soaring were 100% risk free, it wouldn't have the same appeal. I like knowing I can push as hard as I want, limited only by fear and my assessment of my skills. I especially like competition flying because it inspires me to push myself to do as well as I can against the best pilots. Playing shuffleboard with them just doesn't do it for me.
>
> So, sorry. I don't have a death wish but I don't think we should try to take every bit of adventure out of competition soaring. BB probably knows where I'm going with this and it's unrelated to FLARM but I'll say it anyway: I like the finish gate and low passes. They're fun. Soaring is appealing in part because it isn't perfectly safe. So yeah, I understand why the sanitized version, dumbed down so anyone with radar can follow the fast guys around, wouldn't have the same appeal to everyone. If that's what you want, go play video games.
>
> For the rest of you, let's see what pilots think after Nephi.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

Chip,
you can spin this as much as you want, but it is undeniable that stealth mode reduces your ability to avoid mid air collision. You simply can't argue this point.

We put PowerFlarm into our cockpits for safety reasons. I put an ADS-B out for safety reasons as well. I want to be seen by everyone. You can buy dual band ADS-B receivers for $500. A lot of power traffic has them these days. You can buy 1090 receiver today for $25 and it even works.

If you have ADS-B out you can see traffic all around you within 15 nm radius and you see how fast it is climbing. Even if the other glider is equipped only with transponder you can still see all this information because of TIS-B. Gliders without ADS-B out will see part of that traffic as a result of it being transmitted to you (not all of it).

Are you going to outlaw ADS-B out in the cockpit, because of the extra information it provides? You simply can't. I know of more pilots who are in the process of installing ADS-B out.

I hope this stealth mode rule never gets approved and if it does, I will choose to stop going to contests. I bet there will be quite a few others who will do the same. I have a family and I want to be around for my kids.

I would hope that some on the RC and some here supporting the stealth mode would stop being selfish and start thinking about contest pilots as human beings with families who have a duty to their families first.

It is disturbing to me that in the name of "preserving the spirit" one wants to decrease his ability to avoid a mid-air collision. Start thinking about your loved once and what you own them first and then think about the "spirit".

December 6th 15, 03:02 PM

> If you have ADS-B out you can see traffic all around you within 15 nm radius and you see how fast it is climbing. Even if the other glider is equipped only with transponder you can still see all this information because of TIS-B. Gliders without ADS-B out will see part of that traffic as a result of it being transmitted to you (not all of it).
>
> Are you going to outlaw ADS-B out in the cockpit, because of the extra information it provides? You simply can't. I know of more pilots who are in the process of installing ADS-B out.

If your aircraft's information is tagged as a glider with ADS-B, a competition mode can still be implemented that would display all the power traffic for you. You can tweak the parameters of this competition or stealth mode to provide plenty of collision avoidance. I think 10-18 seconds warning, knowing that the warnings are not perfect is enough for me. But it could made greater.

The next post will probably argue about enforceability. We spend way too much time worrying about these cheaters who I've never met.

I still don't feel that I am risking my life by flying gliders even without FLARM. FLARM is just another tool we have now. Let's use it appropriately, for collision avoidance, not to redefine the basic skills of our sport.

XC

Andrzej Kobus

December 6th 15, 04:36 PM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 11:56:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Since requesting input this morning from pilots who flew at Elmira, I've been misquoted, misinterpreted, and ignored. I feel like I'm married again. Just kidding!
>
> 13 of the 24 Elmira pilots who apparently voted in the pilots' poll favored mandatory stealth. That's 54%+ of those who tried it liked it enough to want it mandatory. If I were into playing statistical games, I might say this is a clear majority in favor!
>
> Or how about this: 100% of the pilots responding to my "voting" request today who flew at Elmira favor mandatory stealth.
>
> But I sense that facts aren't really important. Positions are so inflexible that data that support or can be manipulated into supporting a position are gleefully trumpeted. Less convenient data are ignored or dismissed with "yes, but I know better."
>
> I didn't have a position until Elmira. I hadn't even flown with FLARM until then. I tried stealth and liked it. And after I flew another FLARM contest in the fall--without stealth--I confirmed that I liked stealth better, for all the reasons I've already listed.
>
> A few other thoughts: People speak of the "GPS wars" as if it were a dark time in the land when ignorance and superstition ruled. I was quite vocal in opposing GPS when it first appeared, for several reasons.
>
> Cost was the big one. The early Cambridge loggers cost in the neighborhood of $3,000, IIRC. I initially bought a consumer handheld unit for $200. When I finally was forced to buy an approved logger, the price was down to ONLY $1,200. That was still too much, especially for guys who had less than $20,000 in their whole rigs, but at least I'd helped delay things. That was really what I was after all along: just to slow things down.
>
> I'm not a technophobe. My undergraduate degree was in engineering, I did some early coding on mainframes, I've been using PCs since the DOS days, I've been on the Internet since you had to know some Unix to set up a connection, and I've worked as an IT consultant for 16 years. One thing I sometimes have to gently counsel clients is that technology is never a goal; it's always a means to an end. Sometimes young pilots lose sight of that. :)
>
> As for my passion for the "old ways", I admit that another reason for opposing GPS was that navigation used to be part of the game. There were certain pilots who could be relied upon to get lost at least once per contest. I'm not referring to you, 9B; you didn't have to confess. And BB, you don't have to confess if you don't want to. :)
>
> Overnight with GPS, their placings shot up. I don't think it's simplistic to say they didn't get better; we just dumbed down the game. At that point, we probably didn't have any choice, though. GPS was widely available and the hue and cry from navigationally challenged pilots was getting pretty shrill.
>
> Finally, I was offended, frankly, by all the talk of how GPS would improve safety by eliminating the "dangerous" high-speed start. In reality, I know of at least one pilot who nearly crashed watching his final glide unreel on the GPS screen until he was too low to find a decent field. And I suspect everyone else did what I did--eliminated the safety cushion I had dialed in to account for uncertainty of my position and just cut it even finer on final glides. I was also offended by all the talk about how GPS would make soaring more accessible and more fun, and how contest participation would surge as a result. Sure.
>
> So, yeah, there are some parallels between FLARM stealth and GPS. :)
>
> I should also speak to the comment about making soaring as safe as shuffleboard. I'm for safety as much as almost anyone. I've given myriad safety talks. 20+ years ago I paid a premium to get Gerhard Waibel's ASW 24 with its safety cockpit, then added canopy wire deflector bars, an ELT, an onboard water system and a pee system, and a 6-point harness to prevent submarining in a crash. I secured everything that could come loose. I've lost both my father and my best friend to glider crashes, plus other pilots I've known. I think I know my limits and I try to fly within them, recognizing that I sometimes make mistakes. I've eagerly welcomed the added security I believe FLARM provides and I don't believe stealth compromises that.
>
> But...if soaring were 100% risk free, it wouldn't have the same appeal. I like knowing I can push as hard as I want, limited only by fear and my assessment of my skills. I especially like competition flying because it inspires me to push myself to do as well as I can against the best pilots. Playing shuffleboard with them just doesn't do it for me.
>
> So, sorry. I don't have a death wish but I don't think we should try to take every bit of adventure out of competition soaring. BB probably knows where I'm going with this and it's unrelated to FLARM but I'll say it anyway: I like the finish gate and low passes. They're fun. Soaring is appealing in part because it isn't perfectly safe. So yeah, I understand why the sanitized version, dumbed down so anyone with radar can follow the fast guys around, wouldn't have the same appeal to everyone. If that's what you want, go play video games.
>
> For the rest of you, let's see what pilots think after Nephi.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

Below is what XG (Jerzy Szemplinski asked me to post. He has issues posting or RAS)

"I'm flying with Flarm in competition since 2008 including 4 Worlds.
Flarm stealth mode was never compulsory, it was pilot decision if he likes to share his info with others or not.

I don't see any reason to force everyone for stealth mode and penalize for wrong set up. It may distort final results as well because of stupid set up error. Why pilot has to land and give up points just because of stupid stealth mode rule, it is very unfair.

It puts extra load on the pilot before take off, in addition, for just failing to set Flarm mode there is penalty (contest could be lost because of this rules, nothing to do with performance of a pilot).
Why are we introducing another layer of rules on pilots and organizers with other set of rules?

No one won contest because of Flarm information, leaders are most of the time at the front or separate from the pack so who is complaining, at the same time we are giving part of safety for non existing problem as we have just 20 pilots flying per class in Nationals, at the same time we have other class flying and stealth mode makes it all more dangerous.

Because may be one pilot had chance to take advantage of Flarm information to dig out of the hole( good for him ,he didn't land out and damaged glider)
For me Flarm is important safety tool when someone follows me I can see him on the Flarm and I can be sure sure that I can turn not cutting in front of him, Because of stealth mode I had twice very close encounter during Worlds.

We don't have enough pilots to fly contests in America and we are trying to implement another layer of rules to discourage pilots from flying in contests.

The most devastating reason for pilot morale is when he/she loses points just because of stupid electronics set up and Stealth mode is another electronic trap.
I strongly oppose stealth mode as it should be left to pilot's decision.

Jerzy"

[email protected]

December 6th 15, 04:37 PM

<< you can spin this as much as you want, but it is undeniable that stealth mode reduces your ability to avoid mid air collision. You simply can't argue this point.>>

Nice try. The Donald Trump approach: "I'm right, now shut up." :)

The fact is that pilots who are smarter and better informed than I am are arguing this point. And at least in Europe, they're exploring an even better solution.

The new world of ADS-B out will be different, I agree. And I agree with 9B and others that we ought to have a strategy, recognizing that things won't go according to plan. But in the meantime, I doubt anyone is going to install ADS-B out in a Standard Class glider and show up at the 2016 Nationals (readers, don't do this just to prove me wrong!). So after that contest, we'll have a lot more facts and experience. I was going to say "and fewer speculative opinions" but that's probably wishful thinking.

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

Andrzej Kobus

December 6th 15, 04:41 PM

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> << you can spin this as much as you want, but it is undeniable that stealth mode reduces your ability to avoid mid air collision. You simply can't argue this point.>>
>
> Nice try. The Donald Trump approach: "I'm right, now shut up." :)
>
> The fact is that pilots who are smarter and better informed than I am are arguing this point. And at least in Europe, they're exploring an even better solution.
>
> The new world of ADS-B out will be different, I agree. And I agree with 9B and others that we ought to have a strategy, recognizing that things won't go according to plan. But in the meantime, I doubt anyone is going to install ADS-B out in a Standard Class glider and show up at the 2016 Nationals (readers, don't do this just to prove me wrong!). So after that contest, we'll have a lot more facts and experience. I was going to say "and fewer speculative opinions" but that's probably wishful thinking.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

Chip, just read the post from XG that I just posted.

[email protected]

December 6th 15, 05:24 PM

I flew at Elmira this past summer. I thought the Stealth FLARM mode worked really well. I had no problem finding gliders that were close enough to pose a threat. As the gliders left the start cylinder ahead of me .. they disappeared.

There were some gliders that where not on my display that I knew where still within the start cylinder, so I guess a questions could be 1. if seeing other gliders inside the start is an advantage on a really weak day where just staying up is difficult. 2. a little more range would be nice so everyone doesn't end up in the same gaggle.

Switching from Stealth to Normal is also really easy. Because FLARM config file needs to be in the root of the thumb drive - all you have to do is create 2 folders on the thumb drive to hold the 2 different config files. Then just copy the one you need to the root and delete it after updating. The hard part is remembering to delete the file after you use it once to change the config or FLARM will use the config file every time you download your flights onto the thumb drive :) and remembering to switch back.... but my memory has never been good, so it is probably just me :) - I have to put that on my checklist :)

All in all it was a good experience and I can definitely see that it changed some decisions I have made in the past when I flew in a contest without stealth - it is hard not to go where everyone else is on a iffy day when you can clearly see where they are. Although sometimes following just means everyone lands out in the same field.... you get to have company while waiting for your crew.

WH
Bill Hanson

December 6th 15, 05:25 PM

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:36:21 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 11:56:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Since requesting input this morning from pilots who flew at Elmira, I've been misquoted, misinterpreted, and ignored. I feel like I'm married again. Just kidding!
> >
> > 13 of the 24 Elmira pilots who apparently voted in the pilots' poll favored mandatory stealth. That's 54%+ of those who tried it liked it enough to want it mandatory. If I were into playing statistical games, I might say this is a clear majority in favor!
> >
> > Or how about this: 100% of the pilots responding to my "voting" request today who flew at Elmira favor mandatory stealth.
> >
> > But I sense that facts aren't really important. Positions are so inflexible that data that support or can be manipulated into supporting a position are gleefully trumpeted. Less convenient data are ignored or dismissed with "yes, but I know better."
> >
> > I didn't have a position until Elmira. I hadn't even flown with FLARM until then. I tried stealth and liked it. And after I flew another FLARM contest in the fall--without stealth--I confirmed that I liked stealth better, for all the reasons I've already listed.
> >
> > A few other thoughts: People speak of the "GPS wars" as if it were a dark time in the land when ignorance and superstition ruled. I was quite vocal in opposing GPS when it first appeared, for several reasons.
> >
> > Cost was the big one. The early Cambridge loggers cost in the neighborhood of $3,000, IIRC. I initially bought a consumer handheld unit for $200. When I finally was forced to buy an approved logger, the price was down to ONLY $1,200. That was still too much, especially for guys who had less than $20,000 in their whole rigs, but at least I'd helped delay things. That was really what I was after all along: just to slow things down.
> >
> > I'm not a technophobe. My undergraduate degree was in engineering, I did some early coding on mainframes, I've been using PCs since the DOS days, I've been on the Internet since you had to know some Unix to set up a connection, and I've worked as an IT consultant for 16 years. One thing I sometimes have to gently counsel clients is that technology is never a goal; it's always a means to an end. Sometimes young pilots lose sight of that. :)
> >
> > As for my passion for the "old ways", I admit that another reason for opposing GPS was that navigation used to be part of the game. There were certain pilots who could be relied upon to get lost at least once per contest. I'm not referring to you, 9B; you didn't have to confess. And BB, you don't have to confess if you don't want to. :)
> >
> > Overnight with GPS, their placings shot up. I don't think it's simplistic to say they didn't get better; we just dumbed down the game. At that point, we probably didn't have any choice, though. GPS was widely available and the hue and cry from navigationally challenged pilots was getting pretty shrill.
> >
> > Finally, I was offended, frankly, by all the talk of how GPS would improve safety by eliminating the "dangerous" high-speed start. In reality, I know of at least one pilot who nearly crashed watching his final glide unreel on the GPS screen until he was too low to find a decent field. And I suspect everyone else did what I did--eliminated the safety cushion I had dialed in to account for uncertainty of my position and just cut it even finer on final glides. I was also offended by all the talk about how GPS would make soaring more accessible and more fun, and how contest participation would surge as a result. Sure.
> >
> > So, yeah, there are some parallels between FLARM stealth and GPS. :)
> >
> > I should also speak to the comment about making soaring as safe as shuffleboard. I'm for safety as much as almost anyone. I've given myriad safety talks. 20+ years ago I paid a premium to get Gerhard Waibel's ASW 24 with its safety cockpit, then added canopy wire deflector bars, an ELT, an onboard water system and a pee system, and a 6-point harness to prevent submarining in a crash. I secured everything that could come loose. I've lost both my father and my best friend to glider crashes, plus other pilots I've known. I think I know my limits and I try to fly within them, recognizing that I sometimes make mistakes. I've eagerly welcomed the added security I believe FLARM provides and I don't believe stealth compromises that.
> >
> > But...if soaring were 100% risk free, it wouldn't have the same appeal. I like knowing I can push as hard as I want, limited only by fear and my assessment of my skills. I especially like competition flying because it inspires me to push myself to do as well as I can against the best pilots. Playing shuffleboard with them just doesn't do it for me.
> >
> > So, sorry. I don't have a death wish but I don't think we should try to take every bit of adventure out of competition soaring. BB probably knows where I'm going with this and it's unrelated to FLARM but I'll say it anyway: I like the finish gate and low passes. They're fun. Soaring is appealing in part because it isn't perfectly safe. So yeah, I understand why the sanitized version, dumbed down so anyone with radar can follow the fast guys around, wouldn't have the same appeal to everyone. If that's what you want, go play video games.
> >
> > For the rest of you, let's see what pilots think after Nephi.
> >
> > Chip Bearden
> > ASW 24 "JB"
> > U.S.A.
>
> Below is what XG (Jerzy Szemplinski asked me to post. He has issues posting or RAS)
>
> "I'm flying with Flarm in competition since 2008 including 4 Worlds.
> Flarm stealth mode was never compulsory, it was pilot decision if he likes to share his info with others or not.
>
> I don't see any reason to force everyone for stealth mode and penalize for wrong set up. It may distort final results as well because of stupid set up error. Why pilot has to land and give up points just because of stupid stealth mode rule, it is very unfair.
>
> It puts extra load on the pilot before take off, in addition, for just failing to set Flarm mode there is penalty (contest could be lost because of this rules, nothing to do with performance of a pilot).
> Why are we introducing another layer of rules on pilots and organizers with other set of rules?
>
> No one won contest because of Flarm information, leaders are most of the time at the front or separate from the pack so who is complaining, at the same time we are giving part of safety for non existing problem as we have just 20 pilots flying per class in Nationals, at the same time we have other class flying and stealth mode makes it all more dangerous.
>
> Because may be one pilot had chance to take advantage of Flarm information to dig out of the hole( good for him ,he didn't land out and damaged glider)
> For me Flarm is important safety tool when someone follows me I can see him on the Flarm and I can be sure sure that I can turn not cutting in front of him, Because of stealth mode I had twice very close encounter during Worlds.
>
> We don't have enough pilots to fly contests in America and we are trying to implement another layer of rules to discourage pilots from flying in contests.
>
> The most devastating reason for pilot morale is when he/she loses points just because of stupid electronics set up and Stealth mode is another electronic trap.
> I strongly oppose stealth mode as it should be left to pilot's decision.
>
> Jerzy"

I really respect Jerzy as he knows. Great soaring skills.

I was the part of the organization at Harris Hill. This is the way FLARM with stealth mode was implemented. It was no great burden on the organizers. Those arguments are again fear of the unknown.

Folks were encouraged to configure their FLARM to stealth at home and take a flight before showing up. This involves going to the FLARM web site and getting a config file using the advanced setting. This takes 5 minutes. Put the usb stick in you FLARM, power it up and go fly.

They could also do this on one of the practice days. Folks then emailed a FLARM log to the scorer. He opened it with a text edit program and saw Priv = 1 in the initial text of the file and checked their name off on a sheet. The scorer said this was no big deal and he did most of it at home before the contest. We also had everyone avow they weren't hiding extra FLARM devices by signing a sheet at the mandatory pilot's meeting. Not sure this was necessary either.

Before and during each launch we then checked for gliders who are not stealth enabled with a non-contest FLARM set up. This can be as easy as having a sniffer with non-stealth FLARM turn his electronics on. Any glider showing a contest ID is not in stealth mode. Stealth is not configurable in the air.

jfitch

December 6th 15, 07:46 PM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 8:56:12 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Since requesting input this morning from pilots who flew at Elmira, I've been misquoted, misinterpreted, and ignored. I feel like I'm married again. Just kidding!
>
> 13 of the 24 Elmira pilots who apparently voted in the pilots' poll favored mandatory stealth. That's 54%+ of those who tried it liked it enough to want it mandatory. If I were into playing statistical games, I might say this is a clear majority in favor!
>
> Or how about this: 100% of the pilots responding to my "voting" request today who flew at Elmira favor mandatory stealth.
>
> But I sense that facts aren't really important. Positions are so inflexible that data that support or can be manipulated into supporting a position are gleefully trumpeted. Less convenient data are ignored or dismissed with "yes, but I know better."
>
> I didn't have a position until Elmira. I hadn't even flown with FLARM until then. I tried stealth and liked it. And after I flew another FLARM contest in the fall--without stealth--I confirmed that I liked stealth better, for all the reasons I've already listed.
>
> A few other thoughts: People speak of the "GPS wars" as if it were a dark time in the land when ignorance and superstition ruled. I was quite vocal in opposing GPS when it first appeared, for several reasons.
>
> Cost was the big one. The early Cambridge loggers cost in the neighborhood of $3,000, IIRC. I initially bought a consumer handheld unit for $200. When I finally was forced to buy an approved logger, the price was down to ONLY $1,200. That was still too much, especially for guys who had less than $20,000 in their whole rigs, but at least I'd helped delay things. That was really what I was after all along: just to slow things down.
>
> I'm not a technophobe. My undergraduate degree was in engineering, I did some early coding on mainframes, I've been using PCs since the DOS days, I've been on the Internet since you had to know some Unix to set up a connection, and I've worked as an IT consultant for 16 years. One thing I sometimes have to gently counsel clients is that technology is never a goal; it's always a means to an end. Sometimes young pilots lose sight of that. :)
>
> As for my passion for the "old ways", I admit that another reason for opposing GPS was that navigation used to be part of the game. There were certain pilots who could be relied upon to get lost at least once per contest. I'm not referring to you, 9B; you didn't have to confess. And BB, you don't have to confess if you don't want to. :)
>
> Overnight with GPS, their placings shot up. I don't think it's simplistic to say they didn't get better; we just dumbed down the game. At that point, we probably didn't have any choice, though. GPS was widely available and the hue and cry from navigationally challenged pilots was getting pretty shrill.
>
> Finally, I was offended, frankly, by all the talk of how GPS would improve safety by eliminating the "dangerous" high-speed start. In reality, I know of at least one pilot who nearly crashed watching his final glide unreel on the GPS screen until he was too low to find a decent field. And I suspect everyone else did what I did--eliminated the safety cushion I had dialed in to account for uncertainty of my position and just cut it even finer on final glides. I was also offended by all the talk about how GPS would make soaring more accessible and more fun, and how contest participation would surge as a result. Sure.
>
> So, yeah, there are some parallels between FLARM stealth and GPS. :)
>
> I should also speak to the comment about making soaring as safe as shuffleboard. I'm for safety as much as almost anyone. I've given myriad safety talks. 20+ years ago I paid a premium to get Gerhard Waibel's ASW 24 with its safety cockpit, then added canopy wire deflector bars, an ELT, an onboard water system and a pee system, and a 6-point harness to prevent submarining in a crash. I secured everything that could come loose. I've lost both my father and my best friend to glider crashes, plus other pilots I've known. I think I know my limits and I try to fly within them, recognizing that I sometimes make mistakes. I've eagerly welcomed the added security I believe FLARM provides and I don't believe stealth compromises that.
>
> But...if soaring were 100% risk free, it wouldn't have the same appeal. I like knowing I can push as hard as I want, limited only by fear and my assessment of my skills. I especially like competition flying because it inspires me to push myself to do as well as I can against the best pilots. Playing shuffleboard with them just doesn't do it for me.
>
> So, sorry. I don't have a death wish but I don't think we should try to take every bit of adventure out of competition soaring. BB probably knows where I'm going with this and it's unrelated to FLARM but I'll say it anyway: I like the finish gate and low passes. They're fun. Soaring is appealing in part because it isn't perfectly safe. So yeah, I understand why the sanitized version, dumbed down so anyone with radar can follow the fast guys around, wouldn't have the same appeal to everyone. If that's what you want, go play video games.
>
> For the rest of you, let's see what pilots think after Nephi.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

Opting not to have GPS might endanger your own safety. Opting to degrade Flarm endangers others as well, without their consent. Your narrative helps me to understand the reasoning which leads you to support stealth. I do not believe that position is as widely held. For you, part of the thrill of contest flying is the possibility of breaking a glider or yourself. I do not share that thrill, though I am not at all risk averse. Most of the non contest pilots I talk to don't either. The most common reasons I am given for not flying in contests are: a) danger to self and glider, b) time commitment required, c) regimentation of the flying day. Your soaring ideal is frozen at 1975 levels.

Harris Hill was a standard and 15m contest, so you have already preselected the trailing edge of glider technology for your poll. Participation is the only poll that matters.

I suggest that you organize a contest with these rules: No GPS, no Flarm allowed, perhaps no variometers newer than 1975. No parachutes? - why not - they detract from the thrill. Should carbon fiber be allowed? It would be a test of a kind of soaring you dream of: navigation by printed chart, eyeball only collision avoidance, pellet variometers. See how many entrants you get for that. Maybe a few - there were more participants in the 1-26 nationals than there were in the standard class nationals (!).

On the other hand we know from the recent OLC contests in Nephi what happens when you go the other direction. It is oversubscribed with well over twice the participants of the nationals.

The sport has changed from the times of Lilienthal. There will always be those who resist change and those who embrace it, but change is relentless and due to participant turnover almost always wins. I doubt there will be a single new glider registered this year without GPS installed, and very few without Flarm.

But I will say again, I value Flarm first for the situational awareness that it provides (and that stealth specifically targets), and only second for safety. I am opposed to stealth mode because it eliminates a tool valuable to the experience of soaring. I will welcome ADS-B as an even better tool.

[email protected]

December 7th 15, 02:08 AM

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 2:46:16 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
<<Your soaring ideal is frozen at 1975 levels.
<SNIP>
The sport has changed from the times of Lilienthal. There will always be those who resist change and those who embrace it, but change is relentless and due to participant turnover almost always wins. >>

(sigh) So...to my earlier lament about being "misquoted" and "misinterpreted", I can now add "gratuitously insulted." Argh. :) I'm tempted to ignore Jon's torturous tirade but on the off chance that someone might actually believe it, I'll try again.

Soaring attracts different people for different reasons. That's cool. Though not a top pilot myself, I am inspired by the opportunity to fly with them to do more than I might otherwise do. That's part of the appeal of competition. But safety is paramount, and not just for me. As a task advisor, I've occasionally recommended against tasks that arguably could have been flown by a few pilots because I didn't feel comfortable with them for much of the field.

I like the challenge of mastering a difficult sport, my fears, and the associated risks. If it were easy, anyone could do it. But I don't like scaring myself...or others. Certainly I don't want new contest pilots to be scared; I want them to get excited, the way I have been for so long, when they discover they can manage the risks that worry them with a huge sense of accomplishment.

So I don't take chances with their lives or mine. When I was starting out, my father made me repeat a mantra before every contest flight that I still adhere to: first comes personal safety, then safety of the glider, then contest points. That's why I borrowed and then bought FLARM this year even though it wasn't required. It helped mitigate what I perceive as the most serious risk for me: i.e., midair collision. And it has done that, in both open and stealth modes.

That said, for perfect safety, there's only one solution: not to fly. Everything else represents balancing risk with cost and reward. I don't plan to stop flying yet, Jon, but if you truly have the courage of your convictions about no compromises on safety, feel free. It would be a shame to lose you, though. Soaring needs all kinds.

I'm not living in the past (though 1975 wasn't a bad year). I haven't upgraded gliders from the "trailing edge of glider technology" [did you make that up?] because I don't feel like increasing my already substantial investment. And I don't have to. I can compete in any of three different classes on a straight up basis. And the FAI combined Std./15M class for antideluvian primary gliders is fun, too.

I'm not opposed to change, just change for its own sake--just like I caution clients against technology for its own sake even though technology is my business.

On the subject of pellet varios, I don't know how long ago 1975 seems to you but I assure you they were out of serious competition cockpits well before then! Hahaha. I don't even have fond memories. They typically weren't total energy compensated and they had a tendency to stick when it got humid.

Take a deep breath. Elmira was an experiment and a success. We'll learn more at Nephi. We may decide to return to open FLARM. We may even learn things that will help us deal intelligently and fairly (as opposed to loudly and acrimoniously, not that I'm pointing fingers) with the continuing evolution of ADS-B and other technologies in our sport.

I think it's ironic that, given the past few years of history we've built up with FLARM here in the U.S., I'm being accused of not wanting to change. It strikes me that those who want to freeze FLARM the way it's been here rather than explore another aspect of it are the inflexible ones.

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

Dave Springford

December 7th 15, 02:41 AM

I flew at Harris Hill and I am not a fan of Stealth Mode for all the reasons that Andy Blackburn and John Cochrane have posted, as well as for the reasons that Jerzy has posted.

At Harris Hill, I helped several other pilots configure their Flarm to Stealth mode, I know how it is done, yet my Flarm never produced an IGC file that showed Stealth was on. I downloaded dump files and they showed the Priv mode flag had been set, yet the IGC file showed it wasn't.

I wasted time trying to set Stealth mode and finally gave up after many futile attempts.

As has already been posted, another pilot elected to land during the HH contest when he noticed before the start that his Flarm had switched out of Stealth mode from the previous contest days. This resulted in a less than ideal start for him.

For all of these reasons, I am not a fan and I truly hope the RC does not mandate Stealth, or if they do, that all Contest organizers ask for a waiver to remove the Stealth restriction for their contests.

jfitch

December 7th 15, 03:44 AM

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 6:08:32 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 2:46:16 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> <<Your soaring ideal is frozen at 1975 levels.
> <SNIP>
> The sport has changed from the times of Lilienthal. There will always be those who resist change and those who embrace it, but change is relentless and due to participant turnover almost always wins. >>
>
> (sigh) So...to my earlier lament about being "misquoted" and "misinterpreted", I can now add "gratuitously insulted." Argh. :) I'm tempted to ignore Jon's torturous tirade but on the off chance that someone might actually believe it, I'll try again.
>
> Soaring attracts different people for different reasons. That's cool. Though not a top pilot myself, I am inspired by the opportunity to fly with them to do more than I might otherwise do. That's part of the appeal of competition. But safety is paramount, and not just for me. As a task advisor, I've occasionally recommended against tasks that arguably could have been flown by a few pilots because I didn't feel comfortable with them for much of the field.
>
> I like the challenge of mastering a difficult sport, my fears, and the associated risks. If it were easy, anyone could do it. But I don't like scaring myself...or others. Certainly I don't want new contest pilots to be scared; I want them to get excited, the way I have been for so long, when they discover they can manage the risks that worry them with a huge sense of accomplishment.
>
> So I don't take chances with their lives or mine. When I was starting out, my father made me repeat a mantra before every contest flight that I still adhere to: first comes personal safety, then safety of the glider, then contest points. That's why I borrowed and then bought FLARM this year even though it wasn't required. It helped mitigate what I perceive as the most serious risk for me: i.e., midair collision. And it has done that, in both open and stealth modes.
>
> That said, for perfect safety, there's only one solution: not to fly. Everything else represents balancing risk with cost and reward. I don't plan to stop flying yet, Jon, but if you truly have the courage of your convictions about no compromises on safety, feel free. It would be a shame to lose you, though. Soaring needs all kinds.
>
> I'm not living in the past (though 1975 wasn't a bad year). I haven't upgraded gliders from the "trailing edge of glider technology" [did you make that up?] because I don't feel like increasing my already substantial investment. And I don't have to. I can compete in any of three different classes on a straight up basis. And the FAI combined Std./15M class for antideluvian primary gliders is fun, too.
>
> I'm not opposed to change, just change for its own sake--just like I caution clients against technology for its own sake even though technology is my business.
>
> On the subject of pellet varios, I don't know how long ago 1975 seems to you but I assure you they were out of serious competition cockpits well before then! Hahaha. I don't even have fond memories. They typically weren't total energy compensated and they had a tendency to stick when it got humid.
>
> Take a deep breath. Elmira was an experiment and a success. We'll learn more at Nephi. We may decide to return to open FLARM. We may even learn things that will help us deal intelligently and fairly (as opposed to loudly and acrimoniously, not that I'm pointing fingers) with the continuing evolution of ADS-B and other technologies in our sport.
>
> I think it's ironic that, given the past few years of history we've built up with FLARM here in the U.S., I'm being accused of not wanting to change.. It strikes me that those who want to freeze FLARM the way it's been here rather than explore another aspect of it are the inflexible ones.
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

Chip, we just have different ideas about what soaring should be. By your own admission, you opposed GPS because it changed the sport by removing some navigational tasks. You are also opposed to the situational awareness that Flarm brings, as it also changes the sport. I view both of these things as desirable changes, you do not. Neither position can be proven objectively correct, they are opinions. Nevertheless I believe these changes will occur regardless of what we think. They are already ubiquitous in touring type soaring, and to make racing an increasingly isolated corner of a decreasingly popular sport seems unwise if it is to survive.

I thought you would like my characterization of "standard and 15m" as the trailing edge :). But they are old designs. The industry and sport is moving, including the electronics in the panel. Maybe racing needs to move too.

Sean Fidler

December 7th 15, 04:59 AM

In my time flying glider competitions we have had several electronic "demons" tried and exectuted with extreme prejudice. The first demon was a smartphone (since restored). Then it was XC soar having a 1cm artificial horizon field, and the spectre of rampant cloud flying because of it. The potential of accessing weather data in flight has been protested too. Now, the latest "demon" is POWERFlarms BASIC ability to improve situational awareness for other gliders within, say, a few miles (at best) and rampant FLARM "leeching." The solution, stealth mode (almost completely untested) is clearly coming to save those who have apparently been losing points because of this "vulnerability." It still seems rather far fetched to me.

Here comes another thing to do when going to a contest. Great! I also hear stealth mode doesn't work very well and that a new comfiguration is coming that may improve safety gaps. Is a new configuration of stealth mode on its way? Does it really work? Is it being tested? Does it compromise FLARM safety in any way? I have not really heard definitive answers to any of this.

I fly with an SN10 and a tiny Flarmview display which is almost useless. Maybe I need a clearnav or LX9000 to understand all the hubbub regarding Flarm leaching. I don't think it's as big of a deal as its being made out to be, and I honestly don't really think the data is very usable tactically. I will say that it is sometimes nice to know (for example) if you've gained or lost on a competitor to be honest. For me, moments like these are often the only times it feels like we are racing. (Last thermal was 1000 above and now I'm 2000, cool, I've gained, for example). But the truth is that I almost always see that out the window before any Flarm data confirms it. I honestly dislike looking inside of the cockpit at all.

I have rarely, if ever, referred to my Flarm display tactically unless there is an audible warning and I want to cross check where a glider is when I thought I was alone (for example). But maybe Flarm data is more powerful when you have a sophisticated flight computer display that allows more information to be displayed on the map view as you search for gliders (to leach) ahead? I also cannot imagine who has the time to screw around like that with the Flarm while competing. Another thing I notice often is that if you are behind a carbon glider, even 100ft, you won't see them on Flarm as their signal is entirely blocked. At a mile or more, no way are you going to see data, and so on.

When I was at the PAGC, I didn't have time to look at the Flarm for out of visual range targets, ever. Only when the Flarm beeped did I notice any targets always at close range. Maybe I missed the memo here? Maybe my antenna is wrong. My teammate (clearnav I think) did notice a glider ahead, once, and I could not see them visually even knowing their O clock and relative altitude. It was somewhat valuable that one time, yes. But he and I did not use the Flarm to chose our routes on a regular or remotely regular basis. In fact, I don't believe we ever did. I simply don't understand how team flying encourages Flarm leaching any more or less than individual flying either. Or how FAI rules encourages or doesn't encourage Flarm leaching vs US rules.

For those who are saying they "like" stealth mode here (or don't)...are you saying you like that you can't Flarm leach anymore or are you assuming that you were no longer being leeched because of it? Do we have any data? Examples? Did someone suspected of exploiting "Flarm leaching" who normally does really well fall down the standings? Did anyone demand normal Flarm mode be reinstated? ;-) Is there any serious evidence or proof that Flarm leeching is occurring and has regularly benefited someone? There should be some evidence of a change in performance when stealth mode is used, should there not? And these patterns should be identifiable in flight data.

I honestly really don't care what mode is used but overall, the supposed problem feels a little over dramatic. I don't think it will make a big difference. Perhaps I am wrong. The good news is I can keep flying happily with my SN10 as the Flarm leeching "picture" offered by the modern computers was one of the potential reasons to consider buying something more sophisticated. Now, that feature doesn't appear to matter as much, if at all. So, mainly for that reason, I fully support "Stealth mode!"

7T

Sean Fidler

December 7th 15, 02:50 PM

Excellent point. This smells rather rushed and "uncooked." If it was a development project from my team I would be concerned. One US contest late in the 2015 season and now the RC is already seriously considering a major change even before Flarm is mandatory accross all US contests or close to fully adopted. I think a year of careful testing (at least) is smart. The risk of a stealth mode "collision" still far outweighs the risk of a pilot getting a free thermal.

Perhaps FLARM et all (BGA, IGC, etc) should make a detailed statement to the public about the testing and development program underway for stealth mode and exact expextations/ requirements for safety and performance of collision alerts that are being worked towards.

This feels a lot like a synthetic vision avionics supplier doing an install and saying "go flying" in heavy IFR. It will be fine...

[email protected]

December 7th 15, 02:57 PM

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 9:50:51 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Excellent point. This smells rather rushed and "uncooked." If it was a development project from my team I would be concerned. One US contest late in the 2015 season and now the RC is already seriously considering a major change even before Flarm is mandatory accross all US contests or close to fully adopted. I think a year of careful testing (at least) is smart. The risk of a stealth mode "collision" still far outweighs the risk of a pilot getting a free thermal.
>
> Perhaps FLARM et all (BGA, IGC, etc) should make a detailed statement to the public about the testing and development program underway for stealth mode and exact expextations/ requirements for safety and performance of collision alerts that are being worked towards.
>
> This feels a lot like a synthetic vision avionics supplier doing an install and saying "go flying" in heavy IFR. It will be fine...

As requested- a year old, provided by Russell Cheatham. More development on the topic before long.
Text of the paper follows
UH

Flarm and the case for modified "Stealth" protocol
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
When Flarm protocol was invented, it was thought that tactical advantage as described above may not be desirable in competition. So Flarm was designed with a "Stealth" protocol which degrades the information available to the pilot setting the mode and also to the pilot receiving that signal. So pilots can opt in or out of the tactical benefit and additionally the setting adopted is recorded on the IGC flight recorder. It was thought that this setting choice would be chosen at will by the pilot or prescribed by the competition ruling authority. Currently, IGC rules allow free choice of settings of Flarm unit.
One solution might be to mandate current Stealth mode for all events. This would certainly have a very significant effect and indeed was trialled by the BGA two years ago to fix all of the issues detailed above. However, it quickly became apparent that the current stealth mode, whilst eliminating the tactical benefit of Flarm, also reduces situational awareness in that targets that are not yet regarded as a threat do not appear on displays even if they are close by. The Flarm unit manufacturers themselves specifically do not recommend Stealth mode for this very reason although they comment in their literature that it is certainly better than pilots switching off their Flarm units. The BGA stealth trial was abandoned due to the forced situational awareness loss factor even though it was otherwise seen to be highly successful in restricting tactical benefit.
What is needed is a revised "IGC Stealth" protocol that has all the benefits and more but none off the pitfalls of the current stealth mode. Such a protocol would then be suitable for mandating by IGC and as required by all aero-clubs for National events.
In order to understand what is required, it is necessary to first understand what data is restricted to pilots when the current stealth mode is set - see table below.
Current stealth mode

Current stealth mode reduces situational awareness because all three factors in the amber column need to be true before 2d position, ID and Relative altitude with noise is available. This is why gliders very close to one another may not appear on displays but they can still very quickly become a threat - eg - a glider in the blind spot behind will not appear on the display of the pilot in front when both gliders are on similar track. Eg. Other gliders circling in same thermal will not always appear on display. Note that non of the basic audible and LED Flarm warnings are impaired if these are fitted.

Possible revised IGC stealth mode
A revised "IGC stealth mode" if implemented might look something like the table below:-

Here the ID is never available so it will never be possible to identify specific gliders so there will no longer be the requirement to attempt to "tag" other competitors thus reducing head down time and hence increasing safety. Also gliders remain unidentified from other competitors electronically at least thus satisfying the sporting argument too. With ID not being transmitted to others, pilots will be happier with the concept of the organisation possibly insisting on them being "tagged" for use by the competition organisation for purposes of glider competition tracking.
The 2d position and accurate relative altitude is available to all aircraft within 2km and 300m relative altitude. This allows all aircraft in the 600m x 2km disc to be visible at all times on graphic displays with accurate data for height so they may be monitored accurately. As the "ahead less than 45 degrees to track" requirement has been removed, situational awareness will be complete within the cylinder.
As no position or climb data is available outside the amber cylinder then the tactical benefit of seeing climb rates will be reduced but not eliminated. Also it will still be possible to follow other gliders provided any follower stays within 2km but it will be easier for trail-blazer to "escape" due to the relatively short distance and the lack of ID.
GLIDERS IN THE AMBER CYLINDER RETAIN FULL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AT ALL TIMES
Conclusion and way forward
It is envisaged that the revised stealth parameters here should be checked for validity to achieve the desired result and then a dialogue be set up with Flarm to further check and implement.
Once available, the revised stealth mode should be made mandatory in all events

Luke Szczepaniak

December 7th 15, 03:30 PM

> We had a few gliders in the first two days have problems getting into stealth mode due to (I think) display units which were reconfiguring their stealth. Another thing that can happen is someone leaves an old config file on the USB and downloads a flight and inadvertently reconfigs their unit. Once these pitfalls are understood their is really no issues with configuration.

[email protected]

December 7th 15, 03:51 PM

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 9:57:16 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 9:50:51 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > Excellent point. This smells rather rushed and "uncooked." If it was a development project from my team I would be concerned. One US contest late in the 2015 season and now the RC is already seriously considering a major change even before Flarm is mandatory accross all US contests or close to fully adopted. I think a year of careful testing (at least) is smart. The risk of a stealth mode "collision" still far outweighs the risk of a pilot getting a free thermal.
> >
> > Perhaps FLARM et all (BGA, IGC, etc) should make a detailed statement to the public about the testing and development program underway for stealth mode and exact expextations/ requirements for safety and performance of collision alerts that are being worked towards.
> >
> > This feels a lot like a synthetic vision avionics supplier doing an install and saying "go flying" in heavy IFR. It will be fine...
>
> As requested- a year old, provided by Russell Cheatham. More development on the topic before long.
> Text of the paper follows
> UH
>
> Flarm and the case for modified "Stealth" protocol
> 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
> When Flarm protocol was invented, it was thought that tactical advantage as described above may not be desirable in competition. So Flarm was designed with a "Stealth" protocol which degrades the information available to the pilot setting the mode and also to the pilot receiving that signal. So pilots can opt in or out of the tactical benefit and additionally the setting adopted is recorded on the IGC flight recorder. It was thought that this setting choice would be chosen at will by the pilot or prescribed by the competition ruling authority. Currently, IGC rules allow free choice of settings of Flarm unit.
> One solution might be to mandate current Stealth mode for all events. This would certainly have a very significant effect and indeed was trialled by the BGA two years ago to fix all of the issues detailed above. However, it quickly became apparent that the current stealth mode, whilst eliminating the tactical benefit of Flarm, also reduces situational awareness in that targets that are not yet regarded as a threat do not appear on displays even if they are close by. The Flarm unit manufacturers themselves specifically do not recommend Stealth mode for this very reason although they comment in their literature that it is certainly better than pilots switching off their Flarm units. The BGA stealth trial was abandoned due to the forced situational awareness loss factor even though it was otherwise seen to be highly successful in restricting tactical benefit.
> What is needed is a revised "IGC Stealth" protocol that has all the benefits and more but none off the pitfalls of the current stealth mode. Such a protocol would then be suitable for mandating by IGC and as required by all aero-clubs for National events.
> In order to understand what is required, it is necessary to first understand what data is restricted to pilots when the current stealth mode is set - see table below.
> Current stealth mode
>
> Current stealth mode reduces situational awareness because all three factors in the amber column need to be true before 2d position, ID and Relative altitude with noise is available. This is why gliders very close to one another may not appear on displays but they can still very quickly become a threat - eg - a glider in the blind spot behind will not appear on the display of the pilot in front when both gliders are on similar track. Eg. Other gliders circling in same thermal will not always appear on display. Note that non of the basic audible and LED Flarm warnings are impaired if these are fitted.
>
> Possible revised IGC stealth mode
> A revised "IGC stealth mode" if implemented might look something like the table below:-
>
> Here the ID is never available so it will never be possible to identify specific gliders so there will no longer be the requirement to attempt to "tag" other competitors thus reducing head down time and hence increasing safety. Also gliders remain unidentified from other competitors electronically at least thus satisfying the sporting argument too. With ID not being transmitted to others, pilots will be happier with the concept of the organisation possibly insisting on them being "tagged" for use by the competition organisation for purposes of glider competition tracking.
> The 2d position and accurate relative altitude is available to all aircraft within 2km and 300m relative altitude. This allows all aircraft in the 600m x 2km disc to be visible at all times on graphic displays with accurate data for height so they may be monitored accurately. As the "ahead less than 45 degrees to track" requirement has been removed, situational awareness will be complete within the cylinder.
> As no position or climb data is available outside the amber cylinder then the tactical benefit of seeing climb rates will be reduced but not eliminated. Also it will still be possible to follow other gliders provided any follower stays within 2km but it will be easier for trail-blazer to "escape" due to the relatively short distance and the lack of ID.
> GLIDERS IN THE AMBER CYLINDER RETAIN FULL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AT ALL TIMES
> Conclusion and way forward
> It is envisaged that the revised stealth parameters here should be checked for validity to achieve the desired result and then a dialogue be set up with Flarm to further check and implement.
> Once available, the revised stealth mode should be made mandatory in all events

Hey, it occurs to me that the FLARM people sometimes participate in
searching for downed pilots. This is done by scanning the IGC files of
other pilots to identify the last known position of the missing plane.
What affect does stealth have with that function? If it does limit that
do we want to go down that road?

Matt

Sean Fidler

December 7th 15, 05:07 PM

Fine...and thanks for sharing, but the level of urgency in US contests is simply not as critical as this is being made out to be. Why are we in a big hurry here to ad more rules and more work to contest participants? We (USA, SSA) should be very late adopters of stealth mode, and when the tech is fully proven and stable, not early, bleeding edge adopters. We have many contest pilots who refuse to use Flarm at all, for example. This rapid change to stealth mode makes no sense. Personally I still feel that Flarm is highly vulnerable with many gliders not equipped. It's too easy to get a false sense of security and lower your defenses of relying on the visual scan when 85% have Flarm. It's the other 15% that will cause the next US contest collision IMO. I'm assuming safety is still the 99% key function of Flarm.

The US has far larger problems right now, and there is a reasonable safety concern here. We need to be very cautious, test, and move slowly on this. There is no real urgency to change IMO. And, if you guys are basing this on the opinion poll or even this thread, there is clearly no consensus yet.

If Flarm stealth mode was proven and tested, it would be a different story of course as on paper it makes good sense. But it's not.

Jerzy makes some good points too.

Sean

Sean Fidler

December 7th 15, 05:11 PM

Can someone forward me Montys email address? TIA

Sean

[email protected]

December 7th 15, 05:24 PM

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 10:00:08 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I honestly really don't care what mode is used but overall, the supposed problem feels a little over dramatic. I don't think it will make a big difference. Perhaps I am wrong. The good news is I can keep flying happily with my SN10 as the Flarm leeching "picture" offered by the modern computers was one of the potential reasons to consider buying something more sophisticated. Now, that feature doesn't appear to matter as much, if at all. So, mainly for that reason, I fully support "Stealth mode!"
>
> 7T

Sean - Your various posts are confusing to me. You said in the post above you "fully support Stealth mode!" and then in later posts don't seem to think it should be rushed. Was the first statement a typo and you were trying to say the opposite?

Bruno - B4

jfitch

December 7th 15, 05:59 PM

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:57:16 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 9:50:51 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > Excellent point. This smells rather rushed and "uncooked." If it was a development project from my team I would be concerned. One US contest late in the 2015 season and now the RC is already seriously considering a major change even before Flarm is mandatory accross all US contests or close to fully adopted. I think a year of careful testing (at least) is smart. The risk of a stealth mode "collision" still far outweighs the risk of a pilot getting a free thermal.
> >
> > Perhaps FLARM et all (BGA, IGC, etc) should make a detailed statement to the public about the testing and development program underway for stealth mode and exact expextations/ requirements for safety and performance of collision alerts that are being worked towards.
> >
> > This feels a lot like a synthetic vision avionics supplier doing an install and saying "go flying" in heavy IFR. It will be fine...
>
> As requested- a year old, provided by Russell Cheatham. More development on the topic before long.
> Text of the paper follows
> UH
>
> Flarm and the case for modified "Stealth" protocol
> 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
> When Flarm protocol was invented, it was thought that tactical advantage as described above may not be desirable in competition. So Flarm was designed with a "Stealth" protocol which degrades the information available to the pilot setting the mode and also to the pilot receiving that signal. So pilots can opt in or out of the tactical benefit and additionally the setting adopted is recorded on the IGC flight recorder. It was thought that this setting choice would be chosen at will by the pilot or prescribed by the competition ruling authority. Currently, IGC rules allow free choice of settings of Flarm unit.
> One solution might be to mandate current Stealth mode for all events. This would certainly have a very significant effect and indeed was trialled by the BGA two years ago to fix all of the issues detailed above. However, it quickly became apparent that the current stealth mode, whilst eliminating the tactical benefit of Flarm, also reduces situational awareness in that targets that are not yet regarded as a threat do not appear on displays even if they are close by. The Flarm unit manufacturers themselves specifically do not recommend Stealth mode for this very reason although they comment in their literature that it is certainly better than pilots switching off their Flarm units. The BGA stealth trial was abandoned due to the forced situational awareness loss factor even though it was otherwise seen to be highly successful in restricting tactical benefit.
> What is needed is a revised "IGC Stealth" protocol that has all the benefits and more but none off the pitfalls of the current stealth mode. Such a protocol would then be suitable for mandating by IGC and as required by all aero-clubs for National events.
> In order to understand what is required, it is necessary to first understand what data is restricted to pilots when the current stealth mode is set - see table below.
> Current stealth mode
>
> Current stealth mode reduces situational awareness because all three factors in the amber column need to be true before 2d position, ID and Relative altitude with noise is available. This is why gliders very close to one another may not appear on displays but they can still very quickly become a threat - eg - a glider in the blind spot behind will not appear on the display of the pilot in front when both gliders are on similar track. Eg. Other gliders circling in same thermal will not always appear on display. Note that non of the basic audible and LED Flarm warnings are impaired if these are fitted.
>
> Possible revised IGC stealth mode
> A revised "IGC stealth mode" if implemented might look something like the table below:-
>
> Here the ID is never available so it will never be possible to identify specific gliders so there will no longer be the requirement to attempt to "tag" other competitors thus reducing head down time and hence increasing safety. Also gliders remain unidentified from other competitors electronically at least thus satisfying the sporting argument too. With ID not being transmitted to others, pilots will be happier with the concept of the organisation possibly insisting on them being "tagged" for use by the competition organisation for purposes of glider competition tracking.
> The 2d position and accurate relative altitude is available to all aircraft within 2km and 300m relative altitude. This allows all aircraft in the 600m x 2km disc to be visible at all times on graphic displays with accurate data for height so they may be monitored accurately. As the "ahead less than 45 degrees to track" requirement has been removed, situational awareness will be complete within the cylinder.
> As no position or climb data is available outside the amber cylinder then the tactical benefit of seeing climb rates will be reduced but not eliminated. Also it will still be possible to follow other gliders provided any follower stays within 2km but it will be easier for trail-blazer to "escape" due to the relatively short distance and the lack of ID.
> GLIDERS IN THE AMBER CYLINDER RETAIN FULL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AT ALL TIMES
> Conclusion and way forward
> It is envisaged that the revised stealth parameters here should be checked for validity to achieve the desired result and then a dialogue be set up with Flarm to further check and implement.
> Once available, the revised stealth mode should be made mandatory in all events

Re: the head down time required and rate of climb displayed. Perhaps thermals in Britain or the US east are nice round, soft things that result in a well filtered and accurate rate of climb displayed. I have never found that to be the case in the western US. It is common to see +13.5 knots followed by -6.0 on the very next screen update. This is completely useless information for leeching - I have tried. Acting on that kind of information is much more likely to slow you down than speed you up. The head down time described is more a limitation of the tactical display than Flarm technology. The best displays require no more than a 1 second glance to get all of the information there is to get, entering what data needs to be entered takes a few seconds once or twice per flight. Many Nav displays and variometers require far more attention, yet there are no parallel complaints about them. There is far more head down time required of a poor nav display than a good Flarm tactical display - should we make rules against those?

December 7th 15, 06:19 PM

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 10:30:29 AM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> > We had a few gliders in the first two days have problems getting into stealth mode due to (I think) display units which were reconfiguring their stealth. Another thing that can happen is someone leaves an old config file on the USB and downloads a flight and inadvertently reconfigs their unit. Once these pitfalls are understood their is really no issues with configuration.
> >
> > Anyway a couple of gliders took off in non-stealth in the beginning of the contest, day 1 and day 2. No penalty points were given. At max two gliders were in the sky in non-stealth. They could only see each other's info. It was easy to see if they were working together to cheat the system. Of course they were not. CD discretion is the key to not getting too wrapped around the axel to what was an honest mistake.
> >
> > We had people submit another FLARM log on one other day because this was all new. This is not really necessary if you have non-stealth FLARM unit checking on the grid.
> >
> > Those are some additional facts about using in FLARM the stealth mode for a contest.
>
> I don't feel too strongly about STEALTH vs NON-STEALTH so I planned to stay out of this thread. After reading XG's and XC's posts I feel a little called out so here is my $0.02. I would like to preface by saying that I enjoyed flying in Elmira very much, I don't know if it is because FLARM was in STEALTH or just because the contest was so well organised and expertly run. The fact that Monty sold his soul to the devil in trade for the fantastic weather we enjoyed certainly didn't hurt.
>
> There was one pilot at Elmira who was never able to get his unit into stealth mode for the duration of the contest. He eventually dumbed down the ranges on his display in the spirit of "fair play". This pilot often helps others with their electronics so he is no technophobe.
>
> My trailer was parked beside another pilot who was having issues putting his FLARM in to stealth at the beginning of the contest, the amount of unnecessary stress this was causing him in the mornings was plainly visible.
>
> I know first hand of one more pilot who was not able to configure his FLARM properly until later on in the contest.
>
> These 3 guys have been to multiple world championships each.
>
> I had no problem putting my FLARM into STEALTH mode and flew that way until the second last day. On that day the gate was just opened for our class when I realized I could see the climb info and call sign of the pilot who's FLARM was not in stealth. I checked the FLARM status on my display and somehow my FLARM had reverted to normal mode. I gave a quick attempt to re-enable stealth while in the air but was unsuccessful. I didn't really want to mess with it in the start cylinder anyway so I gave up a pretty good starting position and landed to reload my STEALTH config on the ground. This didn't work so after checking with the CD I unplugged my FLARM from power and took a relight. I ended up starting almost an hour behind everyone on a day that ended early and flew without FLARM at all. Next day I plugged the FLARM back in without making any changes and STEALTH mode was back on.
>
> In the end the RC's decision on mandatory STEALTH will not influence my attendance at a contest. FLARM increases our safety when used properly - this includes providing information beyond a simple collision warning. Ideally FLARM improves our Situational Awareness to the point that we don't need collision warnings, we simply don't let it get that close. Flying with FLARM is safer than without, but flying in STEALTH or without FLARM at all is still well within MY acceptable risk level. This is a decision each one of us has to make before take off.
>
> My gut feel is to leave STEALTH mode as a pilot option especially because there were technical issues implementing it.
>
> Luke Szczepaniak

Luke,
Thanks for your post. I definitely want to hear from you and any others about their experiences, good, bad or indifferent using stealth mode.

As to implementing a competition or stealth mode we should not let configuration problems be a big obstacle. I know this is getting ahead of ourselves a bit because we are far from a consensus on this topic. The British and others in the IGC seem to be much more down with this idea. I am glad they are working with FLARM toward practical solutions.

As for your landing back at Harris Hill, let me apologize. There was no need for you to do that as am I quite sure (knowing how level-headed our CD was) you would not have penalized without any intent to use your FLARM to follow others. But you are right you had no idea what the CD would or could have done. Our organization failed to foresee these different configuration problems and spell our the consequences. I applaud your sportsmanship for trying to do the right thing and I am sorry it affected your result.

The real problems were few. I and most users with a simple set up had zero problems. A few more did the old trick where they reconfigured back with an old config file in the root directory of their USB stick. For your problem and Dave's, I have no idea what went wrong there but it seemed to be related to a FLARM-view or similar device acting as a control head for the FLARM device. Would you agree?

At the contest this past summer we should have had ready a rubric that could have specified for those who went flying with their system not in stealth:

0 penalty points for first offense and no intent to game the system.
100-500 penalty for first intentional misconfiguration
DQ and review by SSA regarding possible suspension from contest flying for installing equipment intended to circumvent the competition mode.

....or some other values, it doesn't matter to me. The point is there is not a FLARM penalty. These are unsportsmanlike conduct penalties under (12.2.5..3). The stealth feature is designed so that if you are flying without stealth you can only see those gliders configured in non-stealth. It is really no big thing if one or two gliders misconfigured. We should have made that more clear.

XC

December 7th 15, 06:23 PM

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 10:30:29 AM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> > We had a few gliders in the first two days have problems getting into stealth mode due to (I think) display units which were reconfiguring their stealth. Another thing that can happen is someone leaves an old config file on the USB and downloads a flight and inadvertently reconfigs their unit. Once these pitfalls are understood their is really no issues with configuration.
> >
> > Anyway a couple of gliders took off in non-stealth in the beginning of the contest, day 1 and day 2. No penalty points were given. At max two gliders were in the sky in non-stealth. They could only see each other's info. It was easy to see if they were working together to cheat the system. Of course they were not. CD discretion is the key to not getting too wrapped around the axel to what was an honest mistake.
> >
> > We had people submit another FLARM log on one other day because this was all new. This is not really necessary if you have non-stealth FLARM unit checking on the grid.
> >
> > Those are some additional facts about using in FLARM the stealth mode for a contest.
>
> I don't feel too strongly about STEALTH vs NON-STEALTH so I planned to stay out of this thread. After reading XG's and XC's posts I feel a little called out so here is my $0.02. I would like to preface by saying that I enjoyed flying in Elmira very much, I don't know if it is because FLARM was in STEALTH or just because the contest was so well organised and expertly run. The fact that Monty sold his soul to the devil in trade for the fantastic weather we enjoyed certainly didn't hurt.
>
> There was one pilot at Elmira who was never able to get his unit into stealth mode for the duration of the contest. He eventually dumbed down the ranges on his display in the spirit of "fair play". This pilot often helps others with their electronics so he is no technophobe.
>
> My trailer was parked beside another pilot who was having issues putting his FLARM in to stealth at the beginning of the contest, the amount of unnecessary stress this was causing him in the mornings was plainly visible.
>
> I know first hand of one more pilot who was not able to configure his FLARM properly until later on in the contest.
>
> These 3 guys have been to multiple world championships each.
>
> I had no problem putting my FLARM into STEALTH mode and flew that way until the second last day. On that day the gate was just opened for our class when I realized I could see the climb info and call sign of the pilot who's FLARM was not in stealth. I checked the FLARM status on my display and somehow my FLARM had reverted to normal mode. I gave a quick attempt to re-enable stealth while in the air but was unsuccessful. I didn't really want to mess with it in the start cylinder anyway so I gave up a pretty good starting position and landed to reload my STEALTH config on the ground. This didn't work so after checking with the CD I unplugged my FLARM from power and took a relight. I ended up starting almost an hour behind everyone on a day that ended early and flew without FLARM at all. Next day I plugged the FLARM back in without making any changes and STEALTH mode was back on.
>
> In the end the RC's decision on mandatory STEALTH will not influence my attendance at a contest. FLARM increases our safety when used properly - this includes providing information beyond a simple collision warning. Ideally FLARM improves our Situational Awareness to the point that we don't need collision warnings, we simply don't let it get that close. Flying with FLARM is safer than without, but flying in STEALTH or without FLARM at all is still well within MY acceptable risk level. This is a decision each one of us has to make before take off.
>
> My gut feel is to leave STEALTH mode as a pilot option especially because there were technical issues implementing it.
>
> Luke Szczepaniak

Luke,
Thanks for your post. I definitely want to hear from you and any others about their experiences, good, bad or indifferent using stealth mode.

As to implementing a competition or stealth mode we should not let configuration problems be a big obstacle. I know this is getting ahead of ourselves a bit because we are far from a consensus on this topic. The British and others in the IGC seem to be much more down with this idea. I am glad they are working with FLARM toward practical solutions.

As for your landing back at Harris Hill, let me apologize. There was no need for you to do that as am I quite sure (knowing how level-headed our CD was) you would not have penalized without any intent to use your FLARM to follow others. But you are right you had no idea what the CD would or could have done. Our organization failed to foresee these different configuration problems and spell our the consequences. I applaud your sportsmanship for trying to do the right thing and I am sorry it affected your result.

The real problems were few. I and most users with a simple set up had zero problems. A few more did the old trick where they reconfigured back with an old config file in the root directory of their USB stick. For your problem and Dave's, I have no idea what went wrong there but it seemed to be related to a FLARM-view or similar device acting as a control head for the FLARM device. Would you agree?

At the contest this past summer we should have had ready a rubric that could have specified for those who went flying with their system not in stealth:

0 penalty points for first offense and no intent to game the system.
100-500 penalty for first intentional misconfiguration
DQ and review by SSA regarding possible suspension from contest flying for installing equipment intended to circumvent the competition mode.

....or some other values, it doesn't matter to me. The point is there is not a FLARM penalty. These are unsportsmanlike conduct penalties under (12.2.5..3). There really needs to be intent to deceive to impose a penalty. The stealth feature is designed so that if you are flying without stealth you can only see those gliders configured in non-stealth. It is really no big thing if one or two gliders misconfigured. We should have made all of this more clear.

XC

[email protected]

December 7th 15, 09:56 PM

Just to add one thing to my post (since I was asked to post :) and flew in Elmira)

I think the largest issue was not the Stealth vs. normal - it was the fact you had to do a flight before you were sure the settings were correct - and if it turned out they were not, you had to do another flight and so on...... and some peole launch hoping it was right, which in itself can be distracting.

If there was a way to be know the settings on the ground (say the program wrote the settings to your thumb drive upon being turned on) - it would have saved some pilots some stress.

WH1

Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)

December 7th 15, 10:50 PM

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 4:57:00 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Just to add one thing to my post (since I was asked to post :) and flew in Elmira)
>
> I think the largest issue was not the Stealth vs. normal - it was the fact you had to do a flight before you were sure the settings were correct - and if it turned out they were not, you had to do another flight and so on...... and some peole launch hoping it was right, which in itself can be distracting.
>
> If there was a way to be know the settings on the ground (say the program wrote the settings to your thumb drive upon being turned on) - it would have saved some pilots some stress.
>
> WH1

Can't you turn it on while on the ground and see if you can read contest ID's?, if so, then you have a clue.

Also, as XC just recently posted, they could have thought of "yet another possible issue" and posted "potential penalties if you circumvent stealth mode". Sounds like they made a good faith effort, but missed something. Poop occurs.
No slam on anyone, sorta like the manager that ask's, "Have you thought of all potential issues before we do this?".
The answer would be, "Yes......but....". You can't think of EVERYTHING, sounds like the HHSC people tried very hard to make it a great contest.
Yes, I know & have flown with most of them, they tend to do a good/level headed contest and I've flown a number contests at the site.

So, for next year (if stealth mode is mandated and/or used), people have a "heads up" to consider yet something else.

Ron Gleason

December 7th 15, 11:44 PM

On Monday, 7 December 2015 15:50:24 UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 4:57:00 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Just to add one thing to my post (since I was asked to post :) and flew in Elmira)
> >
> > I think the largest issue was not the Stealth vs. normal - it was the fact you had to do a flight before you were sure the settings were correct - and if it turned out they were not, you had to do another flight and so on...... and some peole launch hoping it was right, which in itself can be distracting.
> >
> > If there was a way to be know the settings on the ground (say the program wrote the settings to your thumb drive upon being turned on) - it would have saved some pilots some stress.
> >
> > WH1
>
> Can't you turn it on while on the ground and see if you can read contest ID's?, if so, then you have a clue.
>
> Also, as XC just recently posted, they could have thought of "yet another possible issue" and posted "potential penalties if you circumvent stealth mode". Sounds like they made a good faith effort, but missed something. Poop occurs.
> No slam on anyone, sorta like the manager that ask's, "Have you thought of all potential issues before we do this?".
> The answer would be, "Yes......but....". You can't think of EVERYTHING, sounds like the HHSC people tried very hard to make it a great contest.
> Yes, I know & have flown with most of them, they tend to do a good/level headed contest and I've flown a number contests at the site.
>
> So, for next year (if stealth mode is mandated and/or used), people have a "heads up" to consider yet something else.

If the SSA rules committee is going to mandate anything they must also lay out the procedures for enforcement, penalties for non-conformance and automate the tasks as much as possible; such as having WINSCORE check the IGC files for what mode the Power Flarm was operated in. Asking an organizer to perform all the 'what ifs' scenarios and then determine how to handle the exceptions is not the way to go.

I agree that the HHSC did the best the could and then some but I am not sure their approach is repeatable and/or scalable.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 8th 15, 01:29 AM

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:02:57 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
>
> If your aircraft's information is tagged as a glider with ADS-B, a competition mode can still be implemented that would display all the power traffic for you. You can tweak the parameters of this competition or stealth mode to provide plenty of collision avoidance. I think 10-18 seconds warning, knowing that the warnings are not perfect is enough for me. But it could made greater.

This seems like a non-trivial exercise. Putting aside for the moment that you'd also be blanking out non-contest glider traffic. The advantage we have with Flarm is that it is a sole-source technology (though I know some have complained about this fact for cost and other reasons). It give us the advantage of being able to go to one vendor and though one means or another get them to implement filters to the data that the device otherwise puts out.

It's not so easy in a world with multiple vendors and different layers of the technology stack and open standards. Outside the world of Flarm there are multiple ways to:

1) Transmit GPS position: ADS-B UAT, ADS-B 1090ES, Flarm, Transponder via TIS-B rebroadcast under ADS-R via ADS-B ground stations, satellite (InReach, Spot, etc.) and a whole host of inexpensive consumer technologies that are out or coming out that use either mobile phone GPS or low-power ISM-band (what Flarm uses) GPS tags (track your pet, bike, child, etc).

2) Collect GPS positions. There is direct UHF (mostly ISM-band) including Flarm, ADS-B, ADS-R, but also via in-cockpit internet connection - mostly via cellphone data or even text connection, but other link layers are possible. Even the satellite trackers have dedicated web pages that don't necessarily abide by the 15-minute delay rules, so a little web-coding and you are good to go.

3) Communicate from receive device to display device. Historically via serial port or USB, increasingly via WiFi and Bluetooth, which are nearly impossible to pick up via inspection.

4) Display the targets. Displays range from high-end bespoke devices made by the likes of LX Nav, LX Navigation and ClearNav (among others), to the PNA category (Oudie and a bunch of Chinese-sourced devices), to totally non-soaring-driven Android and iOS Phones, Phablets and tablets at the low-cost end of the spectrum (low-cost since most people already own one). The software may be proprietary, independent of the device maker or totally open-source. Some software may be soaring-specific, but much more of it for traffic situational awareness is make for non-soaring aviation.

The tough part is that all you need to do is get a stream of position data from anywhere, get it into the cockpit by any of a variety of means and deliver it for display on any device, many of which are made by manufacturers who don't care at all about soaring. Now that would take a bit of putting things together to run on a bespoke soaring computer if there were no reason to do it other than to cheat at glider racing (which somebody might try to do, but it's a bit of effort to take an NMEA stream, delete or spoof the aircraft time and MUX it into the stream from another GPS source like Flarm).. But here's the thing, except for a subset of racing glider pilots, everybody else in soaring (especially XC and OLC pilots, GA pilots, airline pilots) WANT all this info in the cockpit without any filters, so I think it'll be a monumental task to get all those different combinations of vendors to cooperate. Also, the rest of aviation doesn't care about our desires to filter traffic so you can always take a GA setup and use that on your Android flight computer with a non-soaring traffic app. Some of that stuff is cheaper than the soaring stuff already.

The alternative is to restrict racing equipment to only the stuff you can control, which is likely the integrated, bespoke stuff - and require pilots to somehow lock up their cellphones. I'm not sure how good an idea it is to mandate that people only carry the most expensive gear.

I'm seeing the future arriving faster than we thought - some of it from the 2020 ADS-B mandate, some of it from advances in GPS trackers, some from advances in mobile devices, some of from advances in data communications and adoption of wireless links and some of it from advances in cloud services that make it easy to move data around. The thought that we are going to be able to control all of that against the forces that are pushing it forward seems, well, complex, daunting and expensive. I give it two years.

Oh - I don't agree that 10 seconds is okay, not for where I fly.

9B

December 8th 15, 02:06 AM

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 8:29:39 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:02:57 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> >
> > If your aircraft's information is tagged as a glider with ADS-B, a competition mode can still be implemented that would display all the power traffic for you. You can tweak the parameters of this competition or stealth mode to provide plenty of collision avoidance. I think 10-18 seconds warning, knowing that the warnings are not perfect is enough for me. But it could made greater.
>
> This seems like a non-trivial exercise. Putting aside for the moment that you'd also be blanking out non-contest glider traffic. The advantage we have with Flarm is that it is a sole-source technology (though I know some have complained about this fact for cost and other reasons). It give us the advantage of being able to go to one vendor and though one means or another get them to implement filters to the data that the device otherwise puts out.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 8th 15, 02:20 AM

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:06:31 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 8:29:39 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:02:57 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> > >
> > > If your aircraft's information is tagged as a glider with ADS-B, a competition mode can still be implemented that would display all the power traffic for you. You can tweak the parameters of this competition or stealth mode to provide plenty of collision avoidance. I think 10-18 seconds warning, knowing that the warnings are not perfect is enough for me. But it could made greater.
> >
> > This seems like a non-trivial exercise. Putting aside for the moment that you'd also be blanking out non-contest glider traffic. The advantage we have with Flarm is that it is a sole-source technology (though I know some have complained about this fact for cost and other reasons). It give us the advantage of being able to go to one vendor and though one means or another get them to implement filters to the data that the device otherwise puts out.
> >
> > It's not so easy in a world with multiple vendors and different layers of the technology stack and open standards. Outside the world of Flarm there are multiple ways to:
> >
> > 1) Transmit GPS position: ADS-B UAT, ADS-B 1090ES, Flarm, Transponder via TIS-B rebroadcast under ADS-R via ADS-B ground stations, satellite (InReach, Spot, etc.) and a whole host of inexpensive consumer technologies that are out or coming out that use either mobile phone GPS or low-power ISM-band (what Flarm uses) GPS tags (track your pet, bike, child, etc).
> >
> > 2) Collect GPS positions. There is direct UHF (mostly ISM-band) including Flarm, ADS-B, ADS-R, but also via in-cockpit internet connection - mostly via cellphone data or even text connection, but other link layers are possible. Even the satellite trackers have dedicated web pages that don't necessarily abide by the 15-minute delay rules, so a little web-coding and you are good to go.
> >
> > 3) Communicate from receive device to display device. Historically via serial port or USB, increasingly via WiFi and Bluetooth, which are nearly impossible to pick up via inspection.
> >
> > 4) Display the targets. Displays range from high-end bespoke devices made by the likes of LX Nav, LX Navigation and ClearNav (among others), to the PNA category (Oudie and a bunch of Chinese-sourced devices), to totally non-soaring-driven Android and iOS Phones, Phablets and tablets at the low-cost end of the spectrum (low-cost since most people already own one). The software may be proprietary, independent of the device maker or totally open-source. Some software may be soaring-specific, but much more of it for traffic situational awareness is make for non-soaring aviation.
> >
> > The tough part is that all you need to do is get a stream of position data from anywhere, get it into the cockpit by any of a variety of means and deliver it for display on any device, many of which are made by manufacturers who don't care at all about soaring. Now that would take a bit of putting things together to run on a bespoke soaring computer if there were no reason to do it other than to cheat at glider racing (which somebody might try to do, but it's a bit of effort to take an NMEA stream, delete or spoof the aircraft time and MUX it into the stream from another GPS source like Flarm). But here's the thing, except for a subset of racing glider pilots, everybody else in soaring (especially XC and OLC pilots, GA pilots, airline pilots) WANT all this info in the cockpit without any filters, so I think it'll be a monumental task to get all those different combinations of vendors to cooperate. Also, the rest of aviation doesn't care about our desires to filter traffic so you can always take a GA setup and use that on your Android flight computer with a non-soaring traffic app. Some of that stuff is cheaper than the soaring stuff already.
> >
> > The alternative is to restrict racing equipment to only the stuff you can control, which is likely the integrated, bespoke stuff - and require pilots to somehow lock up their cellphones. I'm not sure how good an idea it is to mandate that people only carry the most expensive gear.
> >
> > I'm seeing the future arriving faster than we thought - some of it from the 2020 ADS-B mandate, some of it from advances in GPS trackers, some from advances in mobile devices, some of from advances in data communications and adoption of wireless links and some of it from advances in cloud services that make it easy to move data around. The thought that we are going to be able to control all of that against the forces that are pushing it forward seems, well, complex, daunting and expensive. I give it two years.
> >
> > Oh - I don't agree that 10 seconds is okay, not for where I fly.
> >
> > 9B
>
> I see your point. There are a lot of options out there and more coming all the time. We do have IGC approved flight recorders. Is it so far fetched that we fly with IGC approved cockpit GPS and displays? I mean most of us fly with off the shelf soaring stuff, anyway. I understand that some really enjoy the avionics aspect of soaring but not most.
>
> Is it that crazy to trust people to leave their cell phones in the side pocket and not cheat with non-approved devices while racing? As you said there is no prize money or women to be won in this sport, only the respect of our fellow pilots. Who can respect another pilot who would go out of his way to circumvent the rules?
>
> XC

Most people wouldn't, but if you have a display you set up for non-race buddy flying using ADS-B and an Android phablet - well you'd just have to promise not to peek. The open-source soaring software is pretty popular too.

It's a lot of permutations to play "whack-a-mole" with.

I like all the innovation in electronics - it's cool to see all the interesting things that are coming out.

9B

Luke Szczepaniak

December 8th 15, 02:39 AM

>Is it so far fetched that we fly with IGC approved cockpit GPS and displays? I mean most of us fly with off the shelf soaring stuff, anyway.

Sorry Sean but in actuality most of us fly with mobile devices and not "off the shelf gliding stuff". I think it is completely unreasonable to expect me to pay upwards of $5000 to downgrade my existing setup to what *in my opinion* is inferior hardware and software. I much rather invest that money in 100 contest tows or 200 tows at my home club than putting it in somebody's pocket...

Luke

December 8th 15, 02:55 AM

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 9:39:33 PM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> >Is it so far fetched that we fly with IGC approved cockpit GPS and displays? I mean most of us fly with off the shelf soaring stuff, anyway.
>
> Sorry Sean but in actuality most of us fly with mobile devices and not "off the shelf gliding stuff". I think it is completely unreasonable to expect me to pay upwards of $5000 to downgrade my existing setup to what *in my opinion* is inferior hardware and software. I much rather invest that money in 100 contest tows or 200 tows at my home club than putting it in somebody's pocket...
>
>
> Luke

I disagree that most fly with mobile devices. Walking down the fight line at most contests I would put it at 10-15% that use something other than the standard stuff. But I'll concede that certainly don't want to disenfranchise those folks. Tough nut to crack. I am curious what progress the British are making and what their take is the beyond FLARM question.

Merry Christmas everyone.

XC

Luke Szczepaniak

December 8th 15, 06:28 AM

I dot want to go off topic here but we're on RAS so what the hell...

According to google play store XCSoar has 50 thousand + unique user installations. While this number includes sailplane, para and hang glider pilots it only accounts for those using android os who installed it via google play. It does not include manual installations, nor those on legacy platforms (windows mobile etc). When talking about tactical moving map displays I am pretty sure that this number alone excedes the user base of LX Nav, LX Navigation and Clearnav combined. Add to that pilots who fly with XCSoar forks like LK8000 and Top Hat not to mention those flying with WinPilot, See You Mobile and GNII and its pretty easy to see that mobile devices connected to IGC flight data recorders or using built in gps are by far the more common configuration.

Back to the topic at hand. You seem think that flarm data somehow allows others to make a huge gamble that wins the day. On a tricky day the BVR data is of no use because the air is cycled by the time you get there. On a good day it's also useles.. You are better off staying with your own energy line rather than making huge deviations for something that may or may not be better...

In your arguments for mandatory stealth mode you use "spirit of competition" rethoric. Correct me if I am wrong but you fly with a Clear Nav, an instrument like all other modern flight computers that tells you the optimal start position, the optimal vector to the turn point, the optimized turn point in a turn area so you make it home within seconds of the minimum time on course, all this while at the same time it assists in centering a thermal, calculates the wind, landable options and your final glide for you. I ask you where is the spirit of competition in that? Ah - but those are just guidelines you say, I make the final call on when I start or how deep I go. The answer is the same for flarm, the data is there, faults and all. You choose to use it, or not....

The good news is that days will soon be getting longer again..

See you at cloudbase ;-)

Luke

jfitch

December 8th 15, 06:52 AM

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 10:28:07 PM UTC-8, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> I dot want to go off topic here but we're on RAS so what the hell...
>
> According to google play store XCSoar has 50 thousand + unique user installations. While this number includes sailplane, para and hang glider pilots it only accounts for those using android os who installed it via google play. It does not include manual installations, nor those on legacy platforms (windows mobile etc). When talking about tactical moving map displays I am pretty sure that this number alone excedes the user base of LX Nav, LX Navigation and Clearnav combined. Add to that pilots who fly with XCSoar forks like LK8000 and Top Hat not to mention those flying with WinPilot, See You Mobile and GNII and its pretty easy to see that mobile devices connected to IGC flight data recorders or using built in gps are by far the more common configuration.
>
>
> Back to the topic at hand. You seem think that flarm data somehow allows others to make a huge gamble that wins the day. On a tricky day the BVR data is of no use because the air is cycled by the time you get there. On a good day it's also useles.. You are better off staying with your own energy line rather than making huge deviations for something that may or may not be better...
>
> In your arguments for mandatory stealth mode you use "spirit of competition" rethoric. Correct me if I am wrong but you fly with a Clear Nav, an instrument like all other modern flight computers that tells you the optimal start position, the optimal vector to the turn point, the optimized turn point in a turn area so you make it home within seconds of the minimum time on course, all this while at the same time it assists in centering a thermal, calculates the wind, landable options and your final glide for you. I ask you where is the spirit of competition in that? Ah - but those are just guidelines you say, I make the final call on when I start or how deep I go.. The answer is the same for flarm, the data is there, faults and all. You choose to use it, or not....
>
> The good news is that days will soon be getting longer again..
>
> See you at cloudbase ;-)
>
> Luke

Hear, Hear, Luke. We are a long ways down a slippery slope to be trying to turn back now.

December 8th 15, 12:07 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 1:28:07 AM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> I dot want to go off topic here but we're on RAS so what the hell...
>
> According to google play store XCSoar has 50 thousand + unique user installations. While this number includes sailplane, para and hang glider pilots it only accounts for those using android os who installed it via google play. It does not include manual installations, nor those on legacy platforms (windows mobile etc). When talking about tactical moving map displays I am pretty sure that this number alone excedes the user base of LX Nav, LX Navigation and Clearnav combined. Add to that pilots who fly with XCSoar forks like LK8000 and Top Hat not to mention those flying with WinPilot, See You Mobile and GNII and its pretty easy to see that mobile devices connected to IGC flight data recorders or using built in gps are by far the more common configuration.
>
>
> Back to the topic at hand. You seem think that flarm data somehow allows others to make a huge gamble that wins the day. On a tricky day the BVR data is of no use because the air is cycled by the time you get there. On a good day it's also useles.. You are better off staying with your own energy line rather than making huge deviations for something that may or may not be better...
>
> In your arguments for mandatory stealth mode you use "spirit of competition" rethoric. Correct me if I am wrong but you fly with a Clear Nav, an instrument like all other modern flight computers that tells you the optimal start position, the optimal vector to the turn point, the optimized turn point in a turn area so you make it home within seconds of the minimum time on course, all this while at the same time it assists in centering a thermal, calculates the wind, landable options and your final glide for you. I ask you where is the spirit of competition in that? Ah - but those are just guidelines you say, I make the final call on when I start or how deep I go.. The answer is the same for flarm, the data is there, faults and all. You choose to use it, or not....
>
> The good news is that days will soon be getting longer again..
>
> See you at cloudbase ;-)
>
> Luke

I find all this long look into the future rather short sighted. What are our goals in all this? The message I am hearing from some is there should be no goals, no boundaries, no definition of the sport. Okay let's take a look at that.

Unlimited technology in the cockpit leads to really good sharing of existing, marked thermals by ADS-B units (or other technology) talking to each other. Doppler sensors (already in existence) or the like are developed to the point where they will enable the pilot to see thermals, maybe even with a heads-up display. That information is shared between aircraft and a system on the ground. This is all expensive at first but not too bad as time goes on. Processors are developed to determine the best path to soar between any two points. This is resolved eventually into flight director commands or maybe even auto pilot usage. These are dynamic paths that vary somewhat right to left and of course need a block altitude and circling to make them work. Basically, we've solved soaring at this point.

To what end? Now nearly as soon as a person gets a private pilot's license they can go cross country. The difference between a novice and an expert glider pilot becomes more like the difference between a really good airline pilot and a newbie airline pilot. Those in the know can tell but an outside observer can't see the difference. What's the incentive to enter the sport at all?

There turns out to be very limited commercial application for all of this. Some unmanned aerial vehicles gain greater fuel efficiency as they patrol the border. But generally the routes are too low, can only be used with convective weather and they don't necessarily go where the people and boxes want to go.

General aviation and the government take an interest, though. There is a new generation of general aviation planes that have motors but use these new flexible e-routes to navigate to and fro and save fuel. The government develops a new flexible ATC system to handle these routes. Will soaring pilots need to talk to ATC, too?

Basically general aviation and soaring kind of merge into one. In other words, we have lost our identity. Some will say this is all inevitable. Some will say this will never happen. I don't buy the latter argument given all we done so far. To think it is not possible would be close minded.

It seems to me we should get in front of this and figure our what we are about.

XC

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 8th 15, 03:16 PM

I am skeptical of the usefulness of an instantaneous God-map of lift. The weather is too dynamic for that and gliders just don't cover anywhere near enough of the available territory. The occasional convergence line or other local secret will be a little less secret and the occasional newbie landout will be avoided. Racing will be ever so slightly more competitive because some of the randomness of getting stuck for 45 minutes or landing out will go away - some, not most, certainly not all. You can take comfort in the certainty that people will still land out. If you want more landouts we can go back to requiring all assigned tasks or making tasks a lot longer. Oddly, packing gliders tighter together with more leeching possible has been associated with more landouts, not less.

Power pilots have a different name for what glider pilots call lift - turbulence. I can't imagine any serious power flight deciding to run glider lift lines to save energy or gain speed. It's a rough ride and makes it harder to hold altitude steady. I've tried it. The FAA won't be a fan - ever. Plus there are more power planes than gliders by a lot. They get a lot more benefit out of matching flight levels to more favorable winds.

I just don't see giving the pilot more information as a bad thing and setting rules to filter information to the pilot seems a losing battle.

Cheap Lidar will arrive eventually. It could be cool. Blipmaps are cool too - on convergence and wave days they take most of the guesswork out of where the lift will be. I quite like Blipmaps, but I'm not going to program them into an autopilot.

9B

[email protected]

December 8th 15, 03:45 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 10:16:09 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> I am skeptical of the usefulness of an instantaneous God-map of lift. The weather is too dynamic for that and gliders just don't cover anywhere near enough of the available territory. The occasional convergence line or other local secret will be a little less secret and the occasional newbie landout will be avoided. Racing will be ever so slightly more competitive because some of the randomness of getting stuck for 45 minutes or landing out will go away - some, not most, certainly not all. You can take comfort in the certainty that people will still land out. If you want more landouts we can go back to requiring all assigned tasks or making tasks a lot longer. Oddly, packing gliders tighter together with more leeching possible has been associated with more landouts, not less.
>
> Power pilots have a different name for what glider pilots call lift - turbulence. I can't imagine any serious power flight deciding to run glider lift lines to save energy or gain speed. It's a rough ride and makes it harder to hold altitude steady. I've tried it. The FAA won't be a fan - ever. Plus there are more power planes than gliders by a lot. They get a lot more benefit out of matching flight levels to more favorable winds.
>
> I just don't see giving the pilot more information as a bad thing and setting rules to filter information to the pilot seems a losing battle.
>
> Cheap Lidar will arrive eventually. It could be cool. Blipmaps are cool too - on convergence and wave days they take most of the guesswork out of where the lift will be. I quite like Blipmaps, but I'm not going to program them into an autopilot.
>
> 9B

How about a scout plane put ahead to map the lift for only me, enabled by all this cool technology?
That takes even more guess work out.
Gonna like that too?
BTW- it has been done chasing world records.
It's all about where the line gets drawn and there will be many opinions.
Hiding under the desk.
UH

Sean Fidler

December 8th 15, 04:05 PM

Hi Bruno,

I fully support the concept of limiting the tactical data (although I think the value of that data is over hyped, especially in US contest and huge area tasks). That said, I do not believe that stealth mode is anywhere near perfected. I think it might be a bad idea to push hard to adopt this new rule in the US (and adding new technical tasks to contest pilots that could result in a major penalty). I also think that stealth mode may have some yet unclear safety implications and in general may be a change with initially negative effects. I see no need to rush it into the Us rules this season.. I think we need to move slowly on this and not rush into a change based on a problem that is at best minor when compared to the safety positives. Let's let the Europeans and the major contests of 2016 test stealth mode and perfect this for us. A year is not a big deal! I think a bigger problem is 1) 100% adoption of Flarm in the USA and especially US contests (I see no reason for stealth mode if Flarm is not mandatory or can be selectively shut off!), 2) installation quality issues and consistent high performance and 3) (KEY) training and familiarization of all pilots to using the Flarm technology in a crowded contest environment. That is where I would focus my efforts this season if I were on he RC. A perceived tactical advantage from Flarm is a distant, distant second to the far more important points above. I hope this helps clarify my position.

I'm generally in favor of the idea of stealth mode, but want to see it tested and sorted before implementing in the US.

Sorry to confuse you on this. I am on a slightly narrow edge on this topic..

Sincerely, Sean.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 8th 15, 04:05 PM

Hi Hank,

I thought team flying was permitted at the WGC, so teams already do send "rabbits" out in front of their best placing pilots. I've heard people on both sides of the technology argument say they quite enjoy team flying, be it formal teams or informal pickup groups that cruise along and take turns finding thermals.

I prefer totally open info sharing to formal team flying, because of the "best prom date" effect, but we do allow it in Regional rules as you know. US Nationals is the one place where it is forbidden.

Paying a non-competitor to generate information just for you seems like a violation of human assistance principle.

9B

Sean Fidler

December 8th 15, 04:11 PM

Good point. The information presentation of the expensive flight computers appears to be the key advantage in leverage Flarm as a leeching tool...but I fear the powers that be would never allow this to become a serious argument.

Although, they did, quite recently I think, ban XC Soars AH field and force the software developers to come up with US contest legal software versions, did they not? It would seem logical, based on the major concern Flarm leeching appears to be now, to require a similar contest legal software version for these advanced Flarm displays. I wonder?

Hmmm. Sigh. :-)

jfitch

December 8th 15, 04:11 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 4:07:23 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 1:28:07 AM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> > I dot want to go off topic here but we're on RAS so what the hell...
> >
> > According to google play store XCSoar has 50 thousand + unique user installations. While this number includes sailplane, para and hang glider pilots it only accounts for those using android os who installed it via google play. It does not include manual installations, nor those on legacy platforms (windows mobile etc). When talking about tactical moving map displays I am pretty sure that this number alone excedes the user base of LX Nav, LX Navigation and Clearnav combined. Add to that pilots who fly with XCSoar forks like LK8000 and Top Hat not to mention those flying with WinPilot, See You Mobile and GNII and its pretty easy to see that mobile devices connected to IGC flight data recorders or using built in gps are by far the more common configuration.
> >
> >
> > Back to the topic at hand. You seem think that flarm data somehow allows others to make a huge gamble that wins the day. On a tricky day the BVR data is of no use because the air is cycled by the time you get there. On a good day it's also useles.. You are better off staying with your own energy line rather than making huge deviations for something that may or may not be better...
> >
> > In your arguments for mandatory stealth mode you use "spirit of competition" rethoric. Correct me if I am wrong but you fly with a Clear Nav, an instrument like all other modern flight computers that tells you the optimal start position, the optimal vector to the turn point, the optimized turn point in a turn area so you make it home within seconds of the minimum time on course, all this while at the same time it assists in centering a thermal, calculates the wind, landable options and your final glide for you. I ask you where is the spirit of competition in that? Ah - but those are just guidelines you say, I make the final call on when I start or how deep I go. The answer is the same for flarm, the data is there, faults and all. You choose to use it, or not....
> >
> > The good news is that days will soon be getting longer again..
> >
> > See you at cloudbase ;-)
> >
> > Luke
>
> I find all this long look into the future rather short sighted. What are our goals in all this? The message I am hearing from some is there should be no goals, no boundaries, no definition of the sport. Okay let's take a look at that.
>
> Unlimited technology in the cockpit leads to really good sharing of existing, marked thermals by ADS-B units (or other technology) talking to each other. Doppler sensors (already in existence) or the like are developed to the point where they will enable the pilot to see thermals, maybe even with a heads-up display. That information is shared between aircraft and a system on the ground. This is all expensive at first but not too bad as time goes on. Processors are developed to determine the best path to soar between any two points. This is resolved eventually into flight director commands or maybe even auto pilot usage. These are dynamic paths that vary somewhat right to left and of course need a block altitude and circling to make them work. Basically, we've solved soaring at this point.
>
> To what end? Now nearly as soon as a person gets a private pilot's license they can go cross country. The difference between a novice and an expert glider pilot becomes more like the difference between a really good airline pilot and a newbie airline pilot. Those in the know can tell but an outside observer can't see the difference. What's the incentive to enter the sport at all?
>
> There turns out to be very limited commercial application for all of this.. Some unmanned aerial vehicles gain greater fuel efficiency as they patrol the border. But generally the routes are too low, can only be used with convective weather and they don't necessarily go where the people and boxes want to go.
>
> General aviation and the government take an interest, though. There is a new generation of general aviation planes that have motors but use these new flexible e-routes to navigate to and fro and save fuel. The government develops a new flexible ATC system to handle these routes. Will soaring pilots need to talk to ATC, too?
>
> Basically general aviation and soaring kind of merge into one. In other words, we have lost our identity. Some will say this is all inevitable. Some will say this will never happen. I don't buy the latter argument given all we done so far. To think it is not possible would be close minded.
>
> It seems to me we should get in front of this and figure our what we are about.
>
> XC

Regardless of what you are able to write into racing rules, these technologies will exist, and if thought valuable, will be widely adopted. You cannot put the genie back into the bottle. Remember that the vast majority of pilots do not race in SSA sanctioned contests. In that event, SSA racing will become like vintage auto racing is now - a backwater corner of the sport.

Sean Fidler

December 8th 15, 04:24 PM

;-). Exactly.

[email protected]

December 8th 15, 04:25 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 11:05:24 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Hi Hank,
>
> I thought team flying was permitted at the WGC, so teams already do send "rabbits" out in front of their best placing pilots. I've heard people on both sides of the technology argument say they quite enjoy team flying, be it formal teams or informal pickup groups that cruise along and take turns finding thermals.
>
> I prefer totally open info sharing to formal team flying, because of the "best prom date" effect, but we do allow it in Regional rules as you know. US Nationals is the one place where it is forbidden.
>
> Paying a non-competitor to generate information just for you seems like a violation of human assistance principle.
>
> 9B

Yes they do at the WGC, but we do not in the US. That, of course opens another topic for ranting.
In Regionals it can be permitted on assumption that it could be a useful teaching tool for newbies.
Maybe the information sharer is a friend who is a competitor. Who wants to get beaten by 2 people who are team flying and we don't even know it? Not me.
UH

Sean Fidler

December 8th 15, 04:31 PM

;-)

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 8th 15, 05:00 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 8:25:08 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 11:05:24 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Hi Hank,
> >
> > I thought team flying was permitted at the WGC, so teams already do send "rabbits" out in front of their best placing pilots. I've heard people on both sides of the technology argument say they quite enjoy team flying, be it formal teams or informal pickup groups that cruise along and take turns finding thermals.
> >
> > I prefer totally open info sharing to formal team flying, because of the "best prom date" effect, but we do allow it in Regional rules as you know.. US Nationals is the one place where it is forbidden.
> >
> > Paying a non-competitor to generate information just for you seems like a violation of human assistance principle.
> >
> > 9B
>
> Yes they do at the WGC, but we do not in the US. That, of course opens another topic for ranting.
> In Regionals it can be permitted on assumption that it could be a useful teaching tool for newbies.
> Maybe the information sharer is a friend who is a competitor. Who wants to get beaten by 2 people who are team flying and we don't even know it? Not me.
> UH

All the more reason for openness. Then there is no advantage because the information isn't proprietary.

FYI, I just ordered one of those consumer ISM-band (like Flarm) GPS tags and basestation systems that are used by consumers. The tags last for 45 days, are the size of a set of car keys and have a range on the ground of up to four miles - presumably more in the air without obstructions. You could have one on your glider (maybe you put it there yourself, maybe not) - depending on the location it could be very hard to find.

9B

Sean Fidler

December 8th 15, 07:03 PM

Exactly.

December 8th 15, 07:45 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 10:16:09 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> I am skeptical of the usefulness of an instantaneous God-map of lift. The weather is too dynamic for that and gliders just don't cover anywhere near enough of the available territory. The occasional convergence line or other local secret will be a little less secret and the occasional newbie landout will be avoided. Racing will be ever so slightly more competitive because some of the randomness of getting stuck for 45 minutes or landing out will go away - some, not most, certainly not all. You can take comfort in the certainty that people will still land out. If you want more landouts we can go back to requiring all assigned tasks or making tasks a lot longer. Oddly, packing gliders tighter together with more leeching possible has been associated with more landouts, not less.
>
> Power pilots have a different name for what glider pilots call lift - turbulence. I can't imagine any serious power flight deciding to run glider lift lines to save energy or gain speed. It's a rough ride and makes it harder to hold altitude steady. I've tried it. The FAA won't be a fan - ever. Plus there are more power planes than gliders by a lot. They get a lot more benefit out of matching flight levels to more favorable winds.
>
> I just don't see giving the pilot more information as a bad thing and setting rules to filter information to the pilot seems a losing battle.
>
> Cheap Lidar will arrive eventually. It could be cool. Blipmaps are cool too - on convergence and wave days they take most of the guesswork out of where the lift will be. I quite like Blipmaps, but I'm not going to program them into an autopilot.
>
> 9B

Andy,
You are assuming here that we will develop and use all these great things and somehow stop short of being able to fly around more or less at will. It is hard to imagine now, yes, but who is to say what is possible.

Remember that general aviation will evolve as well. Flying in a straight line may be a thing of the past as we find a more energy efficient way of navigating the sky for them. Holding altitude will fall by the wayside as well as it is very inefficient. GA aircraft may come to look very much like gliders. They may glide and only provide bursts of propulsion when needed. With the blending of the future glider technology, the range of GA aircraft could be seriously extended. ATC is not static either, though it is the FAA. You could imagine an entirely flexible ATC system that would allow for these glider like, bobbing and weaving routes.

Even if you are unwilling to envision an overlap of GA with gliding, you might concede that the two types of flying could become very similar. The result for us would be the same, the loss of the our identity, the loss of our sport.

XC

Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)

December 8th 15, 08:11 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 10:16:09 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
> Power pilots have a different name for what glider pilots call lift - turbulence. I can't imagine any serious power flight deciding to run glider lift lines to save energy or gain speed. It's a rough ride and makes it harder to hold altitude steady. I've tried it. The FAA won't be a fan - ever. Plus there are more power planes than gliders by a lot. They get a lot more benefit out of matching flight levels to more favorable winds.
>

>
> 9B

I will say, when I did my "long cross country" (Middletown NY to Keuka Lake NY & back) for power SEL private, I was a "glider pilot" partly because I was in a Cessna 150.
I got up near cloudbase, then ran streets using the trim to maintain altitude but gained a lot of speed at times.
A 150 is not known for cross country speed.......

Winds that day were very minor, lift streets MORE than made up for it (along with a slightly longer distance covered). Flying higher, the winds would likely have made more of a difference.

In general though, I would agree with you.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 8th 15, 09:06 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 11:45:57 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 10:16:09 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > I am skeptical of the usefulness of an instantaneous God-map of lift. The weather is too dynamic for that and gliders just don't cover anywhere near enough of the available territory. The occasional convergence line or other local secret will be a little less secret and the occasional newbie landout will be avoided. Racing will be ever so slightly more competitive because some of the randomness of getting stuck for 45 minutes or landing out will go away - some, not most, certainly not all. You can take comfort in the certainty that people will still land out. If you want more landouts we can go back to requiring all assigned tasks or making tasks a lot longer. Oddly, packing gliders tighter together with more leeching possible has been associated with more landouts, not less.
> >
> > Power pilots have a different name for what glider pilots call lift - turbulence. I can't imagine any serious power flight deciding to run glider lift lines to save energy or gain speed. It's a rough ride and makes it harder to hold altitude steady. I've tried it. The FAA won't be a fan - ever. Plus there are more power planes than gliders by a lot. They get a lot more benefit out of matching flight levels to more favorable winds.
> >
> > I just don't see giving the pilot more information as a bad thing and setting rules to filter information to the pilot seems a losing battle.
> >
> > Cheap Lidar will arrive eventually. It could be cool. Blipmaps are cool too - on convergence and wave days they take most of the guesswork out of where the lift will be. I quite like Blipmaps, but I'm not going to program them into an autopilot.
> >
> > 9B
>
> Andy,
> You are assuming here that we will develop and use all these great things and somehow stop short of being able to fly around more or less at will. It is hard to imagine now, yes, but who is to say what is possible.
>
> Remember that general aviation will evolve as well. Flying in a straight line may be a thing of the past as we find a more energy efficient way of navigating the sky for them. Holding altitude will fall by the wayside as well as it is very inefficient. GA aircraft may come to look very much like gliders. They may glide and only provide bursts of propulsion when needed. With the blending of the future glider technology, the range of GA aircraft could be seriously extended. ATC is not static either, though it is the FAA.. You could imagine an entirely flexible ATC system that would allow for these glider like, bobbing and weaving routes.
>
> Even if you are unwilling to envision an overlap of GA with gliding, you might concede that the two types of flying could become very similar. The result for us would be the same, the loss of the our identity, the loss of our sport.
>
> XC

You can never say never - well, almost never. ;-)

It's also impossible to predict what will become of glider racing in a world where you, for instance, almost never need to stop and thermal as a result of improvements in materials, aerodynamics, dynamic soaring and even variometers, flight computers and sensors. The thought of not grinding around as much in the heat and humidity, getting vertigo and dehydrated certainly appeals. Many people marvel at and quite like the cruising of lift lines that has come with the latest technologies in hardware and software. I'd hate to preclude it before it gets here. The increases in speeds and distances could be astonishing.

The part that I am most skeptical about is that the pilot will become irrelevant. It's just way too dynamic and varied an environment to leave to even a supercomputer with deep learning algorithms, access to all the boundary layer weather models and every single bit of real-time data we can capture. I see the micro-level forecasting models getting better faster than any predictions of what you can glean from 1-second samples of gliders position, course and speed. That information you'll be able to download before launch..

Yes, we may face a different range of differentiation in competitor performance as the sport evolves. Back when I first started racing and there were only assigned tasks (Sean Fidler - you missed it!) we had a lot more landouts, a lot more scatter in the scores and a lot more randomness I think most would argue. Less randomness and more finishers keep more good pilots in the hunt which is good. It should surprise no one that the general ordering of the scoresheet doesn't change very much over years (or decades!) altered only by the exceptional new talent, retirement and the occasional old dog who learns new tricks (usually by flying A LOT). Anxiety that some skateboarding kid with Xbox gaming as his main racing credential will snake us all out of our medallions is misplaced. But should that come to pass - well, we can take it up then. I for one would like to see a few more kids give up Xbox gaming for glider racing and I am heartened by some small gains in junior soaring - including a talented trio in Australia right now!

Sean Fidler

December 8th 15, 09:24 PM

Wow. We are really out there now. I think the word is "philosophizing!" Deep guys! Deep! Deep words with Jack Handey deep!

;-). https://youtu.be/Ea5fqGrx7sI

[email protected]

December 8th 15, 09:51 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 4:24:07 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Wow. We are really out there now. I think the word is "philosophizing!" Deep guys! Deep! Deep words with Jack Handey deep!
>
> ;-). https://youtu.be/Ea5fqGrx7sI

Sean,
Thanks for the laugh!

I still think many are enamored with all the technology on the horizon. It certainly is coming at us with such a rapid pace. We are not thinking what is beyond the horizon.

XC

[email protected]

December 8th 15, 10:04 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 4:52:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 4:24:07 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > Wow. We are really out there now. I think the word is "philosophizing!" Deep guys! Deep! Deep words with Jack Handey deep!
> >
> > ;-). https://youtu.be/Ea5fqGrx7sI
>
> Sean,
> Thanks for the laugh!
>
> I still think many are enamored with all the technology on the horizon. It certainly is coming at us with such a rapid pace. We are not thinking what is beyond the horizon.
>
> XC

Read section 6.6 below.
Permissible stuff is limited and much of what might be contemplated by some is outside what is allowed. For 2016 phones will be permitted for tracking only.
UH
6.6 Restricted Equipment
6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
* Permits flight without reference to the ground.
* Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at a distance greater than one wingspan.
6.6.2 An external cleaning device is any device with moving parts designed to clean the exterior of the sailplane during flight, such as bugwipers.
The use of such devices is allowed in all classes Rule 6.12.
6.6.3 Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,
commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight capabilities beyond those referenced below:
6.6.3.1 An aircraft-band VHF radio
6.6.3.2 An aircraft transponder
6.6.3.3 A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)
6.6.3.4 A air-to-ground position reporting device
6.6.3.5 An anti-collision device. Rule 6.6.3 does not forbid the use of a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by the
device.
6.6.4 Other than an aircraft-band VHF radio, any device that allows in-flight access to weather data is prohibited.
6.6.5 Violations of any provisions of this Rule are considered Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (Penalty described in Rule 12.2.5.3.)

Sean Fidler

December 8th 15, 10:12 PM

Indeed. As a country, the US needs to increase our support for these amazing US junior pilots and give them every opportunity to move to the top of the standings at the next junior world championship. These kids are very special, truly awesome, talented pilots and we should be talking more about how to get them on the podium for the next one (more training), and less about stealth mode to be honest. At the same time we need to also support and develop the younger pilots just behind them. This is were I would like to see us all focus. Imagine if we had this much energy and effort behind the US junior team. See the video below...

Anyway, do they have Flarm mandatory in Australia at the FAI Junior Worlds? Are they running normal or stealth mode? It would be interesting to hear JP, Boyd or Daniel's (and the coaches) take on what's happening in the air strategically with respect to Flarm (did they bring in fancy flight computers for example) with Flarm and if the "Uber teams" are taking advantage of it. I've been watching the traces. Seems to me that the top teams are extremely disciplined in their tactics, well coached, well and coordinated as teams (team flying), etc. Obviously they are far more highly funded and have more time to practice as a junior team then our kids have had to this point. Even Australia has a massive Junior program. Australia has been sending its Junior team to Europe for example and doing training camps (3 weeks per year) even with an equal or greater expanse of a country than the USA...

http://youtu.be/xY9FiqQBYAU

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 8th 15, 10:25 PM

Live long and prosper! How can we do that if we are not constantly evolving to accept the changes in our world (i.e., new technologies, philosophies, morays ).

The progression of change remains ever constance, clocks that bind will be left to rust.

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 1:24:07 PM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Wow. We are really out there now. I think the word is "philosophizing!" Deep guys! Deep! Deep words with Jack Handey deep!
>
> ;-). https://youtu.be/Ea5fqGrx7sI

Andrzej Kobus

December 8th 15, 10:31 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:04:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 4:52:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 4:24:07 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > > Wow. We are really out there now. I think the word is "philosophizing!" Deep guys! Deep! Deep words with Jack Handey deep!
> > >
> > > ;-). https://youtu.be/Ea5fqGrx7sI
> >
> > Sean,
> > Thanks for the laugh!
> >
> > I still think many are enamored with all the technology on the horizon. It certainly is coming at us with such a rapid pace. We are not thinking what is beyond the horizon.
> >
> > XC
>
> Read section 6.6 below.
> Permissible stuff is limited and much of what might be contemplated by some is outside what is allowed. For 2016 phones will be permitted for tracking only.
> UH
> 6.6 Restricted Equipment
> 6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
> * Permits flight without reference to the ground.
> * Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at a distance greater than one wingspan.
> 6.6.2 An external cleaning device is any device with moving parts designed to clean the exterior of the sailplane during flight, such as bugwipers.
> The use of such devices is allowed in all classes Rule 6.12.
> 6.6.3 Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,
> commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight capabilities beyond those referenced below:
> 6.6.3.1 An aircraft-band VHF radio
> 6.6.3.2 An aircraft transponder
> 6.6.3.3 A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)
> 6.6.3.4 A air-to-ground position reporting device
> 6.6.3.5 An anti-collision device. Rule 6.6.3 does not forbid the use of a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by the
> device.
> 6.6.4 Other than an aircraft-band VHF radio, any device that allows in-flight access to weather data is prohibited.
> 6.6.5 Violations of any provisions of this Rule are considered Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (Penalty described in Rule 12.2.5.3.)

I think we are all set with the ADS-B out according to these rules since it is the transponder that sends the GPS position, at least for ADS-B out on 1090 it is the case. At least one thing we don't need to argue about.

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 8th 15, 11:52 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 1:52:01 PM UTC-8, wrote:

We are not thinking what is beyond the horizon.

http://belovedplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/flat-earth-3-1024x961.jpg

John Cochrane[_3_]

December 9th 15, 01:10 AM

> Permissible stuff is limited and much of what might be contemplated by some is outside what is allowed. For 2016 phones will be permitted for tracking only.
> UH
> 6.6 Restricted Equipment
> 6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
> * Permits flight without reference to the ground.
> * Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at a distance greater than one wingspan.
> 6.6.2 An external cleaning device is any device with moving parts designed to clean the exterior of the sailplane during flight, such as bugwipers.
> The use of such devices is allowed in all classes Rule 6.12.
> 6.6.3 Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,
> commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight capabilities beyond those referenced below:
> 6.6.3.1 An aircraft-band VHF radio
> 6.6.3.2 An aircraft transponder
> 6.6.3.3 A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)
> 6.6.3.4 A air-to-ground position reporting device
> 6.6.3.5 An anti-collision device. Rule 6.6.3 does not forbid the use of a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by the
> device.
> 6.6.4 Other than an aircraft-band VHF radio, any device that allows in-flight access to weather data is prohibited.
> 6.6.5 Violations of any provisions of this Rule are considered Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (Penalty described in Rule 12.2.5.3.)

And enforcement of these rules is a good sign of where stealth will likely end up. Thank goodness at least that we're not doing complex procedures for showing you have disabled AHRS modules of xcsoar, lx, etc. Though "carriage" is illegal. Interest in patrolling cockpits to see who has that, who has a truetrack, who is bringing an Ipad, or iphone, what software they are running (foreflight, ADSB receivers, weather radar); who has two way radios (reported a few times), is zero. Interest in checking who is on 123.3 and not one of the other well known frequencies, zero.

Just what is the point of writing rules like this, I don't know. We had a good proposal to throw the whole rubbish out last year, I guess that's gone by the wayside.

The hilarious Rule 6.6.2 nicely characterizes where we're going.

John Cochrane

[email protected]

December 9th 15, 02:27 AM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 6:52:28 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 1:52:01 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> We are not thinking what is beyond the horizon.
>
> http://belovedplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/flat-earth-3-1024x961.jpg

Exactly.

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 9th 15, 02:40 AM

I wonder if the Strobe in the leading edge of the fin is considered an illegal anti-collision device?

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:10:23 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Permissible stuff is limited and much of what might be contemplated by some is outside what is allowed. For 2016 phones will be permitted for tracking only.
> > UH
> > 6.6 Restricted Equipment
.....
> > 6.6.3.5 An anti-collision device. Rule 6.6.3 does not forbid the use of a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by the
> > device...

> > 6.6.5 Violations of any provisions of this Rule are considered Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (Penalty described in Rule 12.2.5.3.)
>
>
> And enforcement of these rules is a good sign of where stealth will likely end up. Thank goodness at least that we're not doing complex procedures for showing you have disabled AHRS modules of xcsoar, lx, etc. Though "carriage" is illegal. Interest in patrolling cockpits to see who has that, who has a truetrack, who is bringing an Ipad, or iphone, what software they are running (foreflight, ADSB receivers, weather radar); who has two way radios (reported a few times), is zero. Interest in checking who is on 123.3 and not one of the other well known frequencies, zero.
>
> Just what is the point of writing rules like this, I don't know. We had a good proposal to throw the whole rubbish out last year, I guess that's gone by the wayside.
>
> The hilarious Rule 6.6.2 nicely characterizes where we're going.
>
> John Cochrane

Dan Daly[_2_]

December 9th 15, 02:46 AM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:12:43 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:

>
> Anyway, do they have Flarm mandatory in Australia at the FAI Junior Worlds? Are they running normal or stealth mode?
>

Sean, from local procedures: "A functioning FLARM configured to function in Australia must be carried and remain powered on for the duration of all competition flights. Please note European PowerFLARM units do not work in Australia.
FLARM devices will not be provided by the organisers."

No word on stealth, so I assume not.

Dan

December 9th 15, 12:19 PM

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:12:43 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Indeed. As a country, the US needs to increase our support for these amazing US junior pilots and give them every opportunity to move to the top of the standings at the next junior world championship. These kids are very special, truly awesome, talented pilots and we should be talking more about how to get them on the podium for the next one (more training), and less about stealth mode to be honest. At the same time we need to also support and develop the younger pilots just behind them. This is were I would like to see us all focus. Imagine if we had this much energy and effort behind the US junior team. See the video below...
>
> Anyway, do they have Flarm mandatory in Australia at the FAI Junior Worlds? Are they running normal or stealth mode? It would be interesting to hear JP, Boyd or Daniel's (and the coaches) take on what's happening in the air strategically with respect to Flarm (did they bring in fancy flight computers for example) with Flarm and if the "Uber teams" are taking advantage of it. I've been watching the traces. Seems to me that the top teams are extremely disciplined in their tactics, well coached, well and coordinated as teams (team flying), etc. Obviously they are far more highly funded and have more time to practice as a junior team then our kids have had to this point. Even Australia has a massive Junior program. Australia has been sending its Junior team to Europe for example and doing training camps (3 weeks per year) even with an equal or greater expanse of a country than the USA...
>
> http://youtu.be/xY9FiqQBYAU

Good point, Sean. And it is interesting that a discussion on FLARM, stealth and now future technologies would come around to juniors in soaring. We get so caught up in what we want in our gliders and in our glider race we forget there will be no racing without new people coming in.

The critical years to get junior pilots to go on to racing is not 14-18 years old but 18-25. Somewhere in there they have to go to college and return to the sport. Two factors come immediately to mind, the challenge and the start up costs.

Having seen several juniors go through our program I notice that those that were led by the nose around all their cross countries don't seem to return to the sport. Apparently sense of accomplishment is important. Making gliding easier or eliminating land outs through the use of every available technology is not enhancing this sense of accomplishment.

During their college years or right after they have to get a glider and start racing. This glider has to come from a benefactor, a club, or initial purchase. Getting excited young people together with these gliders should be our most important objective. Our club supports a Discus CS and a Duo for this purpose. The cost of this is a discussion that comes up each year. The more elaborate this initial glider is the more difficult this problem becomes.

XC

Sean Fidler

December 9th 15, 04:36 PM

Your club is really doing great. No doubt. We need 20 more like it and 6 more years with a national plan...

Both JP and Daniel are currently right in the middle of college. So are many of the other Junior world competitors. It's a challenge, but it's also a strength. It's simply a matter of perspective. I view it as a matter of helping them understand the value of the effort and the accomplishment on their resume.

For me at that age, being 21 and on the US sailing team didn't hurt in job interviews. It was an extremely valuable tool and really set me apart from my competition for jobs.

For me today, hiring a normal, smart kid with average life experience on their resume, and in the interview is fine...but a kid who is, say, a highly competitive glider pilot who trains and travels to international competitions is going to stand out a little bit. I personally view it almost as a military level of self discipline and focus. I imagine many others would view it similarly.

And, the Europeans and the Australians and most other gliding countries are doing much better overall at developing, maintaining and growing junior talent. There are many reasons and we can study them for sure. The truth is that we are INCREDIBLY lucky to have JP, Daniel and Boyd flying for the USA. They are anomalies really. If they didn't fall out of the sky we might not even have a Jr team at all this year. And behind them are not that many others...

We (the SSA) really do need to focus much more seriously on this challenge. We need to get out of SSA maintenance mode and get into SSA innovation and rebuilding mode. The value all the way around the table is much larger than the average person here is realizing. We absolutely need a vibrant junior soaring competition culture in the USA! A big challenge but essential.

[email protected]

December 9th 15, 04:51 PM

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 11:36:33 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Your club is really doing great. No doubt. We need 20 more like it and 6 more years with a national plan...
>
> Both JP and Daniel are currently right in the middle of college. So are many of the other Junior world competitors. It's a challenge, but it's also a strength. It's simply a matter of perspective. I view it as a matter of helping them understand the value of the effort and the accomplishment on their resume.
>
> For me at that age, being 21 and on the US sailing team didn't hurt in job interviews. It was an extremely valuable tool and really set me apart from my competition for jobs.
>
> For me today, hiring a normal, smart kid with average life experience on their resume, and in the interview is fine...but a kid who is, say, a highly competitive glider pilot who trains and travels to international competitions is going to stand out a little bit. I personally view it almost as a military level of self discipline and focus. I imagine many others would view it similarly.
>
> And, the Europeans and the Australians and most other gliding countries are doing much better overall at developing, maintaining and growing junior talent. There are many reasons and we can study them for sure. The truth is that we are INCREDIBLY lucky to have JP, Daniel and Boyd flying for the USA. They are anomalies really. If they didn't fall out of the sky we might not even have a Jr team at all this year. And behind them are not that many others...
>
> We (the SSA) really do need to focus much more seriously on this challenge. We need to get out of SSA maintenance mode and get into SSA innovation and rebuilding mode. The value all the way around the table is much larger than the average person here is realizing. We absolutely need a vibrant junior soaring competition culture in the USA! A big challenge but essential.

One small correction. They did not fall out of the sky. They were identified, supported, nurtured, and sponsored to allow them to get to where they are.
I only wish the next group coming up was over there to watch and learn.
UH

December 9th 15, 08:10 PM

> Power pilots have a different name for what glider pilots call lift - turbulence. I can't imagine any serious power flight deciding to run glider lift lines to save energy or gain speed.

errrm....

"In 1947, two pilots from Bishop began a flying service in the area and soon were spending much of their time exploring the dynamics of the Bishop Wave, as it was initially called. In 1950, one of the pilots, Bob Symons, flew his P-38 powered aircraft into the Bishop Wave, cut the engines, feathered the propellers and soared for more than an hour on the powerful lift. Afterwards, several entities joined forces to sponsor the Sierra Wave Project, the first international meteorological study of these amazing mountain winds."

I also heard of a guy who thermalled a j3 cub on his check-ride and actually gained altitude after the examiner cut the engine on him. examiner was speechless.

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 9th 15, 08:16 PM

Bit off subject but, Cal City used to have a photo of a Pawnee panel, engine stops and the vertical speed indicator indicating up (no sure how much but I kind of remember 500 ft/min). Have many times used ridge lift in a helicopter or wave lift in a heavy pressurized twin. Now if I could only find a thermal while flying a glider :)

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:10:48 PM UTC-8, ND wrote:
> > Power pilots have a different name for what glider pilots call lift - turbulence. I can't imagine any serious power flight deciding to run glider lift lines to save energy or gain speed.
>
> errrm....
>
> "In 1947, two pilots from Bishop began a flying service in the area and soon were spending much of their time exploring the dynamics of the Bishop Wave, as it was initially called. In 1950, one of the pilots, Bob Symons, flew his P-38 powered aircraft into the Bishop Wave, cut the engines, feathered the propellers and soared for more than an hour on the powerful lift. Afterwards, several entities joined forces to sponsor the Sierra Wave Project, the first international meteorological study of these amazing mountain winds."
>
> I also heard of a guy who thermalled a j3 cub on his check-ride and actually gained altitude after the examiner cut the engine on him. examiner was speechless.

Sean Fidler

December 9th 15, 09:15 PM

Standing corrected. Let me clarify. I meant they were not part of a strong national junior development program since early youth. They had to be lucky enough, talented enough, dedicated enough and determined enough to develop the skills to fly cross country at this level without an organized national junior program, system and culture, like the other major soaring countries seem to have. That is a significant handicap that we can eliminate for them and those coming up behind them.

Great point about why don't we have some 15, 16, and 17 year olds over there experiencing the event and being motivated by the accomplishments of their older peers to achieve this level. Very good point...

It all comes down to an organized, strategic program to accomplish a goal in terms of US junior soaring and the US junior soaring team...

Sean

[email protected]

December 10th 15, 02:49 PM

WaltWX[_2_]

December 11th 15, 02:21 AM

I'm voting NO with John Cochrane BB at this time for mandated stealth mode at contests. True... I've never flown a mandated stealth only contest. But, I've flown enough FLARM contests to see it's value. Here's my thinking behind it:

1) Given that one only hears collision advisories with 15-20 secs from impact... I seriously wonder if a little more situational awareness would further mitigate mid air collisions. There really haven't been any studies or tests that show stealth mode as NOT DEGRADING its collision advisory effectiveness.

2) FLARM the manufacturer doesn't recommend stealth mode.

3) The advantage FLARM gives allowing leeching on other pilots is probably over rated. Sure... it helps in some situations. But, I don't think it overwhelmingly distorts a competition. The very best competitors always seems to prevail no matter what.

4) Let's not make things harder for contest management... and simplify it for competitors.

5) Does stealth mode filter out ADS-B warnings also? Docs from FLARM do not make that clear. I certainly do NOT want to filter out power traffic advisories.

Walt Rogers WX

Gary Ittner[_2_]

December 12th 15, 12:10 AM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> Actually, sane pilots have been afraid of midairs, west and east, for a long time. In my time on the rules committee, concern over midairs has been most pilots' number one safety worry. The owens valley pilots developed a whole protocol about high speed oncoming traffic.
>
> Then flarm came along, offering some - -not perfect -- help on this topic.. Wise pilots should still be very "afraid" of midairs.
>
> Now it is proposed to force all pilots to intentionally degrade flarm. You can't argue that this does not have some safety implications. The question is simple: how much safety degradation it has, how much you care about that, how much loss of enjoyment it has (knowing where your buddies are, etc..) vs. how much doing so improves (or not) the quality of contest soaring. Once everyone has gotten used to the technology (see the GPS wars)
>
> John cochrane BB

I flew in the Stealth-mandatory Nationals at Elmira. It was my first
experience with Stealth mode, I liked it, and I found that it in no way
degraded the safety benefits of Flarm.

In fact, I say Stealth makes contests safer. Eliminating all the TMI leeching
stuff from the radar screen, means there is less reason for the pilot's eyes
to be on that screen. His eyes can then spend more time outside the cockpit,
where true situational awareness will be found.

For John Cochrane to flatly state that Stealth mode degrades Flarm safety, is
just plain wrong. He has not flown in an all-Stealth contest, and is
providing us with a textbook example of the word "prejudice".

So I vote "yes" on Stealth, but I frankly don't care if the SSA makes it
mandatory for contests or not. Leading by example, my PowerFlarm will be in
stealth mode for all future SSA contests, and the only way to force P7 back
into Open mode is to make a rule forbidding Stealth mode in SSA contests.

And if that happens, then it's time to make an aluminum foil hat; not for my
Flarm antenna, but for Cochrane's head.

Gary Ittner P7

WaltWX[_2_]

December 12th 15, 06:18 AM

Responding to Gary Ittner's take on stealth with FLARM...

My concern with using "stealth" mode is the uncertainty of whether or not we are losing a safety factor by using FLARM. I respect Gary's experience and judgement and am willing to change my mind if we only had some definitive analysis on the performance of stealth vs non-stealth mode regarding the safety of collision avoidance. My concern is primarily midair safety... not the competitiveness change to the sport, recognizing that seeing fellow competitors within a 3-5sm range does change things.

Why can't FLARM Inc step in and provide an analysis of an entire contest using the FLARM data in the igc files? It certainly would be more convincing to see a replay of competition days from various glider pilots Flarmview display... comparing that to the reality of where the glider targets are actually located.

I recognize that would be a research and comprehensive data analysis project... quite valuable to add to this discussion.

Walt Rogers WX

jfitch

December 12th 15, 06:24 AM

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 4:10:10 PM UTC-8, Gary Ittner wrote:
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 3:29:43 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Actually, sane pilots have been afraid of midairs, west and east, for a long time. In my time on the rules committee, concern over midairs has been most pilots' number one safety worry. The owens valley pilots developed a whole protocol about high speed oncoming traffic.
> >
> > Then flarm came along, offering some - -not perfect -- help on this topic. Wise pilots should still be very "afraid" of midairs.
> >
> > Now it is proposed to force all pilots to intentionally degrade flarm. You can't argue that this does not have some safety implications. The question is simple: how much safety degradation it has, how much you care about that, how much loss of enjoyment it has (knowing where your buddies are, etc.) vs. how much doing so improves (or not) the quality of contest soaring.. Once everyone has gotten used to the technology (see the GPS wars)
> >
> > John cochrane BB
>
>
>
> I flew in the Stealth-mandatory Nationals at Elmira. It was my first
> experience with Stealth mode, I liked it, and I found that it in no way
> degraded the safety benefits of Flarm.
>
> In fact, I say Stealth makes contests safer. Eliminating all the TMI leeching
> stuff from the radar screen, means there is less reason for the pilot's eyes
> to be on that screen. His eyes can then spend more time outside the cockpit,
> where true situational awareness will be found.
>
> For John Cochrane to flatly state that Stealth mode degrades Flarm safety, is
> just plain wrong. He has not flown in an all-Stealth contest, and is
> providing us with a textbook example of the word "prejudice".
>
> So I vote "yes" on Stealth, but I frankly don't care if the SSA makes it
> mandatory for contests or not. Leading by example, my PowerFlarm will be in
> stealth mode for all future SSA contests, and the only way to force P7 back
> into Open mode is to make a rule forbidding Stealth mode in SSA contests.
>
> And if that happens, then it's time to make an aluminum foil hat; not for my
> Flarm antenna, but for Cochrane's head.
>
> Gary Ittner P7

There will be no way to prove that stealth mode makes contests safer or more dangerous in the forseeable future. The number of participants is too small, and the number of incidents far too small, to have a valid experiment. I do applaud your example though of voting with your stealth bit. One question: will you also fly in stealth mode while touring?

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

December 12th 15, 08:44 PM

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 6:29:43 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Actually, sane pilots have been afraid of midairs, west and east, for a long time. In my time on the rules committee, concern over midairs has been most pilots' number one safety worry. The owens valley pilots developed a whole protocol about high speed oncoming traffic.
>
> Then flarm came along, offering some - -not perfect -- help on this topic.. Wise pilots should still be very "afraid" of midairs.
>
> Now it is proposed to force all pilots to intentionally degrade flarm. You can't argue that this does not have some safety implications. The question is simple: how much safety degradation it has, how much you care about that, how much loss of enjoyment it has (knowing where your buddies are, etc..) vs. how much doing so improves (or not) the quality of contest soaring. Once everyone has gotten used to the technology (see the GPS wars)
>
> John cochrane BB

The pilot doth protest too much - mewonders?

From http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011FlarmUSA.pdf - authored primarily by BB:

"We are not in a crisis.

Each midair is a tragedy, but overall midairs are not very high on the list of statistical causes of damage, injury or fatality.

No change in the contest environment has made midairs more likely in the next year than they have been in the past.

Flarm is an improvement on a system that has worked reasonably well
for many years, not a response to a suddenly greater danger.

The pilot community has not embraced similarly draconian steps to address the statistically much larger dangers of landouts, crashes into terrain, and low energy final glides.

Safety issues should be handled on a consistent and objective basis."

It is distressing that the pilots who ADAMANTKY want all FLARM data to be available to them to leverage for competitive advantage actively stoke the fires of "we are all going to die if we don't get this" to achieve their end..

The issue of the safety implications of using FLARM in "son of stealth" mode and the issue of whether electronic tactical information should be part of the sport are separate issues. Obfuscating is a disservice to the dialog.

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 12th 15, 10:09 PM

Dear Sir:

I hate to point out the obvious, but the unfounded conclusion you draw, is a bias toward open dialogue.

While you make some sound arguments for not requiring Flarm (in any mode) you have concluded with bias, that those who do not want stealth mode are trying to use Flarm data to gain a competitive leverage.

Their are many undercurrents in the argument for not mandating stealth, legal liability is one, the fact that Flarm recommends against it is another, plus limiting and suppressing technology advancements is another, more enjoyment, that tactical information is not really of any use and if it were it would only affect the middle the score sheet. ...etc. The only argument for Stealth is maintaning "the spirit" of the sport. Same argument against GPS.

As others have pointed out perhaps more of a priority, until the FAI, BGC and Flarm come up with a better stealth protocol, should be more effort spent on trying to get all pilots to fly with Flarm.

Two maxims that do come to play, (i) the creme always raises to the top and (ii) you can really only fly on your own decisions.

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:44:53 PM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 6:29:43 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> It is distressing that the pilots who ADAMANTKY want all FLARM data to be available to them to leverage for competitive advantage actively stoke the fires of "we are all going to die if we don't get this" to achieve their end.
>
> The issue of the safety implications of using FLARM in "son of stealth" mode and the issue of whether electronic tactical information should be part of the sport are separate issues. Obfuscating is a disservice to the dialog.

Craig Reinholt

December 12th 15, 11:03 PM

I wonder if it isn't time to play Devil's advocate in this very polarized political debate? Donkey's vs. Elephants ;-)
Everyone is working with the notion that REGULAR FLARM mode = LEECHING = CHEATING (or at least "bad racing form").
I could postulate that leeching = tactical flying, it is part of sailplane racing, and we should embrace and practice it. NASCAR, long distance track events, Tour de France, Motorcycle Grand Prix, and a plethora of other racing sports all incorporate some form of "leeching". Look at our WGC events.. We try to leave a smidge later than, catch up to, and then at least follow the leader. The definition of leeching! Why shouldn't we endeavor to structure our races to practice what the rest of the world does a boatload better than us?
Craig Reinholt

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

December 12th 15, 11:15 PM

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 5:10:02 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Dear Sir:
>
> I hate to point out the obvious, but the unfounded conclusion you draw, is a bias toward open dialogue.
>
> While you make some sound arguments for not requiring Flarm (in any mode) you have concluded with bias, that those who do not want stealth mode are trying to use Flarm data to gain a competitive leverage.
>
> Their are many undercurrents in the argument for not mandating stealth, legal liability is one, the fact that Flarm recommends against it is another, plus limiting and suppressing technology advancements is another, more enjoyment, that tactical information is not really of any use and if it were it would only affect the middle the score sheet. ...etc. The only argument for Stealth is maintaning "the spirit" of the sport. Same argument against GPS.
>
> As others have pointed out perhaps more of a priority, until the FAI, BGC and Flarm come up with a better stealth protocol, should be more effort spent on trying to get all pilots to fly with Flarm.
>
> Two maxims that do come to play, (i) the creme always raises to the top and (ii) you can really only fly on your own decisions.
>
>
> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:44:53 PM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 6:29:43 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> >
> > It is distressing that the pilots who ADAMANTKY want all FLARM data to be available to them to leverage for competitive advantage actively stoke the fires of "we are all going to die if we don't get this" to achieve their end.
> >
> > The issue of the safety implications of using FLARM in "son of stealth" mode and the issue of whether electronic tactical information should be part of the sport are separate issues. Obfuscating is a disservice to the dialog.

I certainly did not claim that all pilots advocating open FLARM want to use it for tactical benefit. What I claimed is that (through personal knowledge) some of the pilots who want open FLARM want it primarily for tactical benefits and are advancing their position by stoking the safety fires.

As Craig rightly points out, the use of FLARM for tactical benefits should be debated on its own terms.

If you want open FLARM for possible tactical benefit, take the position openly and own it.

[email protected]

December 12th 15, 11:56 PM

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:03:33 PM UTC-5, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> I wonder if it isn't time to play Devil's advocate in this very polarized political debate? Donkey's vs. Elephants ;-)
> Everyone is working with the notion that REGULAR FLARM mode = LEECHING = CHEATING (or at least "bad racing form").
> I could postulate that leeching = tactical flying, it is part of sailplane racing, and we should embrace and practice it. NASCAR, long distance track events, Tour de France, Motorcycle Grand Prix, and a plethora of other racing sports all incorporate some form of "leeching". Look at our WGC events. We try to leave a smidge later than, catch up to, and then at least follow the leader. The definition of leeching! Why shouldn't we endeavor to structure our races to practice what the rest of the world does a boatload better than us?
> Craig Reinholt

I do not consider "tactical following", maybe a nicer term for leeching to be cheating. It is part of the sport and will remain so. What I do not like about Flarm radar is that it can provide the ability to enhance this tactic and arguably make it even more important and useful that is now and has been.
I, for one, do not want to see this progression, nor do many others I know.
Obviously some others have a different point of view.
I would note that your examples all are of taking advantage of drag reduction associated with drafting and not the gathering of tactical information.
I'd ask you what you would think of a pilot that won the Nationals and never had to find a thermal during the contest? Some may think that brilliant. Others likely would not be as positive.
Oh by the way- it has happened here.
My point of view.
UH

Craig Reinholt

December 13th 15, 03:42 AM

> I would note that your examples all are of taking advantage of drag reduction associated with drafting and not the gathering of tactical information..
> I'd ask you what you would think of a pilot that won the Nationals and never had to find a thermal during the contest? Some may think that brilliant.. Others likely would not be as positive.
> Oh by the way- it has happened here.
> My point of view.
> UH

Only partially accurate Hank. Drafting for drag reduction is only one aspect. You can add to that: positional awareness, conserving your mental resources & energy, studying your opponent, pressuring / adding stress to your opponent, etc. Others better versed in those types of sports can add to the list.
Personally, I don't care either way. I do commend someone who takes full advantage of the racing rules we fly by (I knew of the person you wrote about). I take issue with rules that can not or will not be enforced. If there is a flight scenario (leeching?) that is not acceptable to contestants, then it should be put in the rules, determine penalties, and enforce them. Otherwise, it is a mute point.
Craig

Sean Fidler

December 13th 15, 05:12 PM

The US has a policy of very "open" timed tasking and almost zero assigned tasks. Zero and one turn MATs are FAR more common than assigned tasks. Area tasks are the vast majority of US tasks and the average cylinder size is just shy of 20 miles! See: OLC.

We don't do Grand Prix in the US (wildly popular in the rest of the world) and I have not heard of anyone trying to run a Grand Prix task even though the rules now allow it. Assigned tasks are, again, as rare as a purple unicorn with a golden horn in the USA.

On that basis alone, the opportunity and value of utilizing Flarm to leech is significantly less important in the USA vs countries with IGC rules (all other countries other than Canada). These US only tasks are specifically intended to break up the field as much as possible by giving pilots significant "freedom" to take risk and try something different. That said, it's sometimes amazing how much the heard stays together. The gaggle is strategic safety in soaring much as the front of the Peloton is strategic safety in road cycling. The US mix of tasks are supposed to allow individual "creativity" (sigh, I call it luck or an "uncontrolled general variable") and reward weather planning and the ability to read changing weather conditions as much as individual flying skills (climb, cruise efficiency). US tasking is supposed to provide the CD the tools necessary to avoid land-outs by not boxing pilots into challenging (or impossible) situations. The US plays a broad strategic version of soaring. The IGC plays a bit more of a tactical version in which Flarm might be more valuable. Personally, I prefer IGC rules. I want to be the same as the rest of the world here in the US.

That said, again, I think we are over-rating the value of Flarm leeching in the USA. It's usually incredibly difficult for two competent glider pilots to fly an area task with 20 mile cylinders and not drift apart relatively soon seeing the options ahead very differently. 5 pilots often take 5 lines, and so on. This is the American way. We spend the majority of our tasks competely alone!

Flarm does allow value in terms of spotting the gaggle outside visual range ahead after the start and aiding in the ability to catch up. Example, you start alone but soon notice a gaggle ahead that you could not see visually yet. Aha! Let's try to catch them as I know exactly where they are. Funny thing is that chasing directly after them is rarely the best line. So you take a different line. But at least I can see if I am gaining. Flarm also might find you a "lifeboat" in survival moments.

Assigned tasks still result in many different lines. If as UH says someone has won big hardware souly due to their ability to fly their FLARM around....I think we should all know more about it and the details of that accomplishment. It is legal at current if this did occur. So congrats to this winner. Obviously it's a very worthwhile datapoint in this debate. Why the secret? I personally don't believe this statement at current but I am open to the possibility if someone would provide evidence of it. Perhaps that would help us better understand the strong concern behind the Flarm stealth mode movement.

This is a very broad philosophical argument for sure. Various, GPS, Smart phones and now FLARM data. I personally think we have to much OLC and not enough real racing. I personally want to look out the window and try to get ahead of my friends and know that it has value if I do. That said, I'm fine without FLARM radar as long as it's 100% as safe.

In sailing, we generally favor "one design." All the boats in a class have exactly the same equipment (even the sails are identical). There are limits in certain sailboat classes on the kind of electronics and computers you can use. This may strongly influence what class a person invests in or doesn't invest in. Many allow no electronics. If it's a level playing field, it's generally more fun, better racing and more rewarding to the competitors. Others on the other hand want the "arms race" and the ability to put engineer or out spend their opponents. See Ventus 3. Often the best racing comes from the smallest, simplest boats which have a smallest number of critical variables. This keeps the range of performance more equal and creates closer racing and less cost. More variables tend to spread out the field. A variable such as the ability to master Flarm usage as a leeching tool is a significant one for sure. I'm still not sure that I buy it however. But as a matter of policy, being a sailor, less variables mean closer, better racing (a stretch to call US contest soaring, at this point, "racing" for sure.)

Flarm definitely has the potential to "become" important enough that we all need to buy ClearNAVs and become proficient with leveraging the radar tactically to compete. But I don't think the US has as much at stake as the IGC rule countries. I still support Stealth Mode but think we need to be absolutely certain the core value of Flarm (anti-collision) is 100% intact.

I am enjoying the debate. I think it's very interesting.

Sean

jfitch

December 13th 15, 05:21 PM

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 7:42:10 PM UTC-8, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> > I would note that your examples all are of taking advantage of drag reduction associated with drafting and not the gathering of tactical information.
> > I'd ask you what you would think of a pilot that won the Nationals and never had to find a thermal during the contest? Some may think that brilliant. Others likely would not be as positive.
> > Oh by the way- it has happened here.
> > My point of view.
> > UH
>
> Only partially accurate Hank. Drafting for drag reduction is only one aspect. You can add to that: positional awareness, conserving your mental resources & energy, studying your opponent, pressuring / adding stress to your opponent, etc. Others better versed in those types of sports can add to the list.
> Personally, I don't care either way. I do commend someone who takes full advantage of the racing rules we fly by (I knew of the person you wrote about). I take issue with rules that can not or will not be enforced. If there is a flight scenario (leeching?) that is not acceptable to contestants, then it should be put in the rules, determine penalties, and enforce them. Otherwise, it is a mute point.
> Craig

The problem with writing a rule against leeching is that it cannot be defined. Everybody does it to some extent, a few apparently do it to a greater extent. To eliminate leeching you would need to put blinders on every canopy.. As in religious philosophy, the moderates take issue with the radicals for believing what they believe, but believing it too much.

The argument for stealth mode is an argument to temporarily limit an otherwise useful tool, for fear that it might be used by others to go down a road further than the proponents are themselves willing to go. But we are all on the road.

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 13th 15, 06:19 PM

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 9:12:58 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
I am going to have to strenuously disagree. I prefer PHRF racing, as racing on Oyster 54 rather than something like a J24 has many benefits. Chicks for one.

> In sailing, we generally favor "one design." All the boats in a class have exactly the same equipment (even the sails are identical). There are limits in certain sailboat classes on the kind of electronics and computers you can use. This may strongly influence what class a person invests in or doesn't invest in. Many allow no electronics. If it's a level playing field, it's generally more fun, better racing and more rewarding to the competitors. Others on the other hand want the "arms race" and the ability to put engineer or out spend their opponents. See Ventus 3. Often the best racing comes from the smallest, simplest boats which have a smallest number of critical variables. This keeps the range of performance more equal and creates closer racing and less cost. More variables tend to spread out the field. A variable such as the ability to master Flarm usage as a leeching tool is a significant one for sure. I'm still not sure that I buy it however. But as a matter of policy, being a sailor, less variables mean closer, better racing (a stretch to call US contest soaring, at this point, "racing" for sure.)
>
> Flarm definitely has the potential to "become" important enough that we all need to buy ClearNAVs and become proficient with leveraging the radar tactically to compete. But I don't think the US has as much at stake as the IGC rule countries. I still support Stealth Mode but think we need to be absolutely certain the core value of Flarm (anti-collision) is 100% intact.
>
> I am enjoying the debate. I think it's very interesting.
>
> Sean

Dan Marotta

December 13th 15, 06:21 PM

Isn't there some guy in the upper midwest who's running a grand prix
task? Wonder who that could be... >:o

On 12/13/2015 10:12 AM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> We don't do Grand Prix in the US (wildly popular in the rest of the world) and I have not heard of anyone trying to run a Grand Prix task even though the rules now allow it. Assigned tasks are, again, as rare as a purple unicorn with a golden horn in the USA.

--
Dan, 5J

kirk.stant

December 13th 15, 08:48 PM

I'm a bit late to this interesting discussion, but here goes anyway:

I've only flown one contest with Flarm - Moriarty in 2013. Stealth not used, and I REALLY liked the situational awareness that Flarm provided - especially in head-on situations under cloud streets.

Not having flown at contests where leeching was a problem, I personally don't see the need for stealth at the local or regional level. At the national level, we should be doing whatever the rest of the world does (if we are serious about racing).

But here is a thought: Those of you who are so hard-on about limiting the range of Flarm displays, what about the advantage of young, 20-15 eyes vs old, not so perfect eyes looking through corrective lenses? Right there you have the potential for a significant difference in detection range of other gliders of interest. So, in the pursuit of "fairness", should we artificially limit all contestants to the same visual acuity?

Binoculars in the cockpit, anybody? I can see pilots wearing flip-down goggles, using them to scan for someone to leech... 8^)

So, I would be OK with a "Racing" mode ("Stealth" is a poor name, IMO) that would limit the display range to something useful for situational awareness and strip out altitude and callsign. At the risk of complexity, the display range could be either selectable (by the CD) or based on closure rate/direction of approach - more in head-on situations, less in side or rear situations, for example.

But really, I think this will all become moot when cheap ADS-B is available and common...

PS: Leaching is the loss or extraction of certain materials from a carrier into a liquid (usually, but not always a solvent) (Wikipedia). I sincerely hope it hasn't gotten that bad in contests!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

jfitch

December 13th 15, 09:12 PM

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Isn't there some guy in the upper midwest who's running a grand prix
> task?* Wonder who that could be...*
> >:o
>
>
>
>
> On 12/13/2015 10:12 AM, Sean Fidler
> wrote:
>
>
>
> We don't do Grand Prix in the US (wildly popular in the rest of the world) and I have not heard of anyone trying to run a Grand Prix task even though the rules now allow it. Assigned tasks are, again, as rare as a purple unicorn with a golden horn in the USA.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J

There is a local Gran Prix style contest every year at Truckee for the last 10 years. It is three times around a close in course of about 40 miles, with a simultaneous start. It is handicapped by locating a far turnpoint further away for faster gliders, thus at each lap crossing the start/finish line all gliders are even. Points are awarded for each start finish lap position, with double points for the last lap. It is a blast.

One of the rules is that at each turnpoint, pilots must announce so that everyone always knows where everyone else is, including the spectators. You know if you if you have gained or lost every few minutes. You leech off of other gliders, and your own thermals found on the previous lap as much as possible. It is much more like real racing, than typical glider racing which is in effect a time trial.

Don Johnstone[_4_]

December 14th 15, 12:32 AM

At 06:18 12 December 2015, WaltWX wrote:
>Responding to Gary Ittner's take on stealth with FLARM...
>
>My concern with using "stealth" mode is the uncertainty of
whether or not
>w=
>e are losing a safety factor by using FLARM. I respect Gary's
experience
>an=
>d judgement and am willing to change my mind if we only had
some
>definitive=
> analysis on the performance of stealth vs non-stealth mode
regarding the
>s=
>afety of collision avoidance. My concern is primarily midair
safety... not
>=
>the competitiveness change to the sport, recognizing that seeing
fellow
>com=
>petitors within a 3-5sm range does change things.
>
>Why can't FLARM Inc step in and provide an analysis of an entire
contest
>us=
>ing the FLARM data in the igc files? It certainly would be more
convincing
>=
>to see a replay of competition days from various glider pilots
Flarmview
>di=
>splay... comparing that to the reality of where the glider targets
are
>actu=
>ally located.
>
>I recognize that would be a research and comprehensive data
analysis
>projec=
>t... quite valuable to add to this discussion.
>
>Walt Rogers WX

At the beginning of the 2015 Competition Season in the UK Stealth
mode was mandated for some competitions. A discussion raged on
urasb about this subject.
The requirement to mandate stealth was withdrawn.
It was shown that STEALTH mode does reduce situational
awareness and therefore must reduce safety. It then becomes an
argument as to whether this is acceptable in a competition
environment for the competitors.
This however was not the main reason why the mandate was
withdrawn. The setting of STEALTH mode also effects gliders flying
in non STEALTH mode, it reduces their situational awareness. Pilots
flying in gliders not in the competition also had their situational
awareness degraded and that can never be acceptable.
For STEALTH mode to be "acceptable" the setting of it has to have
no effect on a unit which is not operating in STEALTH mode and as I
understand it that is not an easy fix.
>

Sean Fidler

December 14th 15, 01:04 AM

Thats funny Mr. St. Cloud. Funny indeed. ;-)

Sean Fidler

December 14th 15, 01:07 AM

That sounds like fun jfitch! Sounds like a ton of fun and great for handicaps. Truckee is a beautiful place too.

[email protected]

December 14th 15, 03:57 PM

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 3:12:09 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Isn't there some guy in the upper midwest who's running a grand prix
> > task?* Wonder who that could be...*
> > >:o
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/13/2015 10:12 AM, Sean Fidler
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > We don't do Grand Prix in the US (wildly popular in the rest of the world) and I have not heard of anyone trying to run a Grand Prix task even though the rules now allow it. Assigned tasks are, again, as rare as a purple unicorn with a golden horn in the USA.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dan, 5J
>
> There is a local Gran Prix style contest every year at Truckee for the last 10 years. It is three times around a close in course of about 40 miles, with a simultaneous start. It is handicapped by locating a far turnpoint further away for faster gliders, thus at each lap crossing the start/finish line all gliders are even. Points are awarded for each start finish lap position, with double points for the last lap. It is a blast.
>
> One of the rules is that at each turnpoint, pilots must announce so that everyone always knows where everyone else is, including the spectators. You know if you if you have gained or lost every few minutes. You leech off of other gliders, and your own thermals found on the previous lap as much as possible. It is much more like real racing, than typical glider racing which is in effect a time trial.

During this year's Region 4 S contest (New Castle) we all had PFlarm, standard mode. I seemed to be the only dummy who put his call sign into the config file resulting in being easily identified. If you prefer to only show your position, climb rate only connected to your Flarm ID, just skip putting your call sign out for all to see. Stealth Mode for the meek, there you have it. Remembering Flarm ID's in a large contest is near impossible, at least for me.
Herb, J7 (still squawking my call sign, btw.)

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 14th 15, 08:16 PM

I made this point earlier in the discussion and received a comment something to the effect of 'impossible". Well it is not, as there is an Aux-power glider meet in Parowan over lapping the time frame of the Nationals at Nephi. Last time I flew out of Parowan I flew up to SLC so I know the task areas overlap. Again, liability issues.

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 4:45:10 PM UTC-8, Don Johnstone wrote:

> At the beginning of the 2015 Competition Season in the UK Stealth
> mode was mandated for some competitions. A discussion raged on
> urasb about this subject.
> The requirement to mandate stealth was withdrawn.
> It was shown that STEALTH mode does reduce situational
> awareness and therefore must reduce safety. It then becomes an
> argument as to whether this is acceptable in a competition
> environment for the competitors.
> This however was not the main reason why the mandate was
> withdrawn. The setting of STEALTH mode also effects gliders flying
> in non STEALTH mode, it reduces their situational awareness. Pilots
> flying in gliders not in the competition also had their situational
> awareness degraded and that can never be acceptable.
> For STEALTH mode to be "acceptable" the setting of it has to have
> no effect on a unit which is not operating in STEALTH mode and as I
> understand it that is not an easy fix.
> >

Don Johnstone[_4_]

December 15th 15, 07:22 AM

Quite apart from the liability issues of crippling a device which it is
alleged warns you of an imminent collision and enables you to avoid
at situation where you even get close, I have great difficulty in
understanding the logic of the pro STEALTH lobby.
You buy an expensive piece of kit which purports to warn you of an
imminent collision. This unit also displays the location and velocity
of other units in your vicinity enabling you to avoid getting close to
a situation where a collision becomes a possibility and you then
want to reduce the effectiveness of the unit? I get that it enables
you to see if other gliders are doing better than you or vice versa
but you knew that when you purchased the unit in the first place,
so why did you do that? If the benefits are outweighed by the
disadvantages why bother?
All the information you need about FLARM is on their website,
including the recommendation that STEALTH mode is not used.
Quite why FLARM created the mode in the first place is another
different question.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I have e-mails from Urban MÃ¤der,
Chief Technical Officer at FLARM who confirms that if one unit has
STEALTH mode selected then all other units, in any mode, receive a
downgraded data set from that unit.
Logically, having that information, any responsible organisation
should mandate that on no account should STEALTH mode be used.

At 20:16 14 December 2015, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>I made this point earlier in the discussion and received a comment
>somethin=
>g to the effect of 'impossible". Well it is not, as there is an Aux-
power
>=
>glider meet in Parowan over lapping the time frame of the
Nationals at
>Neph=
>i. Last time I flew out of Parowan I flew up to SLC so I know the
task
>are=
>as overlap. Again, liability issues.
>
>On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 4:45:10 PM UTC-8, Don
Johnstone wrote:
>
>> At the beginning of the 2015 Competition Season in the UK
Stealth=20
>> mode was mandated for some competitions. A discussion raged
on=20
>> urasb about this subject.
>> The requirement to mandate stealth was withdrawn.
>> It was shown that STEALTH mode does reduce situational=20
>> awareness and therefore must reduce safety. It then becomes
an=20
>> argument as to whether this is acceptable in a competition=20
>> environment for the competitors.=20
>> This however was not the main reason why the mandate
was=20
>> withdrawn. The setting of STEALTH mode also effects gliders
flying=20
>> in non STEALTH mode, it reduces their situational awareness.
Pilots=20
>> flying in gliders not in the competition also had their
situational=20
>> awareness degraded and that can never be acceptable.
>> For STEALTH mode to be "acceptable" the setting of it has to
have=20
>> no effect on a unit which is not operating in STEALTH mode and
as I=20
>> understand it that is not an easy fix.
>> >
>

Jim White[_3_]

December 15th 15, 12:06 PM

At 07:22 15 December 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
>For the avoidance of any doubt, I have e-mails from Urban MÃ¤der,
>Chief Technical Officer at FLARM who confirms that if one unit has
>STEALTH mode selected then all other units, in any mode, receive a
>downgraded data set from that unit.

No one is going to take your word for that Don. Publish the emails - or are
they secret?

I read the FLARM published information differently and I quote from the
FTD14 document:

'Stealth mode. Instructs all receiving FLARM devices that the received data
must not be made accessible (...to display devices) in real-time full
precision, except for the purpose of collision warning.'

This does NOT say that the transmitted data is degraded. You would appear
to be promulgating a myth.

jfitch

December 15th 15, 04:19 PM

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:15:16 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
> At 07:22 15 December 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
> >For the avoidance of any doubt, I have e-mails from Urban Mäder,
> >Chief Technical Officer at FLARM who confirms that if one unit has
> >STEALTH mode selected then all other units, in any mode, receive a
> >downgraded data set from that unit.
>
> No one is going to take your word for that Don. Publish the emails - or are
> they secret?
>
> I read the FLARM published information differently and I quote from the
> FTD14 document:
>
> 'Stealth mode. Instructs all receiving FLARM devices that the received data
> must not be made accessible (...to display devices) in real-time full
> precision, except for the purpose of collision warning.'
>
> This does NOT say that the transmitted data is degraded. You would appear
> to be promulgating a myth.

Whether the information is not transmitted, not received, or simply not provided for display is of identical consequence, operationally.

[email protected]

December 15th 15, 04:38 PM

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:19:13 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:15:16 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
> > At 07:22 15 December 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
> > >For the avoidance of any doubt, I have e-mails from Urban Mäder,
> > >Chief Technical Officer at FLARM who confirms that if one unit has
> > >STEALTH mode selected then all other units, in any mode, receive a
> > >downgraded data set from that unit.
> >
> > No one is going to take your word for that Don. Publish the emails - or are
> > they secret?
> >
> > I read the FLARM published information differently and I quote from the
> > FTD14 document:
> >
> > 'Stealth mode. Instructs all receiving FLARM devices that the received data
> > must not be made accessible (...to display devices) in real-time full
> > precision, except for the purpose of collision warning.'
> >
> > This does NOT say that the transmitted data is degraded. You would appear
> > to be promulgating a myth.
>
> Whether the information is not transmitted, not received, or simply not provided for display is of identical consequence, operationally.

I think this is not true, based upon the above.
If my information is sent, it is available, with limitations to my competitors using Stealth, and is available to all others in range without such limitations.
UH

Sean Fidler

December 15th 15, 04:46 PM

Data "pre flarm warning" (i.e. situational awareness, one of the key benefits of flarm, i.e. knowing a glider is nearby that you otherwise may not have, up to the point a normal flarm mode collision alarm would normally sound) sure sounds like downgraded flarm "data" data to me... Perhaps obfuscated is a better term. But what would I know. I just ran a good chunk of a company that spent a good deal of time consulting F500 companies and including many innovative product companies (even some military) on all kinds of UI design....

Again, I think the concept of "stealth mode" needs some significant engineering and integrated strategy cycles if this is going to become common in crowded glider competition enviornments. Personally, I do not believe stealth mode is ready for prime time. It's true that flarm itself does not strongly recommend "stealth" (terrible name by the way), I think more study and a more mature (and public) program to better train pilots on flarm installation and usage are prudent before making any major US (or IGC) rule changes (sigh).

Can anyone show me the YouTube video that shows clear examples of head on warnings in normal and stealth mode and trains us on what to expect? No? That's what I though. Again, sigh...

I look forward to some videos to ease concern and help the community understand what the flarm will do. Of course we would do this before changing the rule, right? Or are we jumping into the lion pit all together, again? ;-)

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

December 15th 15, 04:58 PM

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 8:38:35 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:19:13 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:15:16 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
> > > At 07:22 15 December 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
> > > >For the avoidance of any doubt, I have e-mails from Urban Mäder,
> > > >Chief Technical Officer at FLARM who confirms that if one unit has
> > > >STEALTH mode selected then all other units, in any mode, receive a
> > > >downgraded data set from that unit.
> > >
> > > No one is going to take your word for that Don. Publish the emails - or are
> > > they secret?
> > >
> > > I read the FLARM published information differently and I quote from the
> > > FTD14 document:
> > >
> > > 'Stealth mode. Instructs all receiving FLARM devices that the received data
> > > must not be made accessible (...to display devices) in real-time full
> > > precision, except for the purpose of collision warning.'
> > >
> > > This does NOT say that the transmitted data is degraded. You would appear
> > > to be promulgating a myth.
> >
> > Whether the information is not transmitted, not received, or simply not provided for display is of identical consequence, operationally.
>
> I think this is not true, based upon the above.
> If my information is sent, it is available, with limitations to my competitors using Stealth, and is available to all others in range without such limitations.
> UH

All,

Stealth information masking is implemented on the receive end, but AFAIK it works like this: If you configure stealth no one, regardless of their setting will see anything but the information designated in the stealth spec (2km range except for active alarms, no climb or ID, etc). In addition your display will only receive information on ALL other gliders (regardless of their configuration re: stealth) as specified in the stealth spec.

It is possible, based on the recent UK experience with jets carrying Flarm to see glider traffic - and their dislike of stealth limitations, that stealth will be redesigned (at some point in the future) so that this reciprocity feature will be eliminated, making stealth apply only to the display of information on the display of the glider configuring for stealth mode. Any glider not in stealth mode will see fully unfiltered Flarm data, including gliders that are operating in stealth mode. This is not currently how it works, and the future spec could easily change.

This obviously has implications for how you would implement stealth at contests, making inspection and verification much more important since one rogue pilot (who previously would not have benefitted at all) now sees everything and everyone else sees only stealth-filtered information.

9B

Jim White[_3_]

December 15th 15, 05:20 PM

At 16:58 15 December 2015, Andy Blackburn wrote:

>This obviously has implications for how you would implement stealth at
>cont=
>ests, making inspection and verification much more important since one
>rogu=
>e pilot (who previously would not have benefitted at all) now sees
>everythi=
>ng and everyone else sees only stealth-filtered information.
>
>9B
>

There is no reason that scrutiny cannot be electronic. Flarm writes its
stealth mode into its own IGC file. It must transmit an indicator too for
the stealth to work but I do not know whether the receiver records this
status in its IGC file.

Then simple software would be able to scan the IGC files and see who is
operating with and without stealth turned on.

Jim

Don Johnstone[_4_]

December 15th 15, 06:01 PM

At 12:06 15 December 2015, Jim White wrote:
>At 07:22 15 December 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>For the avoidance of any doubt, I have e-mails from Urban
MÃ¤der,
>>Chief Technical Officer at FLARM who confirms that if one unit
has
>>STEALTH mode selected then all other units, in any mode,
receive a
>>downgraded data set from that unit.
>
>No one is going to take your word for that Don. Publish the emails
- or ar
>they secret?
>
>I read the FLARM published information differently and I quote
from th
>FTD14 document:
>
>'Stealth mode. Instructs all receiving FLARM devices that the
received dat
>must not be made accessible (...to display devices) in real-time ful
>precision, except for the purpose of collision warning.'
>
>This does NOT say that the transmitted data is degraded. You
would appea
>to be promulgating a myth.
>
On Monday, 29 June 2015, 22:23, Urban MÃ¤der
> wrote:

Dear Don

Stealth mode is symmetric. If at least either of the two (sending and
receiving) aircraft have stealth mode enabled, the dataset is
reduced in both units, as defined in the release notes.

We are in close contact with Brian Spreckley and Russel Cheetham.
While we at FLARM still think it is better not to use stealth mode, we
do acknowledge the issue of unfair advantage during comps may
exist.

We are currently trying to optimize stealth mode such that it does
not impact safety in any way. Also note that since the 6.0 release,
the amount of information output in stealth mode has been vastly
increased, exactly due to these concerns. As of now, all gliders in a
2km radius are fully visible (track information is still missing, but
will be added in the next release).

I hope this answers your questions.

Best
Urban

--
Dr. Urban MÃ¤der, CTO
Flarm Technology Ltd.

Lindenstrasse 4, CH-6340 Baar, Switzerland
Office: +41 41 760 85 63
Mobile: +41 79 433 83 24
Fax: +41 41 760 85 65

www.flarm.com

Don Johnstone[_4_]

December 15th 15, 06:08 PM

At 17:20 15 December 2015, Jim White wrote:
>At 16:58 15 December 2015, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
>>This obviously has implications for how you would implement
stealth at
>>cont=
>>ests, making inspection and verification much more important
since one
>>rogu=
>>e pilot (who previously would not have benefitted at all) now
sees
>>everythi=
>>ng and everyone else sees only stealth-filtered information.
>>
>>9B
>>
>
>There is no reason that scrutiny cannot be electronic. Flarm
writes it
>stealth mode into its own IGC file. It must transmit an indicator
too fo
>the stealth to work but I do not know whether the receiver
records thi
>status in its IGC file.
>
>Then simple software would be able to scan the IGC files and see
who i
>operating with and without stealth turned on.
>
>Jim
>
But if you do not use FLARM as your official logger the the contest
organisation will never see your FLARM file. The same thing applies
if you use a second, third party unit which is not in stealth mode
and sees everything.
To be an effective restriction the STEALTH mode has to operate on
the "sending" unit, which it is at present but as I have pointed out
this effects all other FLARM units, whether they are set to STEALTH
or not. It has the potential of reducing the information available to
non-competitors and that is not acceptable.

Ian Reekie

December 15th 15, 06:10 PM

At 17:20 15 December 2015, Jim White wrote:
>At 16:58 15 December 2015, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
>>This obviously has implications for how you would implement stealth at
>>cont=
>>ests, making inspection and verification much more important since one
>>rogu=
>>e pilot (who previously would not have benefitted at all) now sees
>>everythi=
>>ng and everyone else sees only stealth-filtered information.
>>
>>9B
>>
>
>There is no reason that scrutiny cannot be electronic. Flarm writes it
>stealth mode into its own IGC file. It must transmit an indicator too fo
>the stealth to work but I do not know whether the receiver records thi
>status in its IGC file.
>
>Then simple software would be able to scan the IGC files and see who i
>operating with and without stealth turned on.
>
>Jim

Unfortunately potential changes could also make cheating easy !!
If a non stealthed Flarm can see everyone, its then very easy to cheat the
system by buying another Flarm and configuring it to be in non stealth mode
and disabling the transmit by cutting a single pin on the pcb.
Then you have a secret extra Flarm that can see everybody and there is no
way to detect it ?

Ian Reekie

December 15th 15, 06:11 PM

At 17:20 15 December 2015, Jim White wrote:
>At 16:58 15 December 2015, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
>>This obviously has implications for how you would implement stealth at
>>cont=
>>ests, making inspection and verification much more important since one
>>rogu=
>>e pilot (who previously would not have benefitted at all) now sees
>>everythi=
>>ng and everyone else sees only stealth-filtered information.
>>
>>9B
>>
>
>There is no reason that scrutiny cannot be electronic. Flarm writes it
>stealth mode into its own IGC file. It must transmit an indicator too fo
>the stealth to work but I do not know whether the receiver records thi
>status in its IGC file.
>
>Then simple software would be able to scan the IGC files and see who i
>operating with and without stealth turned on.
>
>Jim

Unfortunately potential changes could also make cheating easy !!
If a non stealthed Flarm can see everyone, its then very easy to cheat the
system by buying another Flarm and configuring it to be in non stealth mode
and disabling the transmit by cutting a single pin on the pcb.
Then you have a secret extra Flarm that can see everybody and there is no
way to detect it ?

[email protected]

December 15th 15, 07:48 PM

In Elmira we were required to submit the FLARM file - even if we did not use the Flarm file for the contest.

If the real worry is about having several Flarms configured differently in the same glider... just to cheat - then you have a problem you can NEVER solve.

Without much imagination a pilot who is willing to break the rules can easily cheat (and I know they could be out there) - it is unstoppable (but also a little hard to hide eventually). If found out ban the pilot... period.

I do not post much here ... but the real question seems to be - open the cockpit to all technology or make restrictions/rules to technology to make the sport reflect the flavor the participants would like to see.

I felt safe in Elmira - I like rules to restrict some technology use in competition, as I would hate to have Soaring get so high tech no one could afford to compete or need a IT PHD.

Seems to me the RC sets the rules and revisits them often... some pilots try to stretch them... which all good - in the end we all agree to follow those rules - cheating is the thing that has the potential to undermine the sport. and I chose to believe Sailplane pilots are made of better stuff.

gotta love democracy, even when you lose the argument ;)

WH1

jfitch

December 15th 15, 09:38 PM

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48:33 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> In Elmira we were required to submit the FLARM file - even if we did not use the Flarm file for the contest.
>
> If the real worry is about having several Flarms configured differently in the same glider... just to cheat - then you have a problem you can NEVER solve.
>
> Without much imagination a pilot who is willing to break the rules can easily cheat (and I know they could be out there) - it is unstoppable (but also a little hard to hide eventually). If found out ban the pilot... period..
>
> I do not post much here ... but the real question seems to be - open the cockpit to all technology or make restrictions/rules to technology to make the sport reflect the flavor the participants would like to see.
>
> I felt safe in Elmira - I like rules to restrict some technology use in competition, as I would hate to have Soaring get so high tech no one could afford to compete or need a IT PHD.
>
> Seems to me the RC sets the rules and revisits them often... some pilots try to stretch them... which all good - in the end we all agree to follow those rules - cheating is the thing that has the potential to undermine the sport. and I chose to believe Sailplane pilots are made of better stuff.
>
> gotta love democracy, even when you lose the argument ;)
>
> WH1

I agree that cheating is easy (and there are far more effective ways than anything to do with Flarm). However I think the cost argument is specious: electronics are cheap and always get cheaper. On the other hand you are without doubt going to be more competitive in an ASG 29 than an ASW20, an upgrade that costs north of US$100K. To have spent that sum, and then complain about $2000 spent on electronics by another, is irrational.

Against that background the whole Flarm controversy could be solved in an instant by simply making a rule against leeching - except no one knows what that actually is well enough to define it.