FLARM and Triathlon

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 7:30:07 AM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
> Leeching scenarios

We can't agree on the problem, much less the solution. So let me go in a different direction using another sport as the analog.

FLARM makes it easier to follow someone closely if leeching is your strategy. But I agree that's not usually, or even often, a formula for success. Far more common are those who use leeching to move out of the middle of the pack throughout a contest to finish in the top ranks.

Jim's scenarios are very interesting--and realistic. But I'm not sure I'd use the word "leeching" to describe them, however, because they involve pilots using FLARM to make decisions. The only decision made by a self-respecting leech (a contradiction in terms?) is whom to follow that day. Jim describes pilots using [FLARM] technology to get better information to make better decisions. And regarding scenario #1, the leader starting behind the 2nd place guy on the last day to shadow him and insure a win, XX, George Moffat himself--the anti-leech--did it at Marfa one year in the 60s to Wally Scott, IIRC.

Philosophically, I don't have a problem with using other gliders to make better decisions. We see markers up ahead, we listen to radio calls, and (yes) we even use FLARM in Stealth mode.

And I'm not a technophobe, notwithstanding BB's Hillaryesque insistence that anyone who opposes technology-driven change in any form must be part of a vast elderly Luddite conspiracy. :) We're flying with gliders, instruments, and GPS-enabled flight computers that we could only dream about when I started competing. I just don't like the fact that FLARM makes it easier to leech, in the classic sense of the word: always following, never leading out..

Many triathletes--individualists by temperament and sport--don't like their competitors drafting behind them in the cycling leg to get a free ride for long periods of time, reserving energy. Google "drafting" and "triathlon" and you'll think you're back on RAS with just a few key words swapped.

So how about taking a page from the triathlon playbook and simply banning leeching? In triathlon, the rules define a drafting zone behind a cyclist into which another cyclist can't enter unless he/she is overtaking. It's messy, with different governing bodies and rules for amateur vs. pro events. And even when illegal, it's not always enforced all that well, especially when there are a lot of nearly equivalent pro racers and not enough officials.

But in soaring, we don't need officials! We already have most of the technology to define and enforce "no leeching" rules.

We know it when we see it in the air. We can also watch two gliders on a SeeYou replay and appreciate good pilots flying together to improve their mutual performance. They spread out to cover more air on the runs. They explore different parts of the thermal early on. They climb at different rates. Whomever gets to the top leads out first. Sometimes they part and go their separate ways. Little to none of the above is true for leeches.

So can we use technology--i.e., post-flight analysis of logger traces--to impose penalties for leeching? Yeah, it sounds messy. More post-processing work. After-the-fact penalties. More protests from innocent and not-so-innocent pilots.

I don't know what the algorithms and rules should be. Points assessed based on getting to the top and allowing someone else to lead out repeatedly? Or percentage of time in a run where you're in trail? Accumulate a certain number of points and start to incur time penalties? Number of times you enter a thermal behind the same guy within X seconds at the same altitude? 9B, you must have some ideas.

Yeah, more rules complexities. More dependence on technology. But do you want to use open FLARM at major contests? Figure out a way to prevent certain pilots from abusing the benefits of that technology.

No, this isn't a troll. I'm serious. I'm sure I'm not the first to propose it. Have at it. :)

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

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 4:03:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:

> I don't know what the algorithms and rules should be. Points assessed based on getting to the top and allowing someone else to lead out repeatedly? Or percentage of time in a run where you're in trail? Accumulate a certain number of points and start to incur time penalties? Number of times you enter a thermal behind the same guy within X seconds at the same altitude? 9B, you must have some ideas.
>

Totally possible - it's dirt simple to create (and I have proposed a version) a very mild penalty system for climbing in thermals you didn't get to within 30 seconds of the first entrant. Would be interesting to try, pretty easy to calculate from IGC files and, IMHO, totally unnecessary. But that's just me.

9B

[[email protected]]

The other direction. The penalty would apply to someone who enters a thermal LESS than, say, 20 seconds after the guy in front of him/her over and over again. I don't think it's dirt simple, although not hugely complex. It's a form of pattern recognition. No problem using someone else's thermal. But if that's all you do, especially if the same 1 or 2 or 3 pilots keep finding the thermals, and especially if there's not much vertical separation, then you're leeching and you shouldn't get the winner's time.

Not a drastic penalty. Just a disincentive to lock in behind one of the leaders and get towed around the course.

How's this for an incentive? Try it and I'll shut up about stealth. :D

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

[John Carlyle]

Chip, I'm very interested that you say you don't consider the behavior Jim White described as "leeching".

If we can all agree that "leeching" is when someone follows someone else around the course and never makes his own decisions, we can assign time and altitude limits to define "following" and automatically scan IGC files to identify when possible leeching is occurring.

I've been playing around with a computer program that attempts to do this. The program needs a lot more work, but I haven't been putting much effort into it because until now there hasn't been a usable definition of "leeching".

Perhaps it's possible to agree on a way forward to permit the solving of the issue I think is behind all of the "stealth" angst expressed in many recent RAS posts...

-John, Q3

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 7:03:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> Lots of snipping to show subject
>
> Jim's scenarios are very interesting--and realistic. But I'm not sure I'd use the word "leeching" to describe them, however, because they involve pilots using FLARM to make decisions. The only decision made by a self-respecting leech (a contradiction in terms?) is whom to follow that day. Jim describes pilots using [FLARM] technology to get better information to make better decisions. And regarding scenario #1, the leader starting behind the 2nd place guy on the last day to shadow him and insure a win, XX, George Moffat himself--the anti-leech--did it at Marfa one year in the 60s to Wally Scott, IIRC.
>
> So can we use technology--i.e., post-flight analysis of logger traces--to impose penalties for leeching? Yeah, it sounds messy. More post-processing work. After-the-fact penalties. More protests from innocent and not-so-innocent pilots.
>
> No, this isn't a troll. I'm serious. I'm sure I'm not the first to propose it. Have at it. :)
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 23 December 2015 21:08:04 UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
> Chip, I'm very interested that you say you don't consider the behavior Jim White described as "leeching".
>
> If we can all agree that "leeching" is when someone follows someone else around the course and never makes his own decisions, we can assign time and altitude limits to define "following" and automatically scan IGC files to identify when possible leeching is occurring.
>
> I've been playing around with a computer program that attempts to do this.. The program needs a lot more work, but I haven't been putting much effort into it because until now there hasn't been a usable definition of "leeching".
>
> Perhaps it's possible to agree on a way forward to permit the solving of the issue I think is behind all of the "stealth" angst expressed in many recent RAS posts...
>
> -John, Q3
>
> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 7:03:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> >
> > Lots of snipping to show subject
> >
> > Jim's scenarios are very interesting--and realistic. But I'm not sure I'd use the word "leeching" to describe them, however, because they involve pilots using FLARM to make decisions. The only decision made by a self-respecting leech (a contradiction in terms?) is whom to follow that day. Jim describes pilots using [FLARM] technology to get better information to make better decisions. And regarding scenario #1, the leader starting behind the 2nd place guy on the last day to shadow him and insure a win, XX, George Moffat himself--the anti-leech--did it at Marfa one year in the 60s to Wally Scott, IIRC.
> >
> > So can we use technology--i.e., post-flight analysis of logger traces--to impose penalties for leeching? Yeah, it sounds messy. More post-processing work. After-the-fact penalties. More protests from innocent and not-so-innocent pilots.
> >
> > No, this isn't a troll. I'm serious. I'm sure I'm not the first to propose it. Have at it. :)
> >
> > Chip Bearden
> > ASW 24 "JB"
> > U.S.A.

There is another way to look at this. Our brothers and sisters in hang gliding and paragliding world use the concept of 'Leading Points' to reward folks that start first and stay out in front.

explanation

11.3 Leading points
Leading points are awarded to encourage pilots to start early and to reward the risk involved in flying in the leading group. Pilots will get leading points even if they landed before goal or the end of speed section.

Explanation with equations for calculations etc can be found on page 32 of this document http://www.fai.org/downloads/civl/SC7_GAP



It has been used for a number of years now with positive results. Of course it is not perfect but what is

Ron Gleason

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

I meant more than some number of seconds that constitutes a tie so that pilots don't do crazy stuff to establish primacy on thermal entry - probably less than 30 seconds. But you'd have to count as leeching spying a thermal from 5 miles away and using it even if the marking glider was gone by the time you got there and the penalty time would have to persist for some duration after the prior glider(s) had left. I think the math worked out if you added around 5-7 seconds for each minute of climbing in a leeched thermal.

It would be straight forward to write code to look at IGC files and calculate time penalties, I just don't think anyone would like it because I don't think the stealth debate is principally about leeching. If it were a fix would have been implemented 20 years ago.

9B

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 1:33:21 AM UTC-8, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 December 2015 21:08:04 UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
> > Chip, I'm very interested that you say you don't consider the behavior Jim White described as "leeching".
> >
> > If we can all agree that "leeching" is when someone follows someone else around the course and never makes his own decisions, we can assign time and altitude limits to define "following" and automatically scan IGC files to identify when possible leeching is occurring.
> >
> > I've been playing around with a computer program that attempts to do this. The program needs a lot more work, but I haven't been putting much effort into it because until now there hasn't been a usable definition of "leeching".
> >
> > Perhaps it's possible to agree on a way forward to permit the solving of the issue I think is behind all of the "stealth" angst expressed in many recent RAS posts...
> >
> > -John, Q3
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 7:03:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > >
> > > Lots of snipping to show subject
> > >
> > > Jim's scenarios are very interesting--and realistic. But I'm not sure I'd use the word "leeching" to describe them, however, because they involve pilots using FLARM to make decisions. The only decision made by a self-respecting leech (a contradiction in terms?) is whom to follow that day. Jim describes pilots using [FLARM] technology to get better information to make better decisions. And regarding scenario #1, the leader starting behind the 2nd place guy on the last day to shadow him and insure a win, XX, George Moffat himself--the anti-leech--did it at Marfa one year in the 60s to Wally Scott, IIRC.
> > >
> > > So can we use technology--i.e., post-flight analysis of logger traces--to impose penalties for leeching? Yeah, it sounds messy. More post-processing work. After-the-fact penalties. More protests from innocent and not-so-innocent pilots.
> > >
> > > No, this isn't a troll. I'm serious. I'm sure I'm not the first to propose it. Have at it. :)
> > >
> > > Chip Bearden
> > > ASW 24 "JB"
> > > U.S.A.
>
> There is another way to look at this. Our brothers and sisters in hang gliding and paragliding world use the concept of 'Leading Points' to reward folks that start first and stay out in front.
>
> explanation
>
> 11.3 Leading points
> Leading points are awarded to encourage pilots to start early and to reward the risk involved in flying in the leading group. Pilots will get leading points even if they landed before goal or the end of speed section.
>
> Explanation with equations for calculations etc can be found on page 32 of this document http://www.fai.org/downloads/civl/SC7_GAP
>
>
>
> It has been used for a number of years now with positive results. Of course it is not perfect but what is
>
> Ron Gleason

I like this idea! reward the bold leader. Kind of hard to score on a TAT or MAT though...

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 7:03:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:

> Yeah, more rules complexities.

There's no conceivable cure here that isn't at least 87 times worse than the "disease".

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Tony[_5_]]

Bonus points for first person to each turnpoint!

[jfitch]

On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 10:12:12 AM UTC-8, Tony wrote:
> Bonus points for first person to each turnpoint!

We do this in a local contest held yearly. It is three laps of a course and there are points awarded for place at the line crossing on each lap. Enough so you can win the race while coming in second on the last lap, under the right circumstances. It is quite fun, and leads to different tactics. Certainly, following around the course does not pay.

On some kinds of tasks, you could award points for speed on each leg, that would be easy to score, easy to understand, and tend to discourage following.

[[email protected]]

Come on, T8, we can do anything with technology. The platform is already in place. All we need is a new analytical application. Technology is our friend. Embrace it, don't fight it. :)

BB, where are you?

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

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 17:44 24 December 2015, Tango Eight wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 7:03:18 PM UTC-5,

>wrote:
>
>> Yeah, more rules complexities.
>
>There's no conceivable cure here that isn't at least 87 times worse
than
>the "disease".
>
>Evan Ludeman / T8

I posted a solution earlier. Much simpler would be a motor rally type
start. After the first day the grid is formed with the fastest the
previous day on the front. Each competitor has an earliest start time,
tied to the start of launching with penalties for starting early. Those
who do not like being leeched get away on time. Assuming 1 hour to
launch the field the gaps between starts would equal 60/n minutes
where n is the number of competitors.

[waremark]

You guys all seem to consider diversion to a thermal that someone else is in or has been in to be evidence of leaching. In the conditions in which I fly it is more likely to be a matter of looking at the same clouds. We often meet up for that reason or because we are following similar tactics.

[[email protected]]

Leeching: following closely behind another [presumably better] pilot, allowing him/her to make all the decisions about course line and when to stop for/leave thermals, seldom trailing more than 1/4 mile behind the leader or deviating more than 100' in relative altitude. Includes hanging on just above the leader in a thermal waiting for him/her to lead out first. When leeching in the start cylinder, this includes the decision on when and how to start.

Using thermals found by other pilots isn't necessarily leeching. We cheerfully do it all the time. The difference is that those other gliders we use provide information for our own decision-making processes, as described in Jim White's 9 examples in another thread (if you're reading this, you've either read all those other threads or else you're a befuddled triathlete who Googled this post by mistake--click the "Back" button).

I think open FLARM does change the nature of our sport because it provides more information about what's happening farther out than we can see. And, yes, I have concerns about that. On the other hand, I agree with 9B that using that remote information to improve performance is more difficult the farther out it is.

So it's quite possible that much of this protracted debate has been over a term--leeching--about which there is no considerable definition. If so, I offer the above.

I don't like leeching. The problem is that although many pilots share this view, leeching is not illegal. So let's make it so and find a way to enforce it. Then we can put the whole FLARM stealth debate to bed!

Merry Christmas.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U

[[email protected]]

Correcting an auto-correct typo:

"So it's quite possible that much of this protracted debate has been over a term--leeching--about which there is no COMMON definition."

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

[Sean Fidler]

So let me get this straight? People now want to race to turnpoints, but not race, go anywhere they want, whenever they want, and break up the peloton (gaggle). Not a race, but a race, but not really, sorta? Oh and start anytime you want, or just wait in the start cylinder all afternoon playing dodge em cars? This is all very confusing. It always has and always will be to me. The solution (to what ever problem? we are trying to solve now) is more code in the scoring software to measure tiny details of pilot behavior and reward tiny bonuses or penalties. Oh, that and OLC tasks?

In 100 years are rule book is going to be 1500 pages long.

I honestly think the Chinese are spiking the US water system and "some of us" are beginning to show the early signs of going insane. ;-). Ugg. I'm glad we have wine opened. I think I'll have a glass. Cheers boys. This one is for you!

How about 50% real assigned RACING tasks (no extra distance for going one mile into the turnpoints and reforming the gaggle in the process, and ruining the entire concept of a simple, clean, real race)? ;-). No scoring software required, no formulas, just a stopwatch! Then 50% TATs!

Seriously, take a big step back and re-read the flow of this thread and the remember the RC wants to "simplify the rules..."

Thanks for the Xmas eve entertainment!

Lol!

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays!
And a festive FESTIVUS!

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 00:08 26 December 2015, Sean Fidler wrote:
>So let me get this straight? People now want to race to
turnpoints, but
>no=
>t race, go anywhere they want, whenever they want, and break up
the
>peloton=
> (gaggle). Not a race, but a race, but not really, sorta? Oh and
start
>an=
>ytime you want, or just wait in the start cylinder all afternoon
playing
>do=
>dge em cars? This is all very confusing. It always has and
always will
>be=
> to me. The solution (to what ever problem? we are trying to solve
now)
>is=
> more code in the scoring software to measure tiny details of pilot
>behavio=
>r and reward tiny bonuses or penalties. Oh, that and OLC tasks?
>
>In 100 years are rule book is going to be 1500 pages long.
>
>I honestly think the Chinese are spiking the US water system and
"some of
>u=
>s" are beginning to show the early signs of going insane. ;-).
Ugg. I'm
>g=
>lad we have wine opened. I think I'll have a glass. Cheers boys.
This
>on=
>e is for you!
>
>How about 50% real assigned RACING tasks (no extra distance for
going one
>m=
>ile into the turnpoints and reforming the gaggle in the process,
and
>ruinin=
>g the entire concept of a simple, clean, real race)? ;-). No
scoring
>soft=
>ware required, no formulas, just a stopwatch! Then 50% TATs!
>
>Seriously, take a big step back and re-read the flow of this thread
and
>the=
> remember the RC wants to "simplify the rules..."
>
>Thanks for the Xmas eve entertainment! =20
>
>Lol!
>
>Merry Christmas!
>Happy Holidays!
>And a festive FESTIVUS!

Sean

I have made suggestions of ways in which the perceived horror of
"leeching" can be avoided and I would be the first to admit they are
far from perfect. The point was to show alternatives to using the
current STEALTH mode on Flarm. I think everyone would have to
agree that STEALTH mode, as it is now is not an option, far too
dangerous and open to litigation if it all goes wrong.
The advance of technology has changed competitions over the years
and will continue to do so. The answer to those advances is not to
try and "uninvent" them but to accept them for what they are and
deal with them.
I am sure that in all forms of racing there are aspects that
competitors do not like, use of pacemakers in athletics and cycling
for example.
If you do not want change to tasks, then don't make them and
accept that "leeching" is now part of racing and make sure you are
better at it than the other guy.
>

[[email protected]]

If everyone has Flarm, then no body has an advantage over another by way of leaching. (Oops, my bad - I meant using other glides as "markers"). So get over it.

P9

[[email protected]]

OK, so I don't give a rats shiny about leeching. I do care that some of you guys are going to be even more heads down in the cockpit fixating on your gadgets. I see this at every contest. Looking down into the cockpits of guys who are clearly futzing about punching buttons rather than looking out.

I guess it will be entertaining at some level to watch the tactical arms race that is going to ensue fr

[JS]

Who would have thought that a small box mounted in a glider could get us so close to understanding what a Horse Child Breakfast is.
Or is it Dog's Breakfast?
Jim

[Sean Fidler]

If what the US rules committee is doing is becuase 1) more effective leeching is possible with POWERFlarm (absolutely no evidence) and 2) heads down behavior and looking at the Flarm "screen" (for legitimate Flarm collision alerts and/or for longer range tactical data) is unsafe, unfair, etc (and not saying I agree or disagree) then why do we need POWERFlarm AT ALL moving forward in the USA?

First, we do not have anything near 100% adoption. Second, why does a US pilot need all the sophistication that the PowerFlarm provides, ever again? Why would anyone else in the USA ever buy a Powerflarm from this moment forward? I wouldn't. Why have a visual Flarm display capable of more than a 1-2 mile range? Shouldn't that be illegal too on general principle? Shouldn't connecting a Flarm to a more advanced display (wire or Bluetooth) simply be forbidden? Maybe just a simple LED light stack ($20) should be the only visual aid allowed?

Why not just encourage (or demand) powerFlarm (or a new competitor) to offer a brand new US Flarm with the simple o'clock lights and above/level/below lights which are all 95% of global European Flarms do today (FCC BS aside)? $500 bucks, max.

Should we not simply allow only the audible warnings as legal for US contests and cheap, $500 unit "stealth and safety" Flarm unit that has nothing more than a speaker? "Traffic, 12 o'clock, below," with a range of "urgency" being provided in the speed of the loud beeping behind the units voice?

This is all I really use. My Oudies audible voice is pretty much all I care about. It's good enough.

If this is "the direction" we are all now going (many kicking and screaming or packing bags and going home in disgust) and the argument being presented by the "stealth cheerleaders" to justify the massive dilution of $2500 USA PowerFlarm capability is true...then why does this "safety argument" (old timers...) not also apply to a club flight or regional contests too? If it's unsafe to look at the screen in a contest, why is it safe to look at the screen on an OLC flight or a during club lap?

In Europe, most gliders have no integrated Flarm data with displays, etc. They have a simple, tiny and relatively inexpensive device which resembles a radar detector with some LED lights for radial and relative altitude. That's it!

Why have we strongly encouraged hundreds of US pilots buy sophisticated, effective and $2500 POWERFlarm devices for 6 years? Suddenly, after millions have been spent, all we needed (and are allowed to use) was already the functionality provided by simple, cheap Flarm units with no graphical display or technical sophistication for a decade or more. Basically a simple audible voice.

What a massive waste of time, money and effort this has all turned out to be...assuming we have all been flying our Flarms around the task (leeching the leaders) for 4-5 years now, and the scoreboards are all wrong due to "cheating."

Congratulations. Hat tip to those who have resisted buying Flarm and saved themselves a ton of money and aggravation. I honestly feel stupid for promoting Flarm.

Flarm is fairly useless without 100% adoption. Do a statistical analysis of the collision risk assuming Flarm equipped gliders gliders are immune from colliding with other Flarm equipped gliders (I know, even this is not 100%). Now, with this new direction, the USA has almost zero chance of ever reaching 100% adoption, even in contests. And therefore US Flarm has been a complete waste of time in my opinion.

I still simply do not believe that it is possible to effectively "cheat" individually in a US contest (timed area tasks or OLC HAT). Maybe it is at a world level with a team approach. But that only matters to a few.

What I know for sure is that, in the meantime, we have competely ruined the long term chances of reaching high adoption as the POWERFlarm is now massively over capable and overpriced. If I did not own one already, I would refuse to buy one even if it became mandatory for US contests. I would also refuse to rent one.

We need a new, very cheap, very simple Flarm which is in line with the new "safety" and "ethics" requirements designed by the US rules committee, after 5 years of encouraging everyone to buy these ultra expensive units.

I hope somebody is getting to work on this...

Sean

[jfitch]

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 9:58:08 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> If what the US rules committee is doing is becuase 1) more effective leeching is possible with POWERFlarm (absolutely no evidence) and 2) heads down behavior and looking at the Flarm "screen" (for legitimate Flarm collision alerts and/or for longer range tactical data) is unsafe, unfair, etc (and not saying I agree or disagree) then why do we need POWERFlarm AT ALL moving forward in the USA?
>
> First, we do not have anything near 100% adoption. Second, why does a US pilot need all the sophistication that the PowerFlarm provides, ever again? Why would anyone else in the USA ever buy a Powerflarm from this moment forward? I wouldn't. Why have a visual Flarm display capable of more than a 1-2 mile range? Shouldn't that be illegal too on general principle? Shouldn't connecting a Flarm to a more advanced display (wire or Bluetooth) simply be forbidden? Maybe just a simple LED light stack ($20) should be the only visual aid allowed?
>
> Why not just encourage (or demand) powerFlarm (or a new competitor) to offer a brand new US Flarm with the simple o'clock lights and above/level/below lights which are all 95% of global European Flarms do today (FCC BS aside)? $500 bucks, max.
>
> Should we not simply allow only the audible warnings as legal for US contests and cheap, $500 unit "stealth and safety" Flarm unit that has nothing more than a speaker? "Traffic, 12 o'clock, below," with a range of "urgency" being provided in the speed of the loud beeping behind the units voice?
>
> This is all I really use. My Oudies audible voice is pretty much all I care about. It's good enough.
>
> If this is "the direction" we are all now going (many kicking and screaming or packing bags and going home in disgust) and the argument being presented by the "stealth cheerleaders" to justify the massive dilution of $2500 USA PowerFlarm capability is true...then why does this "safety argument" (old timers...) not also apply to a club flight or regional contests too? If it's unsafe to look at the screen in a contest, why is it safe to look at the screen on an OLC flight or a during club lap?
>
> In Europe, most gliders have no integrated Flarm data with displays, etc. They have a simple, tiny and relatively inexpensive device which resembles a radar detector with some LED lights for radial and relative altitude. That's it!
>
> Why have we strongly encouraged hundreds of US pilots buy sophisticated, effective and $2500 POWERFlarm devices for 6 years? Suddenly, after millions have been spent, all we needed (and are allowed to use) was already the functionality provided by simple, cheap Flarm units with no graphical display or technical sophistication for a decade or more. Basically a simple audible voice.
>
> What a massive waste of time, money and effort this has all turned out to be...assuming we have all been flying our Flarms around the task (leeching the leaders) for 4-5 years now, and the scoreboards are all wrong due to "cheating."
>
> Congratulations. Hat tip to those who have resisted buying Flarm and saved themselves a ton of money and aggravation. I honestly feel stupid for promoting Flarm.
>
> Flarm is fairly useless without 100% adoption. Do a statistical analysis of the collision risk assuming Flarm equipped gliders gliders are immune from colliding with other Flarm equipped gliders (I know, even this is not 100%). Now, with this new direction, the USA has almost zero chance of ever reaching 100% adoption, even in contests. And therefore US Flarm has been a complete waste of time in my opinion.
>
> I still simply do not believe that it is possible to effectively "cheat" individually in a US contest (timed area tasks or OLC HAT). Maybe it is at a world level with a team approach. But that only matters to a few.
>
> What I know for sure is that, in the meantime, we have competely ruined the long term chances of reaching high adoption as the POWERFlarm is now massively over capable and overpriced. If I did not own one already, I would refuse to buy one even if it became mandatory for US contests. I would also refuse to rent one.
>
> We need a new, very cheap, very simple Flarm which is in line with the new "safety" and "ethics" requirements designed by the US rules committee, after 5 years of encouraging everyone to buy these ultra expensive units.
>
> I hope somebody is getting to work on this...
>
> Sean

Personally, I bought it to see where all the other gliders are. I believe it does mitigate collision risk as well, but collisions were a very low risk to start with. Operating in stealth removes the value that I paid for.

I have the same opinion of the AHRS rules. I have one for the extremely unlikely (but not impossible) event of being caught in a cloud. This is a pure safety device just like the intended use of Flarm. Yet the RC wants me to disable this expensive piece of gear because there is a rare, theoretical possibility of cheating with it. I'm trying to think of any other sport where the organizing body actively makes rules against having safety equipment on board. In sailing, it would be like saying you must irreversibly disable your auxiliary motor prior to leaving the dock, because you might turn it on and cheat at some point. If you have a man overboard and can't retrieve him because the motor won't work, well, that dead guy is the price of competition. Apparently glider pilots aren't nearly as trustworthy as sailors, we insist that the AHRS be irreversibly disabled, and that the engine be tell tailed in the log (some want them disabled as well).

[[email protected]]

I don't understand all the drama about this new rule. Hook your FLARM up to as many gadgets as you like and use all BVR info you want for almost all of your flying. When you go to a National Championship put it in Stealth/competition mode, that's 8 flying days a year, maybe 16 for some. Go race, have fun and look outside. If you don't like the rule, don't fly a National, pretty easy. But arguing that this rule has made FLARM a waist of money and will kill FLARM adoption in the US is crazy talk.

[Sean Fidler]

Jfitch,

I competely agree.

AHRS - I argued until I was blue in the face that the safety value of AHRS greatly outweighed the "cheating" concerns. I was personally insulted and attached for arguing that point. I'll never forget that. The RC went crazy, banning smart phones, requiring contest legal software versions, etc.

Same for SMART PHONES in general. For several years they were illegal toga be in the glider at a contest! You were ACTUALLY EXPECTED to go to Walmart and buy a disposable dumb phone. Amazingly, that ridiculous rule has now been reversed. Sigh. Weather panic, etc.

Same for US TASKING. 97% timed tasks in the USA in 2014 and growing. Literally 3% assigned tasks but even they are molested by the US rule modification that allows extra distance (and therefore not a race, and also increasing the risk of collision greatly) to be added on at the pilots discretion. This encourages the gaggle to reform again and again and again. Furthermore, the long MAT (timed task (not a race) is now preferred by CDs (I have no idea why) and encouraged as more flexible, easier task. These US only timed, watered down difficulty yet technically complex tasks are also a total departure from the rest of the world. Ongoing debate...

Now POWERFlarm is the new evil (without a shred of objective proof). The new high end US POWERFlarm is, with the US RCs new stealth/competition mode mandates, losing 90% of its advertised capability (and all of the justification for the very high price). In principle, I understand (complexity, unfair advantages at a highly sophisticated World Championship level) but we seem to quickly forget that we are just trying to survive here in the USA as a competition sport. The first thing that strikes me is that everyone who has POWERFlarm generally has the same basic capability. Those who don't have it are not able to see the "radar" but also cannot be leeched. So it's a null point there. First, we tell everyone to run out and buy a $2500 POWERFlarm because it works and it will increase safety! True, but not without its challenges. Antenna issues, installation issues ensued. Very few install the aft antenna for example! Many had very poor performance at first. Some still do. Slowly, over time a general satisfaction was finally reached (experience with using the tech, etc) and the POWERFlarm began to generally work as advertised. Today, 60-70% of US/Candian ompetiton pilots have them. But now, suddenly, in an unexplained US RC panic, it's a rush, rush, rush to virtually lobotomize a majority of the POWERFlarms capability (****ing off many) while putting the safety at risk in a completely untested manner. Sure, we may think the new mode (currently being developed?) should work, but there will be bugs and there will be pilot confusion (at MINIMUM!). "They" assume the new competition mode will be ready for next summers US contests and it will be 100% safe. It won't! We know this! Any logical person knows there will be issues with such a change. In a matter of a few months we went from Elmira where many said it was a big safety concern and did not like it (also STRONG PHILISOPHICAL DISAGREEMENT) to a mandate on US nationals next year! Incredible.

What's next? What if the satellite trackers (such as Delorme or the many others) cole out with a firmware update to show nearby targets? What about ADSB (max 5 years away)? Etc. Etc. This is insane.

Those who try and tightly control what soaring competition is, philisophically (timed huge area tasks, MATs, HATs (zero and one turn MATS and now coming soon, OLC tasks for example), have little moral ground in my opinion. We can't kick and scream like little girls every time a new technology has the potential to be change the sport slightly becuase we do more to change the substance and fairness of our sport here in the USA with our "unique" tasking philosophy (rolling the weather dice) than anything else, by far.

We keep falling back trying to make soaring what it was in 1960, technology wise. Yet, some here (who have been posting a great deal!) went nuts "wanting their cameras back" when GPS was introduced, or so I'm told. Incredible irony if that is true...but I'll keep that in my back pocket for now.

Im fine with making a sensible rule, once and awhile, but the viscous attack on every new technology that comes along is getting damn tiring. While we change the tasking dramatically and keep watering it down more and more! The US has far more important issues to focus on than Flarm.

Sean

[Sean Fidler]

Wrru,

If it's dangerous to look at the display in a nationals, why use that bad habit "the rest of year?"

You can't have it both ways.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

> Same for US TASKING. 97% timed tasks in the USA in 2014 and growing. Literally 3% assigned tasks but even they are molested by the US rule modification that allows extra distance (and therefore not a race, and also increasing the risk of collision greatly) to be added on at the pilots discretion.. This encourages the gaggle to reform again and again and again. Furthermore, the long MAT (timed task (not a race) is now preferred by CDs (I have no idea why) and encouraged as more flexible, easier task. These US only timed, watered down difficulty yet technically complex tasks are also a total departure from the rest of the world. Ongoing debate...

Just to clarify - the long MAT was encouraged (no rule change was required) to more closely match the AT format while retaining some insulation from implications of grossly over/undercalled tasks. There are multiple schools of thought on the safety implications of giving credit for distance within an AT or MAT (or "HAT" in "Fidlish") cylinder - but the implications for gaggles and leeches reforming are worth considering. Adopting the IGC approach has some merit and has generated some initial discussion.

Flat-out eliminating the MAT would also eliminate the long MAT and leave CDs with only AT and AAT to choose from. My guess is the result would be more AATs and the occasional cancelled day. Maybe that is more fair than a 1-turn MAT - especially to those who are poor at or don't value reading macro weather trends.

I know at least one person who would like the RC to mandate a minimum percentage of ATs in a contest - as opposed to the current guidance in the rules for CDs to strive for balance in task types - which advice is routinely ignored by task advisors for a variety of reasons that are, I am quite sure, not viewed as random or invalid in the context of the day by those involved in decision-making. A ban on task types or mandate for other task types is not likely forthcoming as it handcuffs CDs and task advisors into tasking that can have negative implications - imagine a sketchy weather week where you are trying to get a contest in and have used all your AATs up. You have no MAT option and now you have to call an AT into the prospect of widespread thunderstorms in the task area. Maybe that jazzes some people, but for the vast majority of pilots (most of whom are crewless these days) I suspect they'd view it as not so fun, fair or desirable.

However, before we get another speech on the RC's opposition to "real racing" it should be noted that the RC favors more AT call in the mix. Ideas on how to encourage that - short of outright bans or inflexible regulations are always welcome. As always, building support with pilots and task advisors at the contest level is a viable and welcome option - especially when the weather is reasonably reliable.

9B

[[email protected]]

Since Sean keeps hammering on it, I prefer ASTs more often than they are called. Head-to-head racing just seems to make more sense, but it's a philosophical thing.

That said, I'm old enough to recall losing day after day after day to CDs calling a task where, after the start, a thunderstorm developed RIGHT over a TP and sat there...with sun all around. If ONLY we had gone to TP X instead.

The interim solution was the "multiple turnpoint option" task (you could go to any one of several TPs on an out & return) with TPs in a fairly narrow sector, the idea being that we wouldn't be so likely to lose a day for a micro-meteorological phenomenon. It quickly developed that not all contest envelopes had TPs conveniently close to each other so when GPS flight recorders became mandatory, AATs appeared, marking the end of civilization as Sean defines it. :)

Hey, if the guys had listened to me and had continued to allow TP cameras, you wouldn't have this "problem" with AATs now! The MAT "problem" would still be there, though. It's just a variation of the "cat's cradle" distance tasks we used to fly.

Just for the record, I wasn't "in love" with my cameras; I just had a crush on the two grand it was going to cost me for a specialized flight recorder.. :) My real objection to GPS was primarily over the rush to mandate it when the approved devices still cost several thousand dollars. (No, we weren't allowed to use commercial off-the-shelf non-IGC GPS receivers that cost a fraction because someone might find a way to hack one and cheat with it). I thought the trade off between cost and benefit was disproportionate at that point. One of the biggest reasons cited by the pro-GPS lobby was safety: i.e., that the high-speed start line was inherently unsafe compared with the start cylinder. Here as recently, safety was hauled out to help make the sale, so to speak. It's as difficult to argue against safety as it is to contest motherhood and apple pie .

FLARM cost me somewhat less (I bought a used one this year) and I actually think it does enhance safety, with or without stealth. But I wouldn't want to digress by steering us back to the original topic.

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

[Papa3[_2_]]

As mentioned in an earlier thread, I think the idea of setting up some regionals where the field is divided more by experience/ambition rather than by glider type/class might be a good way to strike a balance. Green Class (because, as I found out, Gold/Silver creates "issues") and Blue Class could be set up where Green Class will attempt to call "a significant percentage of Assigned Tasks even in the face of less than certain weather" or something like that while Blue Class will strive to call "tasks that maximize completions/options in the event of less than certain weather". And again, nothing is stopping a contest organizer from explicitly advertising their regionals as promoting the use of "Assigned Tasks".

P3

[Dan Marotta]

You can't use green and blue for the classes. That would pit tree
huggers against democrats. There's not enough polarization there for a
good race! Instead, use blue and red. ;-)

On 12/28/2015 5:48 PM, Papa3 wrote:
> As mentioned in an earlier thread, I think the idea of setting up some regionals where the field is divided more by experience/ambition rather than by glider type/class might be a good way to strike a balance. Green Class (because, as I found out, Gold/Silver creates "issues") and Blue Class could be set up where Green Class will attempt to call "a significant percentage of Assigned Tasks even in the face of less than certain weather" or something like that while Blue Class will strive to call "tasks that maximize completions/options in the event of less than certain weather". And again, nothing is stopping a contest organizer from explicitly advertising their regionals as promoting the use of "Assigned Tasks".
>
> P3

--
Dan, 5J

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 1:44:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Correcting an auto-correct typo:
>
> "So it's quite possible that much of this protracted debate has been over a term--leeching--about which there is no COMMON definition."
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> U.S.A.

As a "leach" I will never win. But it is one of the very few ways I can learn from the better pilots in this sport. Call it involuntary mentoring. One day, if I work hard, I hope to be able to mentor leaches of my own, although I prefer to call them "followers".

Matt

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 28 December 2015 09:17:18 UTC-7, smfidler wrote:
> Jfitch,
>
> I competely agree.
>
> AHRS - I argued until I was blue in the face that the safety value of AHRS greatly outweighed the "cheating" concerns. I was personally insulted and attached for arguing that point. I'll never forget that. The RC went crazy, banning smart phones, requiring contest legal software versions, etc.
>
> Same for SMART PHONES in general. For several years they were illegal toga be in the glider at a contest! You were ACTUALLY EXPECTED to go to Walmart and buy a disposable dumb phone. Amazingly, that ridiculous rule has now been reversed. Sigh. Weather panic, etc.
>
> Same for US TASKING. 97% timed tasks in the USA in 2014 and growing. Literally 3% assigned tasks but even they are molested by the US rule modification that allows extra distance (and therefore not a race, and also increasing the risk of collision greatly) to be added on at the pilots discretion.. This encourages the gaggle to reform again and again and again. Furthermore, the long MAT (timed task (not a race) is now preferred by CDs (I have no idea why) and encouraged as more flexible, easier task. These US only timed, watered down difficulty yet technically complex tasks are also a total departure from the rest of the world. Ongoing debate...
>
> Now POWERFlarm is the new evil (without a shred of objective proof). The new high end US POWERFlarm is, with the US RCs new stealth/competition mode mandates, losing 90% of its advertised capability (and all of the justification for the very high price). In principle, I understand (complexity, unfair advantages at a highly sophisticated World Championship level) but we seem to quickly forget that we are just trying to survive here in the USA as a competition sport. The first thing that strikes me is that everyone who has POWERFlarm generally has the same basic capability. Those who don't have it are not able to see the "radar" but also cannot be leeched. So it's a null point there. First, we tell everyone to run out and buy a $2500 POWERFlarm because it works and it will increase safety! True, but not without its challenges. Antenna issues, installation issues ensued. Very few install the aft antenna for example! Many had very poor performance at first. Some still do. Slowly, over time a general satisfaction was finally reached (experience with using the tech, etc) and the POWERFlarm began to generally work as advertised. Today, 60-70% of US/Candian ompetiton pilots have them. But now, suddenly, in an unexplained US RC panic, it's a rush, rush, rush to virtually lobotomize a majority of the POWERFlarms capability (****ing off many) while putting the safety at risk in a completely untested manner. Sure, we may think the new mode (currently being developed?) should work, but there will be bugs and there will be pilot confusion (at MINIMUM!). "They" assume the new competition mode will be ready for next summers US contests and it will be 100% safe. It won't! We know this! Any logical person knows there will be issues with such a change. In a matter of a few months we went from Elmira where many said it was a big safety concern and did not like it (also STRONG PHILISOPHICAL DISAGREEMENT) to a mandate on US nationals next year! Incredible.
>
> What's next? What if the satellite trackers (such as Delorme or the many others) cole out with a firmware update to show nearby targets? What about ADSB (max 5 years away)? Etc. Etc. This is insane.
>
> Those who try and tightly control what soaring competition is, philisophically (timed huge area tasks, MATs, HATs (zero and one turn MATS and now coming soon, OLC tasks for example), have little moral ground in my opinion. We can't kick and scream like little girls every time a new technology has the potential to be change the sport slightly becuase we do more to change the substance and fairness of our sport here in the USA with our "unique" tasking philosophy (rolling the weather dice) than anything else, by far.
>
> We keep falling back trying to make soaring what it was in 1960, technology wise. Yet, some here (who have been posting a great deal!) went nuts "wanting their cameras back" when GPS was introduced, or so I'm told. Incredible irony if that is true...but I'll keep that in my back pocket for now.
>
> Im fine with making a sensible rule, once and awhile, but the viscous attack on every new technology that comes along is getting damn tiring. While we change the tasking dramatically and keep watering it down more and more! The US has far more important issues to focus on than Flarm.
>
> Sean

Sean, have to be a stickler here.

You wrote 'The new high end US POWERFlarm is, with the US RCs new stealth/competition mode mandates, ......' and this is incorrect.

The SSA Rules Committee has recommended with agreement by the SSA Competition Chairperson, to a set of rule changes for the 2016 competition season. One rule is to mandate the use of Power Flarm stealth mode at National competitions.

Furthermore the rules committee also stated that 'In late January, the Rules Committee plans to review the situation and make a final recommendation to the SSA BOD.'

So, right now we know the stance of the rules committee and Competition Chairperson and the fact that they will review their stance in late January.

If you strongly disagree with their stance, as I see it, you have two courses of action, well three actually.

1 - do nothing and pout
2 - state your case to the rules committee before their review in January.
3 - If the rules committee holds the course you can lobby the SSA BOD to reject the rule(s) you object to. As I understand it the SSA BOD meeting will be held at the SSA convention.

Ranting on RAS is probably a waste of time at best

Ron Gleason

[smfidler]

;-).

Technology improvement is always an interesting topic in any sport.

In sailing, entire classes (highly successful and strong) are angrily splitting up into 2 "camps." Those who want to upgrade to use new foiling technology (2x performance gains, exciting, the Americas Cup buzz) or traditionalists who don't want to evolve even though the class has always been pure development open (meaning rules are very basic, allowing modification and broad experimentation).

The forum arguments there make this look like a Sunday stroll with harp music in the background.

;-). Sigh...

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 12:58:59 AM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
> ;-).
>
> Technology improvement is always an interesting topic in any sport.
>
> In sailing, entire classes (highly successful and strong) are angrily splitting up into 2 "camps." Those who want to upgrade to use new foiling technology (2x performance gains, exciting, the Americas Cup buzz) or traditionalists who don't want to evolve even though the class has always been pure development open (meaning rules are very basic, allowing modification and broad experimentation).
>
> The forum arguments there make this look like a Sunday stroll with harp music in the background.
>
> ;-). Sigh...

I understand drone tools may be doing the same to bass fishermen.
LOL
UH