Confessions of a Flarm Follower

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

So, it's time to fess up. I have used flarm tactically in contests. I enjoyed it. And I think it increases, not decreases, the "spirit" of the sport.

How: One soupy, incredibly hard blue day at Perry, I had (as usual) screwed up my determination that this time, I was not going to foolishly go out on my own. I was going to stick with the gaggle as you're supposed to do on such days. That determination lasted about half way down the first leg, when I spied a bird over the town to the right. The bird started flapping, and here I am all alone again.

After a long slog at about 1000 feet and rounding the second turn, I saw two gliders circling on my flarm. Out of ideas, I headed that way. Eventually I saw a flash of wings a few miles ahead and 2000' up. Usually coming in that much under other gliders does not work, but I was out of ideas. I lost them visually, but flew right to where the Flarm said they were. Bingo, the thermal had another bubble in it, and up we go. Day saved, and, it turned out, eventually won.

Another, much stronger day, I was flying with a group of gliders. Two lines suggested themselves. Everyone else went right, but I went left. Over the rest of the leg, I was able to watch how they did vs. how I did. Eventually, my line ended -- it proved they were right. Oh well, I was able to head over and meet up again, and the group went together through the big blue hole. I would have lost them visually, but knowing what was going on was a lot of fun.

I tend to be impatient, often leading out. At minden nationals the glides are very long. After leading out on a blue day, one often wonders, did the others follow, or are they staying behind? It was very useful strategically to know that the gaggle had indeed followed me, so I would have help if things got tough up ahead. Also, it means I could go a bit deeper in the cylinder and reestablish myself. It was also good to know on my disastrous last day, that I had led out once too often, and now was completely on my own to dig out of this mess. Knowing there is nobody there is useful too!

At Nephi, a group of us used flarm radar to coordinate a team of 4 without a lot of radio contact. Did your team mate find a thermal? Boy, it is a lot easier to look quickly at the flarm radar than radio calls.

Ok, I'm out of that closet. Yes, this is a useful technology. Is this kind of behavior a disaster to the "spirit" of soaring?

Sailplane racing has always been tactical. Following other gliders, using their lift, is the heart of the tactical game, especially in world contests and especially in weaker conditions. The issue is not flarm following vs. no following. The issue is looser flarm following vs. much tighter visual following.

As my stories suggest, one of the biggest tactical uses of flarm is that you can spread out. If you want to keep contact with the gaggle in case things get tough, you do not have to slavishly stay a few hundred feet away; you do not have to slavishly stare at them to not lose sight of them. You can go try something else, you can lead out, you can stop for a better thermal, all knowing that it will be easier to keep in contact if you need it.

"Leeching" is not the same as "following." Leeching is the art of staying very close, in visual range. Flarm eliminates leeching because it makes it possible to follow and work together at much bigger distances. Flarm encourages thinking for yourself, leading out, trying a different cloud. To my mind, this is a much better "spirit" than the intensely tactical and concentration-absorbing visual tracking that you have to do without flarm.

I also flat out enjoy the greater situational awareness. Since when is flying around in the soup, unaware what everyone else is doing, only to find out at 9 pm once the scores are in, such a great spirit? I look forward to the day that ADS-B shows us where everyone is, and I know how I'm doing throughout the race.

So, as I see the controversy, this is just about who wins and who loses.

Winners: people who can imaginatively adapt tactics to use new technology, which mostly involves flying at a greater distance from markers.

Losers: people who have invested a lot of time and effort learning the skills of visually-coordinated tactical flying, whether finding targets in the start area, following specific gliders, learning the discipline to stick with the gaggle when needed, escaping others who attempt to follow, knowing where others might go, intercepting radio calls to team captains, and so forth.

No wonder the IGC is up in arms -- a generation of hard-won skills is about to go out the window.

Say I, good riddance. I freely admit this is blatant self-interest. I'm in the first category. I just can't bring myself to spend a whole soaring day looking at and following other gliders, so I never got good at visually-coordinated tactical skills that will now go out the window.

But I also claim that the spirit of the sport is much better if we can fly much more loosely, and Flarm allows that, without throwing away the chance of winning the contest.

John Cochrane BB

[XC]

Thank you, John. Someone finally is admitting that FLARM is being used tactically.

I don't think I have ever used the word leeching in any of my posts. Rather, I believe this business of being able to see contest numbers and their established climb rates is bad for sailplane racing.

The losers in all this are those who are confident enough in their abilities to lead out, who have honed their skills at looking at the sky and finding the best thermals available and those who can best convert that rising air into altitude. In other words, the losers are those who could best navigate a given sky if they were the only ones flying that day. The losers are those who are the best at soaring.

The winners are those who use a heads down FLARM display to drive hard to catch up to gaggles or gliders outside of visual range, who then use the choicest thermals marked by others to enhance their score. This is not necessarily the leeching scenario described by many. Instead they can jump from best thermal to best thermal without find their own. They may not win, although this is quite possible, but they can consistently do well, even though they would do much worse were they to attempt the same flight without markers.

Biggest loser, though, is the sport of soaring. We lose our heros. These are the great personalities that make this sport attractive young pilots. This sport was built by bold pilots who did great things, who consistently demonstrated an uncanny knack for finding thermals when no one else could. It makes me sick that people want to replace or replicate this kind skill with a FLARM display and then expect us to clap for them at the end of the contest.

XC

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 4:40:49 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
<SNIP>> I believe this business of being able to see contest numbers and their established climb rates is bad for sailplane racing.
>

You must have a better Flarm than I do. The climb rates I see on my tactical display are a complete fantasy. The altitude might hint at the climb rate, if watched over several minutes. So let's see, 4 minutes watching to establish the real climb rate, then roll out and head that way say 4 miles away, arriving 7 minutes after the climb started and maybe 3000 ft lower. Chances of finding that same climb? Pretty slim from experience. Pretty slim according to Andy's retrospective analysis.

I'd call myself a "Flarm Observer" more than a "Flarm Follower". I've learned that Flarm Following rarely pays. But like John, I do enjoy seeing what others are up to. Far from ruining the sport, it has made it more enjoyable..

If you want to see what you can do, all alone, picking the best thermals for the day, then OLC is the ideal venue.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 4:40:49 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
>
> Biggest loser, though, is the sport of soaring. We lose our heros. These are the great personalities that make this sport attractive young pilots. This sport was built by bold pilots who did great things, who consistently demonstrated an uncanny knack for finding thermals when no one else could.

I have to say when I read this it sounded like a description of Ramy flying OLC from Monterrey to Truckee and back or Gordo and Jim Payne doing crazy distance flights in the wave.

Racing is really about tactical optimization under uncertainty, which is why you find so much gaggling and other tactical behavior - quite a different sport from OLC altogether. Flarm adds some dynamism to the pure tactical game of yore by spreading out the field. It's not clear that wanting to use Flarm tactically is much more than an emotional security blanket. It may in fact result in more spreading out of the field, more independent action and more heroic flying.

Funny how things go full circle sometimes.

9B

[[email protected]]

Thanks for sharing John. I hope one day glide computers can tell you "that guys climb is strong enough to compensate for the detour".

[XC]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 10:01:03 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 4:40:49 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> >
> > Biggest loser, though, is the sport of soaring. We lose our heros. These are the great personalities that make this sport attractive young pilots.. This sport was built by bold pilots who did great things, who consistently demonstrated an uncanny knack for finding thermals when no one else could..
>
> I have to say when I read this it sounded like a description of Ramy flying OLC from Monterrey to Truckee and back or Gordo and Jim Payne doing crazy distance flights in the wave.
>
> Racing is really about tactical optimization under uncertainty, which is why you find so much gaggling and other tactical behavior - quite a different sport from OLC altogether. Flarm adds some dynamism to the pure tactical game of yore by spreading out the field. It's not clear that wanting to use Flarm tactically is much more than an emotional security blanket. It may in fact result in more spreading out of the field, more independent action and more heroic flying.
>
> Funny how things go full circle sometimes.
>
> 9B

A sailplane contest should determine who is the best glider pilot. In fact that is the first rule in the rule book. We all know what skills it takes whether pure cross country, badges, OLC, or competition. That's why in the past contest winners were also record holders.

The rules should reward those who possess these better soaring skills. Now we are getting into this BS that a glider contest is about something else, a new set of skills. Further proof that we have a fuzzy picture of what our sport is about.

If we can't even get together on what our sport is about, how can we expect bright young people to be sold on it.

XC

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

It would be lovely if soaring races tested pure soaring skills. I like turn area tasks and big MATs for this reason, and I worked to introduce the last start and other anti-gaggling initiatives also for this reason.

But that's not on the table. The question at hand is flarm or stealth mode. In the context of the other rules, that means either a tactical game with a lot of gaggling and following by eyeball, or with somewhat looser gaggling and following by flarm.

If you go out on your own under current rules, you lose the race. End of story.

We cal talk about totally different rules and totally different races. And that is a totally different discussion, not before the ssa board of directors in February and to be imposed on Nationals in the summer.

John Cochrane BB

[smfidler]

Interesting thread topic. Some issues...

DEFINTION OF A "RACE"
r�s/
noun
1.
a competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a 'SET' course.
"I won the first 50-lap race"
synonyms: contest, competition, event, heat, trial(s)
"Sasha won the race"

Humm the jeopardy theme...now...and read on...

NOT A RACE FOR 800 Alex...

"This competiton is won by the glider pilot who achieves the fastest average speed flying while anywhere literally anywhere they want in series of pilot option, 60 mile diameter turn "areas" (2800+ square miles of possible flying area in "each" 30 mile radius turn area) within a "pseudo" irrelevant minimum time. For example, if you start an hour later/earlier, and atmospheric conditions become batter/worse, this time variable alone will likely determine the winner by a massive margin...."

Answer: What is a clown show?

I won't bother to the jeprody joke for the HAT tasks.

You implied that we "race" during US contest tasks ;-). Who are you trying to kid? In the US, with 97% timed, subjective tasks (wide area TAT, HAT, insufficiently long MAT) and "Sasquatch rare" assigned tasks (3% and falling) which "allow" for additional distance in the turns. The USA offers exactly ZERO set tasks that are remotely racing around a set "race" course (all competitors negotiating the same track and challenges) by any definition. This says nothing of the start being unlimited and basically freeform in terms of competitions (couple hours variance between start times is not rare) and that competitors can start up to 10 miles apart, out the top, etc.

Especially in the US, in reality we loosely "time trial" around a free form area (average 40 mile diameter) and simply try to aqcuire more distance within a pseudo set time "limit." We run far more HATs (slang for the infamous one or zero turn MATs) than assigned tasks...which are sadly "molested" by utterly pointless modifications (extra distance incentives and associated collision risks). The only hard data regarding US tasking and the DEFINTION of racing is that we actually NEVER race the same track. It is always different, never set and therefore NOT A RACE! A pure fact! NEVER the same track. Unlike the majority of the soaring world which RACES roughly 50% real racing assigned tasks. The EXACT SAME TRACK TO THE MILLIMETER.

Your description of your Flarm behavior is refreshing, but also no real justification for rushing the entire US soaring community, fresh off a 5 year campaign to sell $2500 POWERFlarms, into stealth mode. To me, little of what you describe is truly tactical. Even the thermal save via a BVR flarm hit would, IMO, rarely be successful. I'll bet that 80-90% of pilots who tried that same play end up on the ground or even worse off (stuck longer)! It often would be better to simply focus on common terrain thermal triggers to find a last stand thermal so far below the other gliders last known Flarm location. What you are describing, IMO, is informational "comfort" and "fun." Most Flarm users don't have the fancy displays (LX9xxx or CNi) to truly have a broad tactical picture. Most, probably simply tune out or don't bother trying. I agree (and have recently described) that it is fun to see if I have stayed in the same realm as another group a mile away for example when we get in range (1-2 miles). This quick blip serves to break up the loneliness of US tasks which are often far more like individual OLC flying (alone) than an actual race where working to gain on competitors in order to judge your performance while, wait for it.............."racing!"

US tasks are, in reality, more of a game of hide and seek. In most tasks I have flown, I have spent enormous portion of them completely alone with very little Flarm activity. Hours without a wing flash. I think this is true for many I imagine. That is not racing. It's something else. Its a weather game. It's also the design of the US tasking philosophy. There is no set race track (ever) in US soaring. Not even the 3% ATs are set tracks. We simply make it up as we go for most tasks, with the priority being broad weather analysis decisions. Rarely are challenged with difficulty getting in and out of an assigned turnpoint efficiently. In the US, it's typical to simply run to the end of the good clouds and turn there. Even our assigned tasks allow for as much as a 2 mile separation at each turn! Not a race. A distance contest. Often up to 20 extra miles are available in a US "assigned????" task. We just can't resist molesting the only pure racing task.

Also, you utilize the advanced (beautiful) LX9000 (I believe) which has the luxury of a fairly powerful tactical display of Flarm information and opponent telemetry data (so I am told). This probably makes the visibility of Flarm targets more fun to monitor.

Even in your best effort to "admit your sins," I think you have really struggled to describe anything that has resulted in your improving your results based on an ability to build a BVR understanding of other competitors locations. You just enjoy not being totally alone all day and waiting until 8-9pm to see what happened. I tend to agree with you. I see Flarm the as short wave radio surprise communication on a usually lonely task!

And you are completely correct, this kind of technology will be abundantly available, for pennies on today's dollar and probably 10x more capable in 3-5 years. Perhaps sooner. ADSB, cheaper ADSB, micro ADSB (RC hobby grade), some other new tech, improved satellite trackers with target tracking displays and other integrated systems (gen 3 satilite tracking services), improved cellular networks with greater range and azimuth range, new cheaper POWERFlarm competitors, perhaps other cheap tools and tech driven by hang/para glider development.

This jeanie is not going back in the bottle easily or for long, if at all. The purely PHILISOPHICAL and almost pointless debate about what "the spirit of soaring" will be irrelevant almost before the ink is dry on the new comp mode mandate.

This will probably end up just like the old smartphone ban in 1-3 years. A waste of effort. I'm all for competition mode if US pilots are truly winning US contests by exploiting Flarm tactically. I just don't see any evidence of that and my own experience tells me that is simply not possible. Information is not always high value, actionable tactical information. On the other hand it is quite fun when it works and is what everyone who bought these fancy devices paid a bunch of money for.

With US "isolationist" tasking philosophy, Flarm is far less of a concern than the uber competitive and sophisticated teams of Europe, flying a far higher percentage of assigned racing tasks, as well. I still think we should have held off a year or at least until we have some reports from Europe. And I still worry a situational awareness related safety issue looms...

Or, maybe somebody here knows that somebody who is an absolute master of Flarm "following" tactics and has used it to advance up the score sheet (philisophically violating the secret SSA oligarch soaring code of conduct). I doubt it, but this is the only possible reason which justifies what I see happening so soon, next season.

Sean

[smfidler]

Interesting thread topic. Some issues...

DEFINTION OF A "RACE"
r�s/
noun
1.
a competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a 'SET' course.
"I won the first 50-lap race"
synonyms: contest, competition, event, heat, trial(s)
"Sasha won the race"

Humm the jeopardy theme...now...and read on...

NOT A RACE FOR 800 Alex...

"This competiton is won by the glider pilot who achieves the fastest average speed while flying literally anywhere they wish in series of pilot option, 60 mile diameter turn "areas" (2800+ square miles of possible flying area) within a "pseudo" irrelevant minimum time. For example, if you chose to start an hour later that your competiton, and atmospheric conditions become generally better or worse, this start time variable alone will likely determine the winner by a large margin...."

Answer: What is a clown show?

I won't bother to do the Jeopardy joke for the HAT tasks. That would be downright painful for many...

You sorta implied/snuck in that we "race" during US contest tasks ;-). Who are you trying to kid? I can't let they go untested. In the US, with 97% timed, subjective tasks (wide area TAT, HAT, insufficiently long MAT) and "Sasquatch rare" assigned tasks (3% and falling) which "allow" for additional distance in the turns. The USA offers exactly ZERO set tasks that are remotely racing around a set "race" course (all competitors negotiating the same track and challenges) by any definition. This says nothing of the start being unlimited and basically freeform in terms of competitions (couple hours variance between start times is not rare) and that competitors can start up to 10 miles apart, out the top, etc.

Especially in the US, in reality we loosely "time trial" around a free form area (average 40 mile diameter) and simply try to aqcuire more distance within a pseudo set time "limit." We run far more HATs (slang for the infamous one or zero turn MATs) than assigned tasks...which are sadly "molested" by utterly pointless modifications (extra distance incentives). The only hard, relevant fact regarding US tasking and the DEFINTION of racing is that we actually NEVER race the same track. Every pilot, in fact, flies a different course and therefore is not RACING anyone! They are trying to find a better route thru the maze. A pure fact! NEVER the same track. Unlike the majority of the soaring world which RACES roughly 50% real racing assigned tasks. The EXACT SAME TRACK TO THE MILLIMETER. No variance in distance flown. Amazing.

Your description of your Flarm behavior is refreshing, but also no real justification for rushing the entire US soaring community, fresh off a 5 year campaign to sell $2500 POWERFlarms, into stealth mode (negating 90% of the instruments advertised function). To me, little of what you describe is of high or even moderate tactical value. Even the thermal save via a BVR flarm hit you described would, IMO, rarely be successful. I'll bet that 80-90% of pilots who tried that same play end up on the ground or even worse off (stuck longer)! It often would be better to simply focus on common terrain thermal triggers in order to find a "last stand" thermal so far below the other gliders last known Flarm location. What you are describing, IMO, is informational "comfort" and "fun." A toy! Most Flarm users don't have the fancy displays (LX9xxx or CNi) to truly realize a broad tactical picture. Most, probably tune out or don't even bother trying to track long range targets. I agree (and have recently described) that it is fun to see if I have stayed in the same realm as another group when we get in range (1-2 miles). This quick blip serves to break up the loneliness of US tasks which are often far more like individual OLC flying (alone) than an actual race where working hard to gain on competitors in order to maximize your short term performance while, wait for it.............."racing!"

US tasks are, in reality, more of a game of hide and seek and explore. In most tasks I have flown, I spend enormous portion of them completely alone with very little Flarm activity. Hours without a wing flash or a glimpse of a fellow glider. I think this is true for many pilots I imagine. That is not racing. It's something else. It partially a weather management game.. It's also the design goal of the US tasking philosophy. There is never a set race track from R all pilots in US soaring. Not even the 3% ATs are set tracks. Im most tasks, we simply make it up as we go, with the priority being broad weather analysis decisions and often pilot discretion to add several extra turnpoints (even less of a set race than a typical wide area TAT!). Rarely are we challenged with efficiently getting in and out of an assigned turnpoints when the clouds do not perfectly line up to take us there. In the US, it's typical to simply run to the end of the good clouds and turn there (turn area). Even our assigned tasks allow for as much as a 2 mile separation at each turn! Not a race. A distance contest. Often a US AT allows up to 20 extra miles to be added. We just can't resist molesting the only pure racing task on a SET track.

Also, you utilize the advanced (beautiful) LX9000 (I believe) which has the luxury of a fairly powerful tactical display of Flarm information and opponent telemetry data (so I am told). This probably makes the visibility of Flarm targets more fun to monitor.

Even in your best effort to "admit your sins," I think you have really struggled to describe anything that has resulted in your improving your results based on an ability to build a BVR understanding of other competitors locations. You just enjoy not being totally alone all day and waiting until 8-9pm to see what happened. I tend to agree with you. I see Flarm the as short wave radio surprise communication on a usually lonely task!

And you are completely correct, this kind of technology will be abundantly available, for pennies on today's dollar and probably 10x more capable in 3-5 years. Perhaps sooner. ADSB, cheaper ADSB, micro ADSB (RC hobby grade), some other new tech, improved satellite trackers with target tracking displays and other integrated systems (gen 3 satilite tracking services), improved cellular networks with greater range and azimuth range, new cheaper POWERFlarm competitors, perhaps other cheap tools and tech driven by hang/para glider development.

This jeanie is not going back in the bottle easily or for long, if at all. The purely PHILISOPHICAL and almost pointless debate about what "the spirit of soaring" will be irrelevant almost before the ink is dry on the new comp mode mandate.

This will probably end up just like the old smartphone ban in 1-3 years. A waste of effort. I'm all for competition mode if US pilots are truly winning US contests by exploiting Flarm tactically. I just don't see any evidence of that and my own experience tells me that is simply not possible. Information is not always high value, actionable tactical information. On the other hand it is quite fun when it works and is what everyone who bought these fancy devices paid a bunch of money for.

With US "isolationist" tasking philosophy, Flarm is far less of a concern than the uber competitive and sophisticated teams of Europe, flying a far higher percentage of assigned racing tasks, as well. I still think we should have held off a year or at least until we have some reports from Europe. And I still worry a situational awareness related safety issue looms...

Or, maybe somebody here knows that somebody who is an absolute master of Flarm "following" tactics and has used it to advance up the score sheet (philisophically violating the secret SSA oligarch soaring code of conduct). I doubt it, but this is the only possible reason which justifies what I see happening so soon, next season.

Sean

[Ramy[_2_]]

I second that claim. The only way you can observe someone climbing in Flarm is by observing the altitude difference through at least a minute or two. The climb rate shown is indeed complete fantasy, and often showing 9.9 knots. I learned quickly the hard way to ignore the climb rate which Flarm shows and only look at altitude difference. Also the circling symbol is not a reliable indicator.
Sure Flam can be used tactically, and those of us not flying contest enjoy it immensely. But it is still far from providing accurate and reliable strategic information.

Ramy

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 10:35:32 PM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
> I second that claim. The only way you can observe someone climbing in Flarm is by observing the altitude difference through at least a minute or two.. The climb rate shown is indeed complete fantasy, and often showing 9.9 knots. I learned quickly the hard way to ignore the climb rate which Flarm shows and only look at altitude difference. Also the circling symbol is not a reliable indicator.
> Sure Flam can be used tactically, and those of us not flying contest enjoy it immensely. But it is still far from providing accurate and reliable strategic information.
>
> Ramy

Does anyone know if the rate of climb transmitted is barometric of GPS derived? In either case, it is highly inaccurate, by design. It is one second snapshots of either a jittery GPS altitude, or cockpit pressure, unfiltered and uncompensated. Try running your variometer on cockpit pressure sometime and see how accurate it is. When we get ADS-B, at least it'll be hooked to the static system. For proof, look at the B records in the IGC file. Between 2 second records, it is not uncommon to see 10 meter jitters up and down.. There's your 9.9 knot thermal right there. Head for it if you want, but it is a figment of the Flarm's imagination. This is why when I hear the claim that climb rates should be suppressed as strategic, I know that pilot hasn't actually tried to use it.

[[email protected]]

>Try running your variometer on cockpit pressure sometime and see how accurate it is.
I did. It is as accurate and fast as an uncompensated winter variometer. There is an effect caused by varying dynamic pressure, but if you fly reasonably constant speeds it cancels out in the differential calculation.

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 08:15 30 December 2015, wrote:
>>Try running your variometer on cockpit pressure sometime and see how
>accurate it is.
>I did. It is as accurate and fast as an uncompensated winter variometer.
>There is an effect caused by varying dynamic pressure, but if you fly
>reasonably constant speeds it cancels out in the differential calculation.

>

Hmm, hadn't thought of that. Open the vents and fly fast when near an
airspace ceiling...close them when approaching the minimum height finish.
Good idea.

Jim

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 6:09:21 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> So, it's time to fess up. I have used flarm tactically in contests. I enjoyed it. And I think it increases, not decreases, the "spirit" of the sport..
>
> How: One soupy, incredibly hard blue day at Perry, I had (as usual) screwed up my determination that this time, I was not going to foolishly go out on my own. I was going to stick with the gaggle as you're supposed to do on such days. That determination lasted about half way down the first leg, when I spied a bird over the town to the right. The bird started flapping, and here I am all alone again.
>
> After a long slog at about 1000 feet and rounding the second turn, I saw two gliders circling on my flarm. Out of ideas, I headed that way. Eventually I saw a flash of wings a few miles ahead and 2000' up. Usually coming in that much under other gliders does not work, but I was out of ideas. I lost them visually, but flew right to where the Flarm said they were. Bingo, the thermal had another bubble in it, and up we go. Day saved, and, it turned out, eventually won.
>
> Another, much stronger day, I was flying with a group of gliders. Two lines suggested themselves. Everyone else went right, but I went left. Over the rest of the leg, I was able to watch how they did vs. how I did. Eventually, my line ended -- it proved they were right. Oh well, I was able to head over and meet up again, and the group went together through the big blue hole. I would have lost them visually, but knowing what was going on was a lot of fun.
>
> I tend to be impatient, often leading out. At minden nationals the glides are very long. After leading out on a blue day, one often wonders, did the others follow, or are they staying behind? It was very useful strategically to know that the gaggle had indeed followed me, so I would have help if things got tough up ahead. Also, it means I could go a bit deeper in the cylinder and reestablish myself. It was also good to know on my disastrous last day, that I had led out once too often, and now was completely on my own to dig out of this mess. Knowing there is nobody there is useful too!
>
> At Nephi, a group of us used flarm radar to coordinate a team of 4 without a lot of radio contact. Did your team mate find a thermal? Boy, it is a lot easier to look quickly at the flarm radar than radio calls.
>
> Ok, I'm out of that closet. Yes, this is a useful technology. Is this kind of behavior a disaster to the "spirit" of soaring?
>
> Sailplane racing has always been tactical. Following other gliders, using their lift, is the heart of the tactical game, especially in world contests and especially in weaker conditions. The issue is not flarm following vs. no following. The issue is looser flarm following vs. much tighter visual following.
>
> As my stories suggest, one of the biggest tactical uses of flarm is that you can spread out. If you want to keep contact with the gaggle in case things get tough, you do not have to slavishly stay a few hundred feet away; you do not have to slavishly stare at them to not lose sight of them. You can go try something else, you can lead out, you can stop for a better thermal, all knowing that it will be easier to keep in contact if you need it.
>
> "Leeching" is not the same as "following." Leeching is the art of staying very close, in visual range. Flarm eliminates leeching because it makes it possible to follow and work together at much bigger distances. Flarm encourages thinking for yourself, leading out, trying a different cloud. To my mind, this is a much better "spirit" than the intensely tactical and concentration-absorbing visual tracking that you have to do without flarm.
>
> I also flat out enjoy the greater situational awareness. Since when is flying around in the soup, unaware what everyone else is doing, only to find out at 9 pm once the scores are in, such a great spirit? I look forward to the day that ADS-B shows us where everyone is, and I know how I'm doing throughout the race.
>
> So, as I see the controversy, this is just about who wins and who loses.
>
> Winners: people who can imaginatively adapt tactics to use new technology, which mostly involves flying at a greater distance from markers.
>
> Losers: people who have invested a lot of time and effort learning the skills of visually-coordinated tactical flying, whether finding targets in the start area, following specific gliders, learning the discipline to stick with the gaggle when needed, escaping others who attempt to follow, knowing where others might go, intercepting radio calls to team captains, and so forth.
>
> No wonder the IGC is up in arms -- a generation of hard-won skills is about to go out the window.
>
> Say I, good riddance. I freely admit this is blatant self-interest. I'm in the first category. I just can't bring myself to spend a whole soaring day looking at and following other gliders, so I never got good at visually-coordinated tactical skills that will now go out the window.
>
> But I also claim that the spirit of the sport is much better if we can fly much more loosely, and Flarm allows that, without throwing away the chance of winning the contest.
>
> John Cochrane BB

My friend John has finally come out of the closet. I've been waiting for this because, knowing John, we would eventually hear about why he thinks Flarm radar is a good thing for our competitions. He hasn't resorted to the safety panic mongering of many and makes an interesting case.
I'll provide some other insights and opinions with the hope that the personal shots about age, paranoia, or protecting my status can be skipped by those that don't agree with me.
I've used radar in the same ways as John, except for the team flying he describes. As a result of the experiences with this it is my opinion that Flarm radar can be a very powerful and useful tool with the potential to have a meaningful affect on individual performance and result scores. John well describes some of those cases.
The reality is that radar is most useful tactically as a following tool, either by direct following or, by using the information from the leading pilot(s) to decide to follow, or diverge. There is very little, if any, benefit to the leading pilot. The effect of this is that following becomes more useful and important in tactics.
The ability to break away by the leading pilot(Jerzy excepted) is meaningfully reduced. No longer does he have to get out of visual range, he must get out or radar range. 2-3 miles becomes 6 or more. This will only become more as the value of this too gets better understood and the tools get better with longer range.
Radar also makes team flying hugely easier. John likes this because he really enjoys this. Some others will also. Many, will not.
There is one unstated assumption in the scenarios John describes. That is that we all give information via Flarm and get it back.
As a demonstrated useful tactic, one can play what I would call "hide and seek".
This involves selectively blanking the A antenna while using the B for reception. This allows the pilot to receive at somewhat reduced effectiveness while providing no tactical information out. Unfortunately this has a profound affect on the safety benefits we all bought the tool for. There are lots of ways to do this, such as the old antenna in the side pocket next to the foil wrapped snack bar trick, and others that some of us that have thought about this, and maybe already used, have come up with.
I know this is happening now to a small degree, but predict it will become more prevalent in the future. It is reported to be much more common in Europe than the US, but they are ahead of us on adoption and tactics.
A well specified Competition mode could, in my view, reduce the motivation to disable the safety benefits we want. I would, for purposes of discussion, suggest the following characteristics understanding that the Flarm folks would need to do a lot of rethinking:
Mode effective radius of 5km vs. current 2km. This would provide much enhanced warning range. It is also sort of matches the useful visual range for ID and climb rate of competitors. There seems to me to be little benefit to choking the range below useful visual, and, I suspect most will agree, some strong negatives.
Retain the no ID and climb rate concept with one exception. Provide the ID if the glider that Flarm has determined is a conflict.
Limit information in only. This would allow other users not in Competition mode the full level of protection. This has meaningful issues with respect to ensuring effectiveness of the mode, because it relies on only on the receiving glider to be properly configured.
Yes I know you can hide another Flarm, but the antenna has to go somewhere and I would be willing to risk an occasional(likely very rare) cheater.
Provide ID of all gliders that Flarm sees in a head on situation(10 degrees L&R?)at full range.
What I am describing could give us close to full safety benefit, while keeping the tactical benefits to what I think are a tolerable trade off, and reducing the motivations toward greater levels of cockpit technology to leverage this tool.
Flame suit on.
Happy New Year to all.
UH

[[email protected]]

Seems to me that most forms of racing have always been about who can tweak/manipulate/out think/out engineer, the competition. That's why racing breeds technological improvements.

Racing that freezes improvements is usually called "one design" and encourages an absolute level field.

I suppose we must decide what path the sanctioned classes are choosing.

Lane

[Tony[_5_]]

John,

I also like to know where my competition is. FLARM-wise, i'm happy to let them use me as long as i get to use them. Fair's fair.

I also would like to be able to talk to my crew during the race, and see what the weather is doing. Imagine a NASCAR race where the driver couldn't talk to his crew chief.

[CLewis95]

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 11:44:56 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
> John,
>
> I also like to know where my competition is. FLARM-wise, i'm happy to let them use me as long as i get to use them. Fair's fair.
>
> I also would like to be able to talk to my crew during the race, and see what the weather is doing. Imagine a NASCAR race where the driver couldn't talk to his crew chief.

NASCAR drivers/teams even have "spotters" that communicate info about other cars .. even which "line" on the track that is working better for the competition. Maybe a good analogy for using FLARM info to find best "line" under a cloud street :)
Curt - 95

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 5:09:21 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> So, it's time to fess up. I have used flarm tactically in contests. I enjoyed it. And I think it increases, not decreases, the "spirit" of the sport..

I totally agree.

We need better Flarm/ADS-B coverage (situational awareness), not less. Glider racing has gotten so lonely it's boring. A lot of rules but not racing - which explains the popularity of OLC.

When I race, I want to RACE (see definition in another excellent post).
And IMO, in the perfect race, everyone would use the same thermals, on the same task, and finish within seconds of each other. That would be a test of soaring skill, not of luck, weather guessing, and local knowledge.

Of course, hardware would count. It does now, so what.

And gaggles would be a problem if everybody started at once - so split up the pack into groups of 3 -5 gliders and give them a short start interval, and have multiple winners each day...

We used to have fun races in AZ where the first guy out of the start called the first turnpoint, and the last guy there called the next - the point being to keep the pack together (regardless of handicap) and have fun racing each other all the way to the final glide. Not sure how you would score it for real, but it beat the hell out of boring area tasks!

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

.... the safety benefits we all bought the tool for.


Hah, you're just being diplomatic with that one UH.

Does anyone really doubt that the hard core Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover? I think most of the Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm. "Safety" is mostly just a bludgeon to be used against the debate opposition.

My belief is that tactics to gain advantage through Flarm and to deny competitors information, or perhaps even to broadcast misinformation, will severely degrade the safety function of Flarm far more than any "stealth/competition" mode does.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 6:40:49 PM UTC-6, XC wrote:
> Thank you, John. Someone finally is admitting that FLARM is being used tactically.
>
> I don't think I have ever used the word leeching in any of my posts. Rather, I believe this business of being able to see contest numbers and their established climb rates is bad for sailplane racing.
>
> The losers in all this are those who are confident enough in their abilities to lead out, who have honed their skills at looking at the sky and finding the best thermals available and those who can best convert that rising air into altitude. In other words, the losers are those who could best navigate a given sky if they were the only ones flying that day. The losers are those who are the best at soaring.
>
> The winners are those who use a heads down FLARM display to drive hard to catch up to gaggles or gliders outside of visual range, who then use the choicest thermals marked by others to enhance their score. This is not necessarily the leeching scenario described by many. Instead they can jump from best thermal to best thermal without find their own. They may not win, although this is quite possible, but they can consistently do well, even though they would do much worse were they to attempt the same flight without markers.
>
> Biggest loser, though, is the sport of soaring. We lose our heros. These are the great personalities that make this sport attractive young pilots. This sport was built by bold pilots who did great things, who consistently demonstrated an uncanny knack for finding thermals when no one else could. It makes me sick that people want to replace or replicate this kind skill with a FLARM display and then expect us to clap for them at the end of the contest.
>
> XC


Well said.

WB

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:56:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Your statement "Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover" is a pretty bad accusation directed towards people who brought Flarm to the USA.

Another of your comment "Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm"

Your above comment is simply ridiculous and offending to many people. You might consider rethinking before you post next time.

[[email protected]]

> The question at hand is flarm or stealth mode. In the context of the other rules, that means either a tactical game with a lot of gaggling and following by eyeball, or with somewhat looser gaggling and following by flarm.
>

>
> John Cochrane BB

OK, so if the question is "flarm or stealth mode", what do you say if it turns out that unlimited tactical use of Flarm actually degrades safety more than stealth mode might?

[Casey Cox]

Riddle me this please.

I see all this for and against FLARM and for and against stealth mode due to leaching and ruining the sport of competitive soaring that lets the best pilot of picking the best track win, and from my perspective of a non-competitive pilot, when it looks to me that the gliders are the lest regulated part of the sport.

Are the top pilots or all pilots flying the same glider?
Are gliders that close to performance to be negligible?
What about GPS, are they the same?
Are the handicaps accurate or should there be a world class glider?
Can the old HP pilots with their sectional compete with the billionaire with his electronics?

Not trying to troll or steal the thread, but instead just would like a comp pilots to a non-comp pilot perspective on is one thing more advantageous over an other or is everything I just mentioned apples and oranges?

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:22:30 PM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:56:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> Your statement "Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover" is a pretty bad accusation directed towards people who brought Flarm to the USA.
>
> Another of your comment "Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm"
>
> Your above comment is simply ridiculous and offending to many people. You might consider rethinking before you post next time.

Sorry if I offended you Andrzej, I apologize for not making it clear that I was not referring to the developers or the vendors of Flarm. My post was directed only towards those pilots who have vigorously pushed Flarm under the somewhat transparent guise of "safety" when what they really care about is tactical advantage. Those who protest vehemently against stealth mode on the basis of reduced safety, give away their true agenda when they refuse to at least acknowledge that tactical use of Flarm raises the potential for degradation of safety. Do we know that the current stealth mode, or a future "competition" mode will reduce safety more than increased head-down time or intentional suppression of antennas, or..?

I am not against Flarm. I have flown with Flarm in contests for it's stated purpose as a collision avoidance tool and found it useful.

[JS]

What a laugh.
Bring back the primitive FLARMs which you never looked at until they made noise.
Oh, that's right... Americans weren't allowed to have them!
Seems from these recent threads there was a good reason for that rule.
Jim

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 6:44:35 PM UTC-8, wrote:
<SNIP> when what they really care about is tactical advantage.
Perhaps you can explain to me how it is a tactical advantage to have exactly the same information as everyone else?

Sure, if you refuse to use it then you put yourself at a tactical disadvantage. The same can be said about your variometer, GPS, and altimeter. There is no tactical advantage to Flarm if all contestants have them.

In fact the same arguments used against Flarm (replaces pilot skill with technology) is at least as true of every other instrument in the panel. It is becoming increasingly clear that the detractors of Flarm are simply technophobes. If they believed what they said, they would also be advocating the banning of variometers, altimeters, GPS, compasses, laminar flow airfoils, etc. What are these after all, but attempts to apply technology to gain an advantage, and far more effective ones than Flarm? The really good pilots can fly without them.

To be clear, I like my variometer, GPS, altimeter, and compass because I am at an advantage compared to not having them. To a lesser extent, I like my Flarm for the same reason.

[ND]

> In fact the same arguments used against Flarm (replaces pilot skill with technology) is at least as true of every other instrument in the panel. It is becoming increasingly clear that the detractors of Flarm are simply technophobes. If they believed what they said, they would also be advocating the banning of variometers, altimeters, GPS, compasses, laminar flow airfoils, etc. What are these after all, but attempts to apply technology to gain an advantage, and far more effective ones than Flarm? The really good pilots can fly without them.

you have one part of it wrong. no one is "afraid" of flarm. i wouldn't call detractors of flarm technophobes at all. most of those dudes (and ladies) have installed a TV screen front and center in their panel. i think labeling them as technophobes is a dismissive negative generalization that is viewed as hard to contest. well i'm contesting it. "oh... they're just technophobes, tsk tsk that won't do."

i don't agree with that at all. the truth is that they place a high value on the skill associated with keeping visual tabs on competitors, and that they also see that automating that cockpit task as negative.

you can't fault them for their opinion. it's theirs and they are entitled to it. i accept yours, regarding GPS, Vario, et cet. as a valid viewpoint.

the tactical advantage of flarm DOES come when everyone has it. but only when some start dicking with it by putting tin foil hats over the antennae. that's criminal if you ask me.

[smfidler]

What an absolutely ridiculous statement. I won't stand by and listen to this passively anymore. It's time to slap this stupidity down.

Powerflarm provides a moderately reliable, 2-3 mile (and a very reliable 1-2 mile) situational awareness "radar" with an advanced collision algorithm which automatically alerts any pilots involved in a potential collision well in advance of any calculated conflict possibility. This alert could come at the beginning of a slight turn or climb or descent by one or both gliders while gliders are at relatively close range. If you are entirely unaware of the other glider when you get the warning (this could suddenly be a critical warning), it's often quite a panic to locate where the threat is, especially when in close proximity. Powerflarm is carefully designed not to beep (annoy) unless there is a potential glider collision "solution." This can mean that gliders can get incredibly close without any alert or warning whatsoever. Say 100 meters side to side, etc. Not a sound is made by the POWERFlarm if both gliders are not, at that moment, tending course towards the other. Parallel courses is not a problem. Suddenly one pulls aggressively towards another and bang. The POWERFlarms alert or warning event alone is simply not sufficient to achieve truly improved safety environment in any glider contest or busy flying area (say a club flight of 2,3,4...). This is the whole point of Powerflarm vs gen 1 Flarm (simple lights O'clock above, level, below). This is also THE EXACT REASON POWERFLARM DOES NOT RECOMMEND STEALTH MODE. Many other dangerous scenarios are possible without simultaneous situational awareness and an occasional scan of the Flarm radar picture (telemetry is useless and needs less in this scan). It's about has anything new appeared nearby and it will be completely lost with stealth or competition mode.

A HUGE part of the "safety equation" POWERFlarm "used to provide" us is a much higher level of basic situational awareness. This fact is IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE US RC STEALTH MANDATE (now called "competition?" mode and currently pure untested vaporware). Flarm is exactly the same debate as ADSB vs traditional ATC flight following with transponders or nothing at all (the SSA argument). Transponders are all but useless in a busy environment. TCAS was a band aid on this vastly flawed system, but even that has failed us miserably (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Überlingen_mid-air_collision). GPS based data linked radar, on the other hand is very powerful improvement for aviation safety. Gliders are not the only aircraft that matter in this discussion of course. Enter ADSB (Flarms technology "big brother"). Bottom line, regardless of statistical arguments claiming we have very few collisions in glider contests, gliders hitting each-other, even once more, is unacceptable in any gliding or general aviation environment, ever again, P E R I O D. Sacrificing safety for philosophical traditionalism is unacceptable. We cannot let our safety guard down, for a second, ever. Yet here we are having this discussion...and facing an RC almost immediate US RC mandate of said POWERFlarm SA lobotomy.

Anyone who has seriously competed with a POWERFlarm (several years experience over 15+ flarm equipped contests, from a few gliders at first to most or all in 2015 contests, or a thermal at a World Championships, etc) would fully understand that a POWERFLARM is PRIMARILY (and by far) a "safety device" which may occasionally help alert its owner (and the potential conflict owner) to a dangerous collision threat which they may have otherwise been entirely unaware of without POWERFlarm. Again, the "warning" itself is very small piece of the total safety value.

A huge part of value this SAFETY DEVICE creates is the natural capability to generally "notice" another glider in the immediate area (2-3 miles, or less) which otherwise would be completely unknown (back to the Stone Age, or with Stealth or Comp mode). This problem happens ALL THE TIME in starting areas for example. It also happens approaching or departing thermals, ridges, etc.

The idea of "killing" the situational awareness value of this obvious and clear SAFETY DEVICE in such a rapid, untested and unnecessary philosophical "technology jihad" has been awe inspiring to behold. The almost childlike comments from the peanut mob are equally amazing. These two campaigns are in direct conflict. Let's be honest. One philosophically says position data and telemetry is unfair (even though all have equal capability, and zero objective evidence of value has been provided) and it must all be struck down and lobotomized entirely, immediately, with angry accusations about pilot cheating motives for purchase (not safety at all) and the other saying that situational awareness is important to the safety environment, tech is OK, there is no real evidence, everyone has the same view, it's not a big deal competitively, calm down, breath, etc. I'm starting to lean back to to stand with this group on general principle.

Without the situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm, we are absolutely and considerably debilitating the basic safety elements of the POWERFlarm system by removing the pilots ability to notice other yet visually undetected gliders around them. A main cause of recent most collisions in the USA (Uvalde, Minden?).

There are absolutely going to be unintended consequences by lobotomizing POWERFlarm situational awareness, depending on the specific and entirely unreleased technical requirements of the "competition mode" that Flarm is supposedly working on for the US rules committee. I wonder who is paying them for this work, this testing? At this point, committing to the promise of its safe function is reckless and hard to imagine.

The 1-2 or 2-3 mile situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm instrument and its basic display is critical to the overall safety process POWERFlarm provides. This is an absolute fact and I will argue as necessary to substantiate it by citing numerous personal videos (never before shown) and corresponding SeeYou examples, etc.

Finally, I find the ridiculous statements in this topic that everyone bought POWERFlarm to track competitors (leech) and not as a safety device to be absolutely unacceptable. The person saying this, is out of order. No apology is sufficient. Such statements are dangerous, reckless and factually pathetic.

The recent "apology" was a joke and hopefully is not accepted.

Sean

[BobW]

>> In fact the same arguments used against Flarm (replaces pilot skill with
>> technology) is at least as true of every other instrument in the panel.
>> It is becoming increasingly clear that the detractors of Flarm are simply
>> technophobes...
>
> I wouldn't call detractors of flarm technophobes at all. <Snip...> I think
> labeling them as technophobes is a dismissive negative generalization that
> is viewed as hard to contest. well i'm contesting it. "oh... they're just
> technophobes, tsk tsk that won't do."
>
> I don't agree with that at all. the truth is that they place a high value
> on the skill associated with keeping visual tabs on competitors, and that
> they also see that automating that cockpit task as negative.
>
> you can't fault them for their opinion. it's theirs and they are entitled
> to it. i accept yours, regarding GPS, Vario, et cet. as a valid viewpoint.

The reply above beat me to the draw...

As someone with no dog in the contest-centric portion of this fight - but with
a genuine interest in listening to others' thoughts on "the whole FLARM
discussion," I 100% agree that the word "technophobe" in the claim, "It is
becoming increasingly clear that the detractors of Flarm are simply
technophobes..." can too easily be taken as a dismissive attempt to stifle
open discussion. I think we can do better.

By personal choice, I XC-soared for ~2 decades sans electrical system and
electric vario, many years of that without even a handheld radio.
Work-concurrently, I also spent some years developing and supporting
production processes for hard disk heads (which "fly" on individual molecules
of air; ever wonder why they're not spec-ed to work at high altitudes?) and
mass production of the ever-miniaturizing hard disk drives most of us use
without giving 'em a second thought...tooling tolerances in the low-singles of
4 non-metric decimal digits. Regardless of my choices of what technology to
use or not to use, a technophobe I am not. I suspect many others feel
generally similarly about their own technology choices.

Bob W.

P.S. I could've simply replied "B.S.!" as a form of shorthand to the
"technophobe" claim, but then shorthand is so easily mis-interpreted. :-)

[[email protected]]

Sean,
Happy New Year. Hope your having a beer some place nice.

Doesn't the 5 km radius plus enhancements for head to head described UH's post give us the same SA as the 2-3 miles you are talking about. What is missing is contest ID and climb rate. It seems to me these are not needed for collision avoidance.
p
Also, Reading the Flarm spec it specifically calls for manufacturers of display devices to NOT draw the eyes of the pilot back into the cockpit. This business of using contest Id's to coordinate evasive action seems unwise. Better to use the right of way rules to take smooth course correction in a timely manner, always looking for that second and third aircraft.

The often quoted manufacturers recommendation to not enable stealth is taken out of context. They are cautioning that leaving the Flarm in stealth when not at a contest will, of course, limit what is displayed on your Flarm and others. This designed feature is for use at contests not general flying.

XC

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:21:09 PM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
> What an absolutely ridiculous statement. I won't stand by and listen to this passively anymore. It's time to slap this stupidity down.
>
> Powerflarm provides a moderately reliable, 2-3 mile (and a very reliable 1-2 mile) situational awareness "radar" with an advanced collision algorithm which automatically alerts any pilots involved in a potential collision well in advance of any calculated conflict possibility. This alert could come at the beginning of a slight turn or climb or descent by one or both gliders while gliders are at relatively close range. If you are entirely unaware of the other glider when you get the warning (this could suddenly be a critical warning), it's often quite a panic to locate where the threat is, especially when in close proximity. Powerflarm is carefully designed not to beep (annoy) unless there is a potential glider collision "solution." This can mean that gliders can get incredibly close without any alert or warning whatsoever. Say 100 meters side to side, etc. Not a sound is made by the POWERFlarm if both gliders are not, at that moment, tending course towards the other. Parallel courses is not a problem. Suddenly one pulls aggressively towards another and bang. The POWERFlarms alert or warning event alone is simply not sufficient to achieve truly improved safety environment in any glider contest or busy flying area (say a club flight of 2,3,4...). This is the whole point of Powerflarm vs gen 1 Flarm (simple lights O'clock above, level, below). This is also THE EXACT REASON POWERFLARM DOES NOT RECOMMEND STEALTH MODE. Many other dangerous scenarios are possible without simultaneous situational awareness and an occasional scan of the Flarm radar picture (telemetry is useless and needs less in this scan). It's about has anything new appeared nearby and it will be completely lost with stealth or competition mode.
>
> A HUGE part of the "safety equation" POWERFlarm "used to provide" us is a much higher level of basic situational awareness. This fact is IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE US RC STEALTH MANDATE (now called "competition?" mode and currently pure untested vaporware). Flarm is exactly the same debate as ADSB vs traditional ATC flight following with transponders or nothing at all (the SSA argument). Transponders are all but useless in a busy environment. TCAS was a band aid on this vastly flawed system, but even that has failed us miserably (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Überlingen_mid-air_collision). GPS based data linked radar, on the other hand is very powerful improvement for aviation safety. Gliders are not the only aircraft that matter in this discussion of course. Enter ADSB (Flarms technology "big brother"). Bottom line, regardless of statistical arguments claiming we have very few collisions in glider contests, gliders hitting each-other, even once more, is unacceptable in any gliding or general aviation environment, ever again, P E R I O D. Sacrificing safety for philosophical traditionalism is unacceptable. We cannot let our safety guard down, for a second, ever. Yet here we are having this discussion...and facing an RC almost immediate US RC mandate of said POWERFlarm SA lobotomy.
>
> Anyone who has seriously competed with a POWERFlarm (several years experience over 15+ flarm equipped contests, from a few gliders at first to most or all in 2015 contests, or a thermal at a World Championships, etc) would fully understand that a POWERFLARM is PRIMARILY (and by far) a "safety device" which may occasionally help alert its owner (and the potential conflict owner) to a dangerous collision threat which they may have otherwise been entirely unaware of without POWERFlarm. Again, the "warning" itself is very small piece of the total safety value.
>
> A huge part of value this SAFETY DEVICE creates is the natural capability to generally "notice" another glider in the immediate area (2-3 miles, or less) which otherwise would be completely unknown (back to the Stone Age, or with Stealth or Comp mode). This problem happens ALL THE TIME in starting areas for example. It also happens approaching or departing thermals, ridges, etc.
>
> The idea of "killing" the situational awareness value of this obvious and clear SAFETY DEVICE in such a rapid, untested and unnecessary philosophical "technology jihad" has been awe inspiring to behold. The almost childlike comments from the peanut mob are equally amazing. These two campaigns are in direct conflict. Let's be honest. One philosophically says position data and telemetry is unfair (even though all have equal capability, and zero objective evidence of value has been provided) and it must all be struck down and lobotomized entirely, immediately, with angry accusations about pilot cheating motives for purchase (not safety at all) and the other saying that situational awareness is important to the safety environment, tech is OK, there is no real evidence, everyone has the same view, it's not a big deal competitively, calm down, breath, etc. I'm starting to lean back to to stand with this group on general principle.
>
> Without the situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm, we are absolutely and considerably debilitating the basic safety elements of the POWERFlarm system by removing the pilots ability to notice other yet visually undetected gliders around them. A main cause of recent most collisions in the USA (Uvalde, Minden?).
>
> There are absolutely going to be unintended consequences by lobotomizing POWERFlarm situational awareness, depending on the specific and entirely unreleased technical requirements of the "competition mode" that Flarm is supposedly working on for the US rules committee. I wonder who is paying them for this work, this testing? At this point, committing to the promise of its safe function is reckless and hard to imagine.
>
> The 1-2 or 2-3 mile situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm instrument and its basic display is critical to the overall safety process POWERFlarm provides. This is an absolute fact and I will argue as necessary to substantiate it by citing numerous personal videos (never before shown) and corresponding SeeYou examples, etc.
>
> Finally, I find the ridiculous statements in this topic that everyone bought POWERFlarm to track competitors (leech) and not as a safety device to be absolutely unacceptable. The person saying this, is out of order. No apology is sufficient. Such statements are dangerous, reckless and factually pathetic.
>
> The recent "apology" was a joke and hopefully is not accepted.
>
> Sean



Now, now Sean, I never said "everyone". I said "hard core Flarm pushers". As I have said previously, I have flown with a Powerflarm in a couple of contests and numerous non-contest flights and find it to be useful. I have also stated in a previous post that I don't care about the whole issue of using Flarm for leeching. However, I stand by my assertion that the majority of those who are opposed to any type of "competition mode" for Flarm, AND who are not willing to discuss the possibility of negative safety effects of tactical use, do not have safety as their PRIMARY interest with regards to Flarm. I did not say they had NO interest in safety.

I'm at a loss to understand how my opinion was "dangerous, reckless...". We hear anecdotally that pilots have admitted to intentionally disabling their Flarm output to deny tactical information to their competitors. I think ignoring or attempting to stifle the discussion of the unintended consequences of unlimited tactical use of Flarm might be dangerous.

As for "factually pathetic", well, that is certainly a possibility. Wouldn't be the first time.

As for my apology to Andrzej, that was no joke. It was quite sincere.

WB

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

"Does anyone really doubt that the hard core Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover? I think most of the Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm. "Safety" is mostly just a bludgeon to be used against the debate opposition. "

This is the most asinine statement I have ever read on RAS. Crying out loud, did you really not know Flarm was designed from the ground up as an anti-collision device and it is very effective for its designed purpose ?! Can you really not see multiple holes in your "logic jump"? Your thoughts become your words, and yours are off base illogical and downright foolish. I hope your New Years resolution if for clearity of thought.

Happy NewYears all!

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:16:08 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> The often quoted manufacturers recommendation to not enable stealth is taken out of context. They are cautioning that leaving the Flarm in stealth when not at a contest will, of course, limit what is displayed on your Flarm and others. This designed feature is for use at contests not general flying.
>

Hey Sean,

I've read the spec over and over. I've read other Flarm-produced documentation and I've spoken at one point or another to most of the Flarm leadership team, including spending a day with Urs in his California office. Without putting specific words in anyone's mouth it was made pretty clear to me that the recommendation against using Stealth specifically includes contest use. They have said (in writing) that the only reason to use it (and implied that the only reason it was developed) was to forestall people turning their units off altogether. You can speculate that this was due to liability concerns, but no one ever said that to me and the way people talked about it just reinforced the sense that the main consideration is that they thought using it was a bad idea on technical grounds - second only to not using Flarm at all.

We can talk about the (small) probabilities of glider midairs and merits of a bit less situational awareness against the (still to be described in a quantifiable way) reduction in "tactical use", but it really is a line drawing exercise that makes many of us pretty uncomfortable - since the costs are some small increment in a horrific outcome versus a benefit that can't be adequately described, let alone quantified or demonstrated as to how it decreases the accuracy to which contest scores represent soaring skills.

Take John's confessional and unpack it a bit into the real implications. There are two main tactical use cases he describes:

Use Case 1: Knowing where other gliders are and to some extent how they are progressing - a different line, a different thermal, etc. Knowing where a handful of other pilots are some of the time - maybe where they made their turn in the cylinder - give you a sense of whether you are gaining or losing. In other words, it give you a sensation that you are racing - which a lot of pilots seem to enjoy. You have tactical information that you are, for instance, losing ground to another glider - instead of waiting until dinner time and the scores to figure this out. At three miles distance it gives you almost no useful information about what to do about it. Three miles laterally is a hard gap to close on a leg - you just give up too much to make a sharp deviation and if you do it with a gradual course change it's equally pointless as whatever is happening differently will likely be totally changed 10 miles or more down the course line. As prior data analysis - and experience - has demonstrated, following someone from 3 miles behind is generally a recipe for getting 4 miles behind unless you find your own, better thermals - that is, fly you own flight.

Use Case 2: Having some confidence under marginal conditions when there are other gliders about that you will have a decent shot at finding a thermal if there is one to be had. This reduces the chances that you will miss the saving climb that prevents a landout (or being stuck for a long time) when climbs (and particularly good climbs) are few and far between. From looking at the names on the list of landouts on days like this, it seems that there is more luck than skill involved, but it is possible that there is some skill, some local knowledge and some risk tolerance involved (e.g. willingness to drive down to 300', fly over unlandable terrain, into tight canyons, etc). Are these the types of soaring skills we want to value? Is having more landouts a desirable way to ensure these skills are tested? Does it really make the sport more attractive to new pilots to know we specifically want them to not have the information that could have gotten them home on a marginal day or when they are low and desperate? Landouts are the enemy of fair scoring - they scramble the scoresheet and we can't even come to a stable view of how to score miles versus miles per hour. The points we grant for landing out have come up and up over the years specifically because we realize landouts are mostly an indication of bad luck more than lack of skill. We devalue days with lots of landouts (luck factor). We've increased landout scores to the point that slow finishers are starting to complain that they don't get enough points. Why is it a good idea to deny pilots useful tactical information to avoid a landout? In addition to the basic fairness and values issues, it is a question the tort lawyers will be interested to address the next time we have a landout fatality in a contest - all the IGC files will be analyzed to see if there were any climbing gliders in range to avoid the tragedy. The next question will be "who is to blame for deliberately denying the pilot this potentially life-saving information". At that point what actually would have happened in the alternate case won't matter.

I wouldn't describe all opponents of Open Flarm as technophobes - some are (and have admitted to me that they are "not computer people"), other like technology just fine but seem to feel that some skill they have (perhaps risk-tolerance is one) will be diluted with new and better information. But denying people all external information hardly seems like a fundamental principle of glider racing - if it were we would do separate time trials or all MAT format to maximize the separation of gliders so you can't use any visual cues. We would have leeching penalties that are quite easy to calculate with IGC files. We don't, and no one seems to be interested in going down that path.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 4:28:58 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> "Does anyone really doubt that the hard core Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover? I think most of the Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm. "Safety" is mostly just a bludgeon to be used against the debate opposition. "
>
> This is the most asinine statement I have ever read on RAS. Crying out loud, did you really not know Flarm was designed from the ground up as an anti-collision device and it is very effective for its designed purpose ?! Can you really not see multiple holes in your "logic jump"? Your thoughts become your words, and yours are off base illogical and downright foolish. I hope your New Years resolution if for clearity of thought.
>
> Happy NewYears all!

Thanks, Jonathan,

I am ever so grateful that you have lifted the scales from my eyes. I had no idea that Flarm was designed from the ground up as an anti-collision device. That is what I have used it for in my glider, but I thought I had just somehow stumbled upon a novel use for that mysterious little box. Who would'a thunk it?

Hey, maybe you can tell me what these GPS thingies are for? I'm thinking GPS stands for "going purty straight". Is that right? And then there's this other thing on my panel that makes "beep-beep-beep" and "boop-boop-boop" sounds. Mostly the "boop" sound, though. What is that?

[[email protected]]

I am away from my computer and celebrating New Year's Eve. If I take time to give full response my wife is going to kill me. I'll comment on only part of your post.

Your stance on land outs is part of the east v west divide on this issue. The possibility of landing out is part of the drama of the sport. Talk to someone interested in the sport and they soon ask you, "have you ever had to land in a field?" In the west this is viewed as much more a huge deal. In the east it is part of the game. So is taking yourself out of the race by making a rash decision which leads to a landout. In this way, the sport simulates life. People's personalities seep into the pilot decision making. You see it is the characters that make the sport interesting to new people. Otherwise, the race is just about fying around. FLARM potentially masks this and other key elements of sailplane racing making the sport more dull.

[[email protected]]

I am away from my computer and celebrating New Year's Eve. If I take time to give full response my wife is going to kill me. I'll comment on only part of your post.

Your stance on land outs is part of the east v west divide on this issue. The possibility of landing out is part of the drama of the sport. Talk to someone interested in the sport and they soon ask you, "have you ever had to land in a field?" In the west this is viewed as much more a huge deal. In the east it is part of the game. So is taking yourself out of the race by making a rash decision which leads to a landout. In this way, the sport simulates life. People's personalities seep into the pilot decision making. You see it is the characters that make the sport interesting to new people. Otherwise, the race is just about fying around. FLARM potentially masks this and other key elements of sailplane racing making the sport more dull.

[[email protected]]

I am away from my computer and celebrating New Year's Eve. If I take time to give full response my wife is going to kill me. I'll comment on only part of your post.

Your stance on land outs is part of the east v west divide on this issue. The possibility of landing out is part of the drama of the sport. Talk to someone interested in the sport and they soon ask you, "have you ever had to land in a field?" In the west this is viewed as much more a huge deal. In the east it is part of the game. So is taking yourself out of the race by making a rash decision which leads to a landout. In this way, the sport simulates life. People's personalities seep into the pilot decision making. You see it is the characters that make the sport interesting to new people. Otherwise, the race is just about fying around. FLARM potentially masks this and other key elements of sailplane racing making the sport more dull.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:29:22 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
> I wouldn't describe all opponents of Open Flarm as technophobes - some are (and have admitted to me that they are "not computer people"), other like technology just fine but seem to feel that some skill they have (perhaps risk-tolerance is one) will be diluted with new and better information. But denying people all external information hardly seems like a fundamental principle of glider racing - if it were we would do separate time trials or all MAT format to maximize the separation of gliders so you can't use any visual cues. We would have leeching penalties that are quite easy to calculate with IGC files. We don't, and no one seems to be interested in going down that path.
>
> 9B

While maybe not a "fundamental principle" one might look to the rules that have been in place and withstood the test of time.

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.)

Note that the rule was added a few years ago to permit a collision avoidance device. We have a pretty good one of those in Flarm. They do not expressly permit a device for tactical tracking or viewing our competitors which turns out to be another very useful application of the device. This is what I might call a "back door benefit" of the use of Flarm which could reasonably be seen as not included and thus either removed(not possible without destroying the benefit of safety), or limited in some manner.
The rules also are clear in intent to limit information in to that which is described in the text.
For 2016, phones will now be allowed to be on for the purpose of enabling tracking outputs only.
So while you might want to roll over the top on this and create a wide open cockpit technology race, the process will require a measured pace which starts with no new information in until due process allows it.
Cheers
UH

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

So under the rules is the anti-collision strobe in my fin illegal? This strobe has a LX cal controller so when I get a Flarm alert the strobe goes off like a Christmas tree.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:11:16 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:21:09 PM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
> > What an absolutely ridiculous statement. I won't stand by and listen to this passively anymore. It's time to slap this stupidity down.
> >
> > Powerflarm provides a moderately reliable, 2-3 mile (and a very reliable 1-2 mile) situational awareness "radar" with an advanced collision algorithm which automatically alerts any pilots involved in a potential collision well in advance of any calculated conflict possibility. This alert could come at the beginning of a slight turn or climb or descent by one or both gliders while gliders are at relatively close range. If you are entirely unaware of the other glider when you get the warning (this could suddenly be a critical warning), it's often quite a panic to locate where the threat is, especially when in close proximity. Powerflarm is carefully designed not to beep (annoy) unless there is a potential glider collision "solution." This can mean that gliders can get incredibly close without any alert or warning whatsoever. Say 100 meters side to side, etc. Not a sound is made by the POWERFlarm if both gliders are not, at that moment, tending course towards the other. Parallel courses is not a problem. Suddenly one pulls aggressively towards another and bang. The POWERFlarms alert or warning event alone is simply not sufficient to achieve truly improved safety environment in any glider contest or busy flying area (say a club flight of 2,3,4...). This is the whole point of Powerflarm vs gen 1 Flarm (simple lights O'clock above, level, below). This is also THE EXACT REASON POWERFLARM DOES NOT RECOMMEND STEALTH MODE. Many other dangerous scenarios are possible without simultaneous situational awareness and an occasional scan of the Flarm radar picture (telemetry is useless and needs less in this scan). It's about has anything new appeared nearby and it will be completely lost with stealth or competition mode.
> >
> > A HUGE part of the "safety equation" POWERFlarm "used to provide" us is a much higher level of basic situational awareness. This fact is IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE US RC STEALTH MANDATE (now called "competition?" mode and currently pure untested vaporware). Flarm is exactly the same debate as ADSB vs traditional ATC flight following with transponders or nothing at all (the SSA argument). Transponders are all but useless in a busy environment. TCAS was a band aid on this vastly flawed system, but even that has failed us miserably (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Überlingen_mid-air_collision). GPS based data linked radar, on the other hand is very powerful improvement for aviation safety. Gliders are not the only aircraft that matter in this discussion of course. Enter ADSB (Flarms technology "big brother"). Bottom line, regardless of statistical arguments claiming we have very few collisions in glider contests, gliders hitting each-other, even once more, is unacceptable in any gliding or general aviation environment, ever again, P E R I O D. Sacrificing safety for philosophical traditionalism is unacceptable. We cannot let our safety guard down, for a second, ever. Yet here we are having this discussion...and facing an RC almost immediate US RC mandate of said POWERFlarm SA lobotomy.
> >
> > Anyone who has seriously competed with a POWERFlarm (several years experience over 15+ flarm equipped contests, from a few gliders at first to most or all in 2015 contests, or a thermal at a World Championships, etc) would fully understand that a POWERFLARM is PRIMARILY (and by far) a "safety device" which may occasionally help alert its owner (and the potential conflict owner) to a dangerous collision threat which they may have otherwise been entirely unaware of without POWERFlarm. Again, the "warning" itself is very small piece of the total safety value.
> >
> > A huge part of value this SAFETY DEVICE creates is the natural capability to generally "notice" another glider in the immediate area (2-3 miles, or less) which otherwise would be completely unknown (back to the Stone Age, or with Stealth or Comp mode). This problem happens ALL THE TIME in starting areas for example. It also happens approaching or departing thermals, ridges, etc.
> >
> > The idea of "killing" the situational awareness value of this obvious and clear SAFETY DEVICE in such a rapid, untested and unnecessary philosophical "technology jihad" has been awe inspiring to behold. The almost childlike comments from the peanut mob are equally amazing. These two campaigns are in direct conflict. Let's be honest. One philosophically says position data and telemetry is unfair (even though all have equal capability, and zero objective evidence of value has been provided) and it must all be struck down and lobotomized entirely, immediately, with angry accusations about pilot cheating motives for purchase (not safety at all) and the other saying that situational awareness is important to the safety environment, tech is OK, there is no real evidence, everyone has the same view, it's not a big deal competitively, calm down, breath, etc. I'm starting to lean back to to stand with this group on general principle.
> >
> > Without the situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm, we are absolutely and considerably debilitating the basic safety elements of the POWERFlarm system by removing the pilots ability to notice other yet visually undetected gliders around them. A main cause of recent most collisions in the USA (Uvalde, Minden?).
> >
> > There are absolutely going to be unintended consequences by lobotomizing POWERFlarm situational awareness, depending on the specific and entirely unreleased technical requirements of the "competition mode" that Flarm is supposedly working on for the US rules committee. I wonder who is paying them for this work, this testing? At this point, committing to the promise of its safe function is reckless and hard to imagine.
> >
> > The 1-2 or 2-3 mile situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm instrument and its basic display is critical to the overall safety process POWERFlarm provides. This is an absolute fact and I will argue as necessary to substantiate it by citing numerous personal videos (never before shown) and corresponding SeeYou examples, etc.
> >
> > Finally, I find the ridiculous statements in this topic that everyone bought POWERFlarm to track competitors (leech) and not as a safety device to be absolutely unacceptable. The person saying this, is out of order. No apology is sufficient. Such statements are dangerous, reckless and factually pathetic.
> >
> > The recent "apology" was a joke and hopefully is not accepted.
> >
> > Sean
>
>
>
> Now, now Sean, I never said "everyone". I said "hard core Flarm pushers". As I have said previously, I have flown with a Powerflarm in a couple of contests and numerous non-contest flights and find it to be useful. I have also stated in a previous post that I don't care about the whole issue of using Flarm for leeching. However, I stand by my assertion that the majority of those who are opposed to any type of "competition mode" for Flarm, AND who are not willing to discuss the possibility of negative safety effects of tactical use, do not have safety as their PRIMARY interest with regards to Flarm. I did not say they had NO interest in safety.
>
> I'm at a loss to understand how my opinion was "dangerous, reckless...". We hear anecdotally that pilots have admitted to intentionally disabling their Flarm output to deny tactical information to their competitors. I think ignoring or attempting to stifle the discussion of the unintended consequences of unlimited tactical use of Flarm might be dangerous.
>
> As for "factually pathetic", well, that is certainly a possibility. Wouldn't be the first time.
>
> As for my apology to Andrzej, that was no joke. It was quite sincere.
>
> WB

You don't need to apologize to me as I had no part in bringing PowerFlarm to US, but you can call me a PowerFlarm pusher anyway since I am advocating its use to the full extend for safety reasons. I also installed ADSB-out in my glider for safety reasons at great expense. If I did not see PowerFlarm improving my safety I would take it out of my glider.

Here is a fact, RC proposed (contrary to Flarm recommendation) compulsory use of Stealth mode without dealing with reduced safety issue. Then when RC finally figured out (thanks to RAS) that Stealth was not such a good idea they renamed it to the Competition mode without proper definition by the vendor of what it would be. This was less than 3 months before the first competition of 2016. Flarm does not have a Competition mode available at this time that RC is talking about.

I am sorry but this decision is a sign of RC incompetence at best. How can you mandate something that is not defined and it does not exist and then hope that maybe it shows up in time for the first contest?

Everyone reasonable can accept changes provided the change is clearly defined and tested to ensure safety is not compromised. Some discussion prior to making such a huge decision would be in order as well. I guess we already had that on RAS.

In the past RC stated that no major change can happen without being properly tested. What happened to that? I guess it was a different group of people back then, a little bit more restrained perhaps.

We don't want RC to become a knee jerk reaction group imposing their will on the rest of the pilots. What happened to a democratic process? The poll does not support this decision.

I have no issue with bringing a change as long as it is done with proper consultation and the technology is there to avoid negative safety impact. That is not the case now. Nothing is ready. It is time to give it up for 2016.

Let's do proper polling for 2017 to truly understand what pilots want and meantime figure out the technology puzzle.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 4:24:50 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:29:22 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't describe all opponents of Open Flarm as technophobes - some are (and have admitted to me that they are "not computer people"), other like technology just fine but seem to feel that some skill they have (perhaps risk-tolerance is one) will be diluted with new and better information. But denying people all external information hardly seems like a fundamental principle of glider racing - if it were we would do separate time trials or all MAT format to maximize the separation of gliders so you can't use any visual cues. We would have leeching penalties that are quite easy to calculate with IGC files. We don't, and no one seems to be interested in going down that path.
> >
> > 9B
>
> While maybe not a "fundamental principle" one might look to the rules that have been in place and withstood the test of time.
>
> 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.)
>
> Note that the rule was added a few years ago to permit a collision avoidance device. We have a pretty good one of those in Flarm. They do not expressly permit a device for tactical tracking or viewing our competitors which turns out to be another very useful application of the device. This is what I might call a "back door benefit" of the use of Flarm which could reasonably be seen as not included and thus either removed(not possible without destroying the benefit of safety), or limited in some manner.
> The rules also are clear in intent to limit information in to that which is described in the text.
> For 2016, phones will now be allowed to be on for the purpose of enabling tracking outputs only.
> So while you might want to roll over the top on this and create a wide open cockpit technology race, the process will require a measured pace which starts with no new information in until due process allows it.
> Cheers
> UH


I was making more of a philosophical point - as well as a practical one. What is the principle behind banning technology? Is it cost? - the case against GPS was much stronger and the case against Flarm in general is much stronger than the case for stealth. Flarm costs money, open Flarm versus stealth has zero cost consequences. Is it ensuring fair competition? How is a technology that virtually every one is carrying unfair? Is it preserving the primacy of specific skills and halting the introduction of new skills? What's the basis for that?

You know if you have to write a new rule every time technology changes that you are not working from a general principle - it's something else at work..

Wait till you see my $200 FLIR sensor. It's sensitive to 0.1 degrees F. It's measuring the temperature of the ground, not the air, so it is permitted under 6.6. In initial testing the range seems to be a few miles.

Time for a new rule.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:11:56 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> So under the rules is the anti-collision strobe in my fin illegal? This strobe has a LX cal controller so when I get a Flarm alert the strobe goes off like a Christmas tree.

Not listed as restricted equipment so let 'er rip.
Note that most restrictions relate to information sources permitted.
When it fires off does your head get warm?- LOL
UH

[Dan Marotta]

While I agree that Flarm was and is a valid safety tool in a certain
environment, the statement about bludgeoning to stop debate has a lot of
merit.

You simply can't argue against children, harp seals, safety, etc., and
it seems to be the first line of argument for those who want to stop
debate. Kinda like the bumper sticker I saw years ago: God said it, I
believe it, that settles it. No further room for discussion.

Asinine? We each have a right to our opinions and, whether you like
them or not, there's no need for name calling.

On 12/31/2015 3:28 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> "Does anyone really doubt that the hard core Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover? I think most of the Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm. "Safety" is mostly just a bludgeon to be used against the debate opposition."
>
> This is the most asinine statement I have ever read on RAS. Crying out loud, did you really not know Flarm was designed from the ground up as an anti-collision device and it is very effective for its designed purpose ?! Can you really not see multiple holes in your "logic jump"? Your thoughts become your words, and yours are off base illogical and downright foolish. I hope your New Years resolution if for clearity of thought.
>
> Happy NewYears all!

--
Dan, 5J

[XC]

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:29:22 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:16:08 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> >
> > The often quoted manufacturers recommendation to not enable stealth is taken out of context. They are cautioning that leaving the Flarm in stealth when not at a contest will, of course, limit what is displayed on your Flarm and others. This designed feature is for use at contests not general flying.
> >
>
> Hey Sean,
>
> I've read the spec over and over. I've read other Flarm-produced documentation and I've spoken at one point or another to most of the Flarm leadership team, including spending a day with Urs in his California office. Without putting specific words in anyone's mouth it was made pretty clear to me that the recommendation against using Stealth specifically includes contest use. They have said (in writing) that the only reason to use it (and implied that the only reason it was developed) was to forestall people turning their units off altogether. You can speculate that this was due to liability concerns, but no one ever said that to me and the way people talked about it just reinforced the sense that the main consideration is that they thought using it was a bad idea on technical grounds - second only to not using Flarm at all.
>
> We can talk about the (small) probabilities of glider midairs and merits of a bit less situational awareness against the (still to be described in a quantifiable way) reduction in "tactical use", but it really is a line drawing exercise that makes many of us pretty uncomfortable - since the costs are some small increment in a horrific outcome versus a benefit that can't be adequately described, let alone quantified or demonstrated as to how it decreases the accuracy to which contest scores represent soaring skills.
>
> Take John's confessional and unpack it a bit into the real implications. There are two main tactical use cases he describes:
>
> Use Case 1: Knowing where other gliders are and to some extent how they are progressing - a different line, a different thermal, etc. Knowing where a handful of other pilots are some of the time - maybe where they made their turn in the cylinder - give you a sense of whether you are gaining or losing. In other words, it give you a sensation that you are racing - which a lot of pilots seem to enjoy. You have tactical information that you are, for instance, losing ground to another glider - instead of waiting until dinner time and the scores to figure this out. At three miles distance it gives you almost no useful information about what to do about it. Three miles laterally is a hard gap to close on a leg - you just give up too much to make a sharp deviation and if you do it with a gradual course change it's equally pointless as whatever is happening differently will likely be totally changed 10 miles or more down the course line. As prior data analysis - and experience - has demonstrated, following someone from 3 miles behind is generally a recipe for getting 4 miles behind unless you find your own, better thermals - that is, fly you own flight.
>
> Use Case 2: Having some confidence under marginal conditions when there are other gliders about that you will have a decent shot at finding a thermal if there is one to be had. This reduces the chances that you will miss the saving climb that prevents a landout (or being stuck for a long time) when climbs (and particularly good climbs) are few and far between. From looking at the names on the list of landouts on days like this, it seems that there is more luck than skill involved, but it is possible that there is some skill, some local knowledge and some risk tolerance involved (e.g. willingness to drive down to 300', fly over unlandable terrain, into tight canyons, etc). Are these the types of soaring skills we want to value? Is having more landouts a desirable way to ensure these skills are tested? Does it really make the sport more attractive to new pilots to know we specifically want them to not have the information that could have gotten them home on a marginal day or when they are low and desperate? Landouts are the enemy of fair scoring - they scramble the scoresheet and we can't even come to a stable view of how to score miles versus miles per hour. The points we grant for landing out have come up and up over the years specifically because we realize landouts are mostly an indication of bad luck more than lack of skill.. We devalue days with lots of landouts (luck factor). We've increased landout scores to the point that slow finishers are starting to complain that they don't get enough points. Why is it a good idea to deny pilots useful tactical information to avoid a landout? In addition to the basic fairness and values issues, it is a question the tort lawyers will be interested to address the next time we have a landout fatality in a contest - all the IGC files will be analyzed to see if there were any climbing gliders in range to avoid the tragedy. The next question will be "who is to blame for deliberately denying the pilot this potentially life-saving information". At that point what actually would have happened in the alternate case won't matter.
>
> I wouldn't describe all opponents of Open Flarm as technophobes - some are (and have admitted to me that they are "not computer people"), other like technology just fine but seem to feel that some skill they have (perhaps risk-tolerance is one) will be diluted with new and better information. But denying people all external information hardly seems like a fundamental principle of glider racing - if it were we would do separate time trials or all MAT format to maximize the separation of gliders so you can't use any visual cues. We would have leeching penalties that are quite easy to calculate with IGC files. We don't, and no one seems to be interested in going down that path.
>
> 9B

Andy,
I am really not going after you personally, but I have to point out some of what I see as flaws in your argument.

1) The FLARM folks are in the business of FLARM not soaring. We need to talk about what is best for soaring not what is best for the FLARM company. I suppose if you were to ask any individual at the company they would have to take the CYA approach. The IGC, BGA and now the SSA are looking at practical solutions that preserve the competitiveness of racing and offer increased collision avoidance through the use of FLARM.

2) Folks keep discounting the tactical use of FLARM like it a nebulous, undefined thing. BB describes how he can now take a risk on a bad line and instead of paying the price for bad decision making with a slow climb out, he now can play a wild card and wiggle over to gliders he's been tracking electronically (and win the day). That's John. He's good. Most folks will use in more mundane ways. Using FLARM this way changes the risk management part of the race. Another real example happened in Finland when one of the pilots from another team overtook one of our guys. When asked how he did it he said, "It was easy I saw you climbing at 1.5 m/s and I could see another guy climbing at 3 m/s. I went to his thermal and passed you up." No better skill involved just a better FLARM installation. There are plenty of real world examples.

3) The data analysis and your quoted experience hints at a bias toward western conditions. A 3 mile gap is not much NY/PA where we deviate much more on a typical course line.

There is also a bias in your reasoning toward this "ism" that soaring has to be about unlimited technology. That all technology is good for the sport and this is some sort of unstoppable force.

4) This idea that land outs are due primarily due to luck is not true at all. It has been my experience that when I land out I can sit against a tree and enumerate the errors that led me there. The same is true about the other land outs I have seen in the contests I have flown. Avoiding land outs is all in setting yourself up for success before hand by proper risk management this is the essence of the sport of racing. As stated previously, land outs are and should be part of the game. If you are going to fly aircraft across the countryside without a motor it follows logically that there is a risk of not making it home. This is the big whammy that makes the sport interesting.

Avoiding land outs is not about scary, risky last minute maneuvers you have used to make your point. I think it is becoming apparent that proponents of open FLARM ready do plan to use it to cover mistakes and avoid the inconvenience of landing away. In this way the scores will not reflect pilots ability to manage risk.

5) You and BB have both tried to scare us with lawyers and death now several times to make your point. Like name calling this is a sign of deficient argument.

Sorry to be so blunt but you an BB have a preconceived idea/agenda on this FLARM thing and are going to great lengths to push it on us.

The competition mode with an expanded radius of 5 km plus the other enhancements for head to head conflicts seems to be plenty for collision avoidance.. Beyond that we are talking about tactical use of FLARM.


XC

[smfidler]

XC(Sean) and all,

I can accept that a philosophical argument against PowerFlarm exists. It comes from the SSA's "anti-technology oligarchy." As usual, many disagree, some very strongly, with their opinions and strategy to reduce the situational awareness benefits of PowerFlarm. Those disagreeing with the competition mode mandate includes prominent members of the RC itself! The anti-technology, "spirit of the sport" argument and views are hypothesis at best, not fact. There is zero objective evidence, only theory and insecurity.

The "peanut gallery" has recently offered absurd accusatory explanations of how most (if not all) US pilots bought PowerFlarm (at incredible expense) as a pure leeching toy and that any safety value PowerFlarm advertised had zero weight in their purchase decision. In my opinion, these statements have taken the anti-technology argument to a new low. The philosophical argument against new technologies in soaring, for me, no longer has any credibility. These statements are out of line, unacceptable and unworthy of further serious consideration. These statements are also childish and reckless. If any member of the RC shares such opinions, they should not be representing me.

We need a straight vote by all US/Candian contest pilots on such decisions moving forward rather than SSA oligarch games. No more interpretation of a subjective poll. A simple, straight vote would leave no doubts. A vote would solve a lot of problems and end many arguments. We would know that vote represented the majority of our pilots wishes and not a crusade rammed thru by an over-empowered and over-dramatic minority.

Back to the real world of PowerFlarm and how it provides us safety. I have found myself (several times) wincing for the impending impact of a critical PowerFlarm warning (I have one embarrassing example on video) when I was entirely unable to ID the threat location. These are moments of sheer panic. In these moments, I have no idea if I am about to be hit from head on, behind, below or the side. I find myself occasionally waiting for these phantom collisions, completely unsure of why my Flarm is aggressively telling me to do something different. I desperately check my peripheral vision for wingtips, looking below the glider, etc. in a hope that I can avoid the worst case scenario. This has happened to me between 5-10 times.

The usefulness of the PowerFlarm system in proximity to other gliders, at current, is far from 100% comprehensive. A big part of the reason "close in" Flarm warnings are useful to us at all is THE ABILITY TO DETECT OTHER SAILPLANES BEFORE THEY GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO CAUSE A WARNING! You are not surprised! We know, at least generally (often very precisely), where the threat is located before the warning. Competition mode (or Stealth before it) removes all or most of this foreshadowing, situational awareness or knowledge.. Terrifying, surprise warnings will increase. Even with the full capability of PowerFlarm (normal mode), as I have described above, situational awareness is far from guaranteed. I DO NOT LIKE THESE SURPRISE WARNINGS. I highly doubt anyone else does either. We are not dealing with a perfect system here, handicapping it makes it far less perfect as a safety tool. Is that worth the reward?

Reducing general situational awareness for pilots, in any significant way, or making a miscalculation in thinking thru the new "competition mode" requirements, or how pilots will respond to the new paradigm, or making incorrect assumptions about the range of likely antenna performance, or blind spots of situational awareness that allow more surprise collision warnings, is dangerous and unacceptable. In other words, the narrower the field situational awareness, the more chance there is that two gliders get close without detecting each other. When and if the warning comes, the pilots ability to identify the threat and react to the warning is reduced. That is my first point. This is basic statistics. We are far from having a perfect Flarm system. Monkeying with it could destroy most of the value.

I hear what is being proposed in Competition mode (at a very high level), I just doubt it will work as wonderfully as the fanboys are claiming. It's not a simple change. Are the almost fantasy world claims of not ever needing to think for oneself and winning contests via flarm radar worth the potential consequences? I believe this is going to be an utter disaster initially, just as POWERFlarm was in 2011, 2012. I believe the relatively few who are driving this are completely tunnel visioned and are completely ignoring the intrinsic situational awareness value that PowerFlarm provides. I also believe the new competition mode requirements are impractical and not fully thought out. There needs to be testing before implementation. Just as POWERFlarm had initial growing pains, this massive change to its governing dynamics and human interaction with Flarm will take time for pilots to RE-adjust to. This all assumes that the philosophical argument really justifies the downgrade and that there is significant majority consensus in the USA supporting it...which there is clearly not. Again, we are going competition mode before having the guts to make Flarm mandatory at contests in the first place. That makes me consider selling my Flarm. What's the point? I don't trust half the warnings already. Some are absolute surprises. Now the situational awareness will be chopped off at the neck without any serious study of the "cost/benefit" impacts within a purely philosophical context.

For example, if I visually acquire a glider (or small gaggle) at 3 miles (then cross check on Flarm) and see that they are transmitting a good signal as they approach or parallel, I can trust that they have a reasonably functioning Flarm. If a glider at 3 miles, that I see visually (I'm 20/10 in both eyes) has no corresponding signal on Flarm, I have to ask myself; does he/she not have Flarm or is it just a 1) poor angle or 2) an antenna problem.. Regardless, I now have to spend a lot of time tracking them to see how reliable their Flarm signal is and pay more attention to them (or confirm that they are "flarmless"...the worst part of any contest). The guys without Flarm make Flarm nearly useless, in my opinion at a contest. There is no trust in the system because its usage is not 100%. That is just one of many practical examples of reality that nobody mentions. With competition mode, you will not have the ability to assess the function of gliders as they approach my airspace. Surprises will increase; general situation awareness will decrease significantly. The value of Flarm falls to near zero for me.

Next, I do not trust the RC with my safety or to be brilliant enough to consider all of the potential problems that may result from this radical change to Flarm this summer. The Flarm system, as it was before this debate, was FAR from perfect. It is moderately reliable, but that is a database you build as you get to know your competitors and how their Flarm behaves in proximity. The RC refuses to mandate Flarm in contests, but they will rapidly and significantly roll back its situational awareness value for somewhat unsubstantiated reasons that are so factually inconsequential to US contests results it borders on comedy. That is not a trivial thing they are messing with; it's CRITICAL to our collective safety. A dramatic change in situation awareness changes the balance of the whole system (PowerFlarm) that we spent years trying to promote and create. The fact that the RC, despite a strong argument from prominent members of the committee, has still chosen to rush forward with this change has dropped my confidence in their judgement to a new low.

I consider myself to be a glider pilot who cares greatly about contest safety. That is why I made the investment in Flarm way back in 2011 (despite what some have tried to insinuate here). I have owned and used a Flarm since the first day they become available in the USA. I see it as a last line of defence from the unthinkable accidental, fatal collision. It gives us a chance to avoid that collision THAT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY. Perhaps it has already prevented that accident and our RC (and IGC) is being quite complacent because there is no recent story of a fatal contest collision because of the situational awareness the PowerFlarm system has been providing? Hmmm? But the value of that investment in safety is reduced to little when so many refuse to make the same investment in our collective security. I try very hard to be a good citizen (not to scare anyone), give room in thermals, etc. For the most part, this is true of all of our fellow US contest pilots. But I also understand that this sport is inherently dangerous whenever we are in close proximity (5 miles) of numerous other gliders (Flarm or no Flarm) while hitting the same basic hot spots along the way. It's when you are competing at a high level (focusing carefully on clouds, birds, feeling for energy, etc that we are most vulnerable to not noticing a glider (or other aircraft) nearby. Now we will have less of a picture of where those choke points may be by intentionally placing blinders on situational awareness leading in and out of them

This whole conversation has a very real potential to mess with the safety value the system was finally beginning to provide. The manner in which this risk is flippantly dismissed by many shows me that "our leaders" have not fully thought this decision and timeline thru. They are driven mainly by emotion here. I find this very surprising, disturbing and unintelligent.

If someone is beating me because they have a better grasp of Flarm situational awareness (unfounded and unproven) I am willing to accept that if the safety is collectively higher because of it. Just as if someone is beating me at MAT, TAT or HAT task because their fancy flight glide computer does a better job of helping them manage critical decisions. That glide computer advantage is true! Just talk to the salespeople! Yet we don't ban them! Nor do we ban new gliders with perceived higher performance from competing in 15 or 18 meter. In fact, a massive list have gotten in line to enjoy the promise of that 1-3% advantage. Hmmm?

Where does this anti-technology insanity end?

Here is a bold statement. I think some seem to care far more about preventing slight, philosophical (at this point) and potentially imaginary competitive disadvantage (via the ability of some to better adapt to new technology, not unique technology) than improving or maintaining safety. In other words, if it comes down to insecurity or safety, ease my insecurities and screw safety. Ban that Flarm! Don't even test, do it now!!!! Rush, go, turn them damn things off!!! The insecurity and willingness to risk safety and hold ground against a good deal of valid concerns, is a sight to behold.

Happy New Year All!

Sean

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:23:21 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

>
> You don't need to apologize to me as I had no part in bringing PowerFlarm to US, but you can call me a PowerFlarm pusher anyway since I am advocating its use to the full extend for safety reasons. I also installed ADSB-out in my glider for safety reasons at great expense. If I did not see PowerFlarm improving my safety I would take it out of my glider.
>
> Here is a fact, RC proposed (contrary to Flarm recommendation) compulsory use of Stealth mode without dealing with reduced safety issue. Then when RC finally figured out (thanks to RAS) that Stealth was not such a good idea they renamed it to the Competition mode without proper definition by the vendor of what it would be. This was less than 3 months before the first competition of 2016. Flarm does not have a Competition mode available at this time that RC is talking about.
>
> I am sorry but this decision is a sign of RC incompetence at best. How can you mandate something that is not defined and it does not exist and then hope that maybe it shows up in time for the first contest?
>
> Everyone reasonable can accept changes provided the change is clearly defined and tested to ensure safety is not compromised. Some discussion prior to making such a huge decision would be in order as well. I guess we already had that on RAS.
>
> In the past RC stated that no major change can happen without being properly tested. What happened to that? I guess it was a different group of people back then, a little bit more restrained perhaps.
>
> We don't want RC to become a knee jerk reaction group imposing their will on the rest of the pilots. What happened to a democratic process? The poll does not support this decision.
>
> I have no issue with bringing a change as long as it is done with proper consultation and the technology is there to avoid negative safety impact. That is not the case now. Nothing is ready. It is time to give it up for 2016.
>
> Let's do proper polling for 2017 to truly understand what pilots want and meantime figure out the technology puzzle.

UH Response:
I have worked quite hard when discussing this topic to be respectful of the views of others and speak in a manner that reflects my experience and opinions while trying to make it clear that they were just that.
I may stray a bit from that philosophy in responding to the message above.
Fact- The allegation that the RC has not considered the safety implications of use of Stealth or a follow on version(Competition)are simply not true. In our discussions 9B made a strong case for these concerns and they have been part of the continuing dialog among our group. The "competition" mode is not our relabeling of Stealth, but in fact is the label being used in discussions by members of the IGC and ourselves with Flarm wherein changes are expected to be made to address concerns that arose out of the implementation of the 2015 version of Stealth tested in the UK. Report that I have read is that version was well accepted by pilots, but that meaningful concerns were identified related to other glider users of Flarm and well as UK military users that have Flarm. As of this time, we do not have clarity as to the details of the coming revision.
Fact- RAS had not one thing to do with our understanding of the factors related to this process, with the exception of the level of passion it would raise from a few.
Fact- It is planned that the RC is to review the best information we have about the next version before proceeding with the rule as currently drafted. We have agreed that if the coming version does not meet the needs of our situation, we will not proceed.
Fact- The RC is on a rules schedule that requires us to complete changes before the winter board meeting. That may seem like a rush, and sometimes it is, but that is the process we live with.
Fact- The RC takes it's obligation to let affected parties know about actions that affect them in a timely manner so that they can plan accordingly.
The allegation of incompetence, with an implication of worse, is nothing less than insulting. The volunteers who work for all of us deserve better than this kind of public treatment.
Fact- This is not a major change and it has been tested at the national level with favorable results, though not without concerns voiced by some.
Fact - This is not a "knee jerk" reaction. Some action of this type has been under discussion literally from the initial introduction of Flarm. The experiences in Europe described in Russell Cheatham's paper reinforced these original concerns and led to consideration of action.
There is a very real likelihood that what will be developed by Flarm will not meet our expectations. I am sure that whatever is done will not satisfy everyone. Please rest assured that the US RC is doing the best we can to act in a responsible manner to address the wide variety of considerations related to this topic. If we do not believe that the next progression of Flarm will be acceptable, we will not proceed.
Respectfully
UH

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Thank you Sean for you well thought and well written response!

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:04:31 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Thank you Sean for you well thought and well written response!

Hank, I am very aware of Andy's opposition to the Stealth mode and I thank him for his continuous effort to educate others about flaws of the Stealth mode.

If you truly understood the shortcomings of the Stealth mode then why did you go ahead with the proposal for the 2016? What is the rush? Even if a new solution was developed this winter there would not be enough time to test it and refine it. So, why did this provisional vote take place at all? Why did you deny Nephi's petition?

I use strong words because you seem not to understand that your decisions have safety impact not only on you but also on others. The position you hold is a very responsible one and I would expect a real careful consideration before any rule impacting safety is voted on, even if it is a provisional rule. I do not think this took place here, especially considering the 3-2 vote.

Again, please scrap the proposal until there is fully tested solution available that does not impact safety.

Regards,
Andrzej

[Andrzej Kobus]

Sean, thank you, very well written.

[XC]

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 2:47:38 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
> XC(Sean) and all,
>
> I can accept that a philosophical argument against PowerFlarm exists. It comes from the SSA's "anti-technology oligarchy." As usual, many disagree, some very strongly, with their opinions and strategy to reduce the situational awareness benefits of PowerFlarm. Those disagreeing with the competition mode mandate includes prominent members of the RC itself! The anti-technology, "spirit of the sport" argument and views are hypothesis at best, not fact. There is zero objective evidence, only theory and insecurity.
>
> The "peanut gallery" has recently offered absurd accusatory explanations of how most (if not all) US pilots bought PowerFlarm (at incredible expense) as a pure leeching toy and that any safety value PowerFlarm advertised had zero weight in their purchase decision. In my opinion, these statements have taken the anti-technology argument to a new low. The philosophical argument against new technologies in soaring, for me, no longer has any credibility. These statements are out of line, unacceptable and unworthy of further serious consideration. These statements are also childish and reckless. If any member of the RC shares such opinions, they should not be representing me.
>
> We need a straight vote by all US/Candian contest pilots on such decisions moving forward rather than SSA oligarch games. No more interpretation of a subjective poll. A simple, straight vote would leave no doubts. A vote would solve a lot of problems and end many arguments. We would know that vote represented the majority of our pilots wishes and not a crusade rammed thru by an over-empowered and over-dramatic minority.
>
> Back to the real world of PowerFlarm and how it provides us safety. I have found myself (several times) wincing for the impending impact of a critical PowerFlarm warning (I have one embarrassing example on video) when I was entirely unable to ID the threat location. These are moments of sheer panic. In these moments, I have no idea if I am about to be hit from head on, behind, below or the side. I find myself occasionally waiting for these phantom collisions, completely unsure of why my Flarm is aggressively telling me to do something different. I desperately check my peripheral vision for wingtips, looking below the glider, etc. in a hope that I can avoid the worst case scenario. This has happened to me between 5-10 times.
>
> The usefulness of the PowerFlarm system in proximity to other gliders, at current, is far from 100% comprehensive. A big part of the reason "close in" Flarm warnings are useful to us at all is THE ABILITY TO DETECT OTHER SAILPLANES BEFORE THEY GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO CAUSE A WARNING! You are not surprised! We know, at least generally (often very precisely), where the threat is located before the warning. Competition mode (or Stealth before it) removes all or most of this foreshadowing, situational awareness or knowledge. Terrifying, surprise warnings will increase. Even with the full capability of PowerFlarm (normal mode), as I have described above, situational awareness is far from guaranteed. I DO NOT LIKE THESE SURPRISE WARNINGS. I highly doubt anyone else does either. We are not dealing with a perfect system here, handicapping it makes it far less perfect as a safety tool. Is that worth the reward?
>
> Reducing general situational awareness for pilots, in any significant way, or making a miscalculation in thinking thru the new "competition mode" requirements, or how pilots will respond to the new paradigm, or making incorrect assumptions about the range of likely antenna performance, or blind spots of situational awareness that allow more surprise collision warnings, is dangerous and unacceptable. In other words, the narrower the field situational awareness, the more chance there is that two gliders get close without detecting each other. When and if the warning comes, the pilots ability to identify the threat and react to the warning is reduced. That is my first point. This is basic statistics. We are far from having a perfect Flarm system. Monkeying with it could destroy most of the value.
>
> I hear what is being proposed in Competition mode (at a very high level), I just doubt it will work as wonderfully as the fanboys are claiming. It's not a simple change. Are the almost fantasy world claims of not ever needing to think for oneself and winning contests via flarm radar worth the potential consequences? I believe this is going to be an utter disaster initially, just as POWERFlarm was in 2011, 2012. I believe the relatively few who are driving this are completely tunnel visioned and are completely ignoring the intrinsic situational awareness value that PowerFlarm provides. I also believe the new competition mode requirements are impractical and not fully thought out. There needs to be testing before implementation. Just as POWERFlarm had initial growing pains, this massive change to its governing dynamics and human interaction with Flarm will take time for pilots to RE-adjust to. This all assumes that the philosophical argument really justifies the downgrade and that there is significant majority consensus in the USA supporting it...which there is clearly not. Again, we are going competition mode before having the guts to make Flarm mandatory at contests in the first place. That makes me consider selling my Flarm. What's the point? I don't trust half the warnings already. Some are absolute surprises. Now the situational awareness will be chopped off at the neck without any serious study of the "cost/benefit" impacts within a purely philosophical context.
>
> For example, if I visually acquire a glider (or small gaggle) at 3 miles (then cross check on Flarm) and see that they are transmitting a good signal as they approach or parallel, I can trust that they have a reasonably functioning Flarm. If a glider at 3 miles, that I see visually (I'm 20/10 in both eyes) has no corresponding signal on Flarm, I have to ask myself; does he/she not have Flarm or is it just a 1) poor angle or 2) an antenna problem. Regardless, I now have to spend a lot of time tracking them to see how reliable their Flarm signal is and pay more attention to them (or confirm that they are "flarmless"...the worst part of any contest). The guys without Flarm make Flarm nearly useless, in my opinion at a contest. There is no trust in the system because its usage is not 100%. That is just one of many practical examples of reality that nobody mentions. With competition mode, you will not have the ability to assess the function of gliders as they approach my airspace. Surprises will increase; general situation awareness will decrease significantly. The value of Flarm falls to near zero for me.
>
> Next, I do not trust the RC with my safety or to be brilliant enough to consider all of the potential problems that may result from this radical change to Flarm this summer. The Flarm system, as it was before this debate, was FAR from perfect. It is moderately reliable, but that is a database you build as you get to know your competitors and how their Flarm behaves in proximity. The RC refuses to mandate Flarm in contests, but they will rapidly and significantly roll back its situational awareness value for somewhat unsubstantiated reasons that are so factually inconsequential to US contests results it borders on comedy. That is not a trivial thing they are messing with; it's CRITICAL to our collective safety. A dramatic change in situation awareness changes the balance of the whole system (PowerFlarm) that we spent years trying to promote and create. The fact that the RC, despite a strong argument from prominent members of the committee, has still chosen to rush forward with this change has dropped my confidence in their judgement to a new low.
>
> I consider myself to be a glider pilot who cares greatly about contest safety. That is why I made the investment in Flarm way back in 2011 (despite what some have tried to insinuate here). I have owned and used a Flarm since the first day they become available in the USA. I see it as a last line of defence from the unthinkable accidental, fatal collision. It gives us a chance to avoid that collision THAT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY. Perhaps it has already prevented that accident and our RC (and IGC) is being quite complacent because there is no recent story of a fatal contest collision because of the situational awareness the PowerFlarm system has been providing? Hmmm? But the value of that investment in safety is reduced to little when so many refuse to make the same investment in our collective security. I try very hard to be a good citizen (not to scare anyone), give room in thermals, etc. For the most part, this is true of all of our fellow US contest pilots. But I also understand that this sport is inherently dangerous whenever we are in close proximity (5 miles) of numerous other gliders (Flarm or no Flarm) while hitting the same basic hot spots along the way. It's when you are competing at a high level (focusing carefully on clouds, birds, feeling for energy, etc that we are most vulnerable to not noticing a glider (or other aircraft) nearby. Now we will have less of a picture of where those choke points may be by intentionally placing blinders on situational awareness leading in and out of them
>
> This whole conversation has a very real potential to mess with the safety value the system was finally beginning to provide. The manner in which this risk is flippantly dismissed by many shows me that "our leaders" have not fully thought this decision and timeline thru. They are driven mainly by emotion here. I find this very surprising, disturbing and unintelligent.
>
> If someone is beating me because they have a better grasp of Flarm situational awareness (unfounded and unproven) I am willing to accept that if the safety is collectively higher because of it. Just as if someone is beating me at MAT, TAT or HAT task because their fancy flight glide computer does a better job of helping them manage critical decisions. That glide computer advantage is true! Just talk to the salespeople! Yet we don't ban them! Nor do we ban new gliders with perceived higher performance from competing in 15 or 18 meter. In fact, a massive list have gotten in line to enjoy the promise of that 1-3% advantage. Hmmm?
>
> Where does this anti-technology insanity end?
>
> Here is a bold statement. I think some seem to care far more about preventing slight, philosophical (at this point) and potentially imaginary competitive disadvantage (via the ability of some to better adapt to new technology, not unique technology) than improving or maintaining safety. In other words, if it comes down to insecurity or safety, ease my insecurities and screw safety. Ban that Flarm! Don't even test, do it now!!!! Rush, go, turn them damn things off!!! The insecurity and willingness to risk safety and hold ground against a good deal of valid concerns, is a sight to behold..
>
> Happy New Year All!
>
> Sean

Sean,
Happy New Year, too. How the hell did you complete that whole post in the time it took me to walk the dog?

How can you continue to describe the tactical use of FLARM as a philosophical fantom when we were all on the same frequency as you, I, and others marked Jerzy pre-start using FLARM at PAGC? The only reason I didn't go with you guys and follow him down the course line is that my partner was stuck low and I waited for him.

Later in the contest while pair flying neither I or my partner had any more ideas as to what to do as we glided along in smooth air. Luckily his FLARM display (his was better) showed MS climbing at 3 knots outside of visual range. We set sail for the dot on the screen and kept the flight going. No skill involved just antennae and radio waves.

So FLARM is being used as a tactical tool in contests. If folks don't use it as such, they will be at a disadvantage. It can be used to cover bad decision making. FLARM, along with visual tracking, can be used as the primary means some competitors choose to find thermals. It certainly is faster and easier than doing all that work on your own. It is leading us away from measuring a pilots soaring skills.

I bought FLARM to use as an anti-collision device, too. I used it stealth enabled at Harris Hill and found even the current stealth mode to be more than adequate. The audio warnings pointed out gliders all over the place, too many in fact. I could quickly pick them up visually. I could also see all the targets within the immediate area (2km) and their relative altitude which gave me plenty of SA on who was around.

I understand folks want to tweak the current stealth mode into a more practical competition mode that will address the concerns of head to head high speed flight, etc. Fine it shouldn't be that earth shatteringly hard to put in new parameters.

Perhaps you should try flying a competition in stealth or the new competition mode before getting so excited about bashing it. Pause and think back to 3 years ago. Were you spooked out of your wits flying in a contest that people would be running into you? No, you kept your head on a swivel and flew your flight. Now that we have these additional warnings this has all become terribly dangerous and if we don't display all gliders outside of 2 km (now going to 5 km) we are insane and negligent.

As P3 said in the initial post long ago, FLARM+stealth really works well and is an enjoyable way to race gliders.

XC

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 10:31:15 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:

> When I race, I want to RACE (see definition in another excellent post).
> And IMO, in the perfect race, everyone would use the same thermals, on the same task, and finish within seconds of each other. That would be a test of soaring skill, not of luck, weather guessing, and local knowledge.


From my perspective, this is a fairly narrow view of what racing means. As presented above, it would be primarily a contest of stick skills. Same start, same thermals, same course... He/she who flies better, wins. sort of like the recent contest in Dubai.

I prefer the concept of racing to include tactical and strategic decision making, the pilots understanding of weather; picking optimal turn points; knowing when to "go deep"; selecting the best start time for the day; using knowledge of the competitors ships, habits, strengths and weaknesses; when to lead, when to follow, when to leave the pack. And yes, using FLARM info to my best advantage (as well as glide computers, moving maps, and polarized sun glasses, etc.)

Both perspectives are valid of course. I just prefer the latter

Matt Herron

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 11:37:16 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:29:22 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

>
> Andy,
> I am really not going after you personally, but I have to point out some of what I see as flaws in your argument.

I know - you debate respectfully. Thanks for that.

>
> 1) The FLARM folks are in the business of FLARM not soaring. We need to talk about what is best for soaring not what is best for the FLARM company. I suppose if you were to ask any individual at the company they would have to take the CYA approach. The IGC, BGA and now the SSA are looking at practical solutions that preserve the competitiveness of racing and offer increased collision avoidance through the use of FLARM.

I am sure they are extra careful because they are wary of tort laywers - particularly in the US. So should any organization. See your point 5 - the evidence is that you shouldn't run unnecessary risks if you can be a target for lawsuits. This is a quite different thing from taking personal risks. If people want to take some small incremental risk that only affects them and their estate that is their business. When organizations inflict incremental risks on others (however insignificant you might think they are) it can be fodder for lawsuits. To my knowledge, a significant number of glider fatalities have resulted in lawsuits, and I have personally been witness to several aviation liability suits. It's not like no one ever gets killed flying gliders unfortunately, so let's not pretend. I'd prefer not to type list of names - too many were friends of mine. For the record, I have never said that lots more people are going to die - I know the numbers are small. But when I see the benefits as zero to negative then any cost is too high a price to pay.
>
> 2) Folks keep discounting the tactical use of FLARM like it a nebulous, undefined thing. BB describes how he can now take a risk on a bad line and instead of paying the price for bad decision making with a slow climb out, he now can play a wild card and wiggle over to gliders he's been tracking electronically (and win the day). That's John. He's good. Most folks will use in more mundane ways. Using FLARM this way changes the risk management part of the race. Another real example happened in Finland when one of the pilots from another team overtook one of our guys. When asked how he did it he said, "It was easy I saw you climbing at 1.5 m/s and I could see another guy climbing at 3 m/s. I went to his thermal and passed you up." No better skill involved just a better FLARM installation. There are plenty of real world examples.

You can do that with your eyeballs - I don't see anyone saying we should fly contests under the hood and I see zero difference between using 20/10 vision to pick a climbing glider and using a display. Yeah, it's a bit more range and a bit more reliable - so? It is a distinction without a difference. Oh, and it happens pretty rarely that you get that clear a benefit. But it wouldn't matter to me if it happened all the time. If we want to be really fair about it we should require people with superior distance vision to ware contacts to degrade their vision.

>
> 3) The data analysis and your quoted experience hints at a bias toward western conditions. A 3 mile gap is not much NY/PA where we deviate much more on a typical course line.

I would think it would be worse in the east where cruise speeds are lower so you give up more points to deviate. The landout risk are higher in the West, but they are never zero and I don't especially see risk of property damage or personal injury as things I want to figure prominently in the calculus of glider racing - sure it's there, but it shouldn't be how races are decided - the scoring problems alone should convince us of that. If you want to fly with a big risk of landout is part of the psychic benefit, OLC and record flying are much more appropriate forms of flying.

>
> There is also a bias in your reasoning toward this "ism" that soaring has to be about unlimited technology. That all technology is good for the sport and this is some sort of unstoppable force.

Cheap consumer technologies are an unstoppable force. The argument that we should stop them because they are too expensive for the masses doesn't hold water. The argument that we should stop them because some people don't want to learn how to use them is too backward-looking for me to even get my head around. Pellet variometers and sectional charts.

>
> 4) This idea that land outs are due primarily due to luck is not true at all. It has been my experience that when I land out I can sit against a tree and enumerate the errors that led me there. The same is true about the other land outs I have seen in the contests I have flown. Avoiding land outs is all in setting yourself up for success before hand by proper risk management this is the essence of the sport of racing. As stated previously, land outs are and should be part of the game. If you are going to fly aircraft across the countryside without a motor it follows logically that there is a risk of not making it home. This is the big whammy that makes the sport interesting.
>
> Avoiding land outs is not about scary, risky last minute maneuvers you have used to make your point. I think it is becoming apparent that proponents of open FLARM ready do plan to use it to cover mistakes and avoid the inconvenience of landing away. In this way the scores will not reflect pilots ability to manage risk.
>

It's not that there is no skill in soaring. Sure, better pilots land out less frequently than newbies, but if you look at the really marginal days (like Elmira), you see very good pilots landed out for arguably having missed a saving thermal almost entirely unrelated to skill. Having a few less landouts will not make newbie pilots competitive, but it might reduce some of the random scrambling of the scoresheet on truly luck-filled days. I remember the last day at the Standard Class Nationals at Hutchinson, Kansas. We all launched into ominous skies. By the time the gate opened it was raining and we all headed out on long glides with an occasional weak thermal. Rudy Mozer found one thermal that got him to the sun and around the course. Most of the rest of us ended up in fields. If we'd seen Rudy climbing it would have been a real race. It was Kansas - finding a thermal was substantially luck that day. Of course if you're the guy who found the thermal you think it was all skill.

> 5) You and BB have both tried to scare us with lawyers and death now several times to make your point. Like name calling this is a sign of deficient argument.

See your point 2). The lawyers aren't going to sue you, they are going to sue the organizations that allow or require these rules. The fact that the incremental risk was small is irrelevant and the causal link between the rule and the fatality doesn't matter very much. So unless you think the number of off-filed landing accidents and injuries in contests will go to zero from here on out (even if they the number doesn't go up at all), you can expect you are handing lawyers a hammer to hit the SSA and contest organizers. Individual pilots needn't be scared of being sued - but organizations should take note of what they are asking pilots to do and whether it exposes them.

>
> Sorry to be so blunt but you an BB have a preconceived idea/agenda on this FLARM thing and are going to great lengths to push it on us.
>

I'm not trying to push anything. I want us do do exactly nothing - leave it all alone. I'm against pushing artificial constraints - at cost and inconvenience to developers, organizers and pilots. If there were no trying to push an agenda we wouldn't be having this discussion - people would just get to fly unrestricted, unmolested, un-inspected and unpenalized.


> The competition mode with an expanded radius of 5 km plus the other enhancements for head to head conflicts seems to be plenty for collision avoidance. Beyond that we are talking about tactical use of FLARM.

5km would be better for sure. Here's hoping there is at lease some moderating of the hard line on this.

Happy New Year!

9B

[XC]

Okay, here we go. I'll be brief...

Ultimate goal of proponents of open FLARM is to use this anti collision device tactically, as some new way to improve their soaring performance. The safety/SA argument is used as cover. Most people using this argument have never tried stealth. The competition mode with 5 km display of proximate target really negates this argument.

The lawyer thing again. Whether talking about persons being sued or organizations folks are still using this to scare us. Do the right thing for the sport.

Being able to track all gliders, 360 degrees, with climb rates and contest numbers is hugely different than what one can do visually.

Yep, land outs are part of the game. Saying that using a competition mode for FLARM amounts to more property damage and injury is another scare tactic..

The folks who want to win by technological advantage alway bring out these "damn cheaters." Consumer technologies are unstoppable because people will grab these items and use them anyway. I'd like to meet these cheaters and tell them what I think about them - they've cost me a lot of time and money. Oh, that's right they don't really exist in quantity.

You try to incite folks by calling any effort to use FLARM in competition mode an artificial constraint, an unnecessary restriction, and a molestation (really a bit much).

I think it is high time that we framework to make decisions on these new technologies as they come out. There needs to be clear guidance for all as to what the sport is about. I have my own take on it. Some will call it a bit hokey but so be it. It is way better than the anything goes, we are the new NASA/technological frontier approach.

I think man from the beginning of his time on earth has dreamed of soaring like a bird. I think this idea of man flying like a soaring bird is the spirit of our sport. We didn't have wings so used our brains and built some. Birds have a way to navigate and have variometers (tip feathers). We didn't have these things we made them and installed them in our gliders. In some ways we surpassed the abilities of the birds with our technologies. For example in some ways our glide computers do more that a hawk's brain. But they do have a glide computer.

Then we get into adding technologies that birds do not possess. Hawks and eagles don't have the ability to talk to every other bird in the sky or to upload unlimited date via the internet. Soaring birds don't have sensors that can detect thermals from far away.

We could use this framework to evaluate what is beneficial our sport and make that clear to everybody. Other sports have done this and are enjoying great success. But hey, this is one way of looking at things that keep us from drifting away from what our sport started out as. You can move forward without forgetting who you are. Am I the only one who thinks about this sport we love in these terms? I would be seriously disappointed if that were true.

Does anyone else in this techie crowd have a better sense of framework or spirit?

So much for brief...

XC

[smfidler]

Sean (XC),

I'm not debating that information is available via Flarm. That said, there is simply no truth (in my view) to the fantasy that Flarm alone allows individual competitors to regularly contests they otherwise would not! That statement, whoever made it, is utter fantasy. If I'm wrong, show me. Prove it. Show examples. Tell the stories. Make the case with facts and objective data.

I'm debating PowerFlarms actual safety value (to this point) vs. the philosophical tactical value (imaginary, entirely theoretical, zero examples of its existence). I'm debating what PowerFlarms true value is. In my opinion, PowerFlarm is a safety device first, and by far. It provides warnings and increased situational awareness. It has the potential to prevent a surprise collision from developing and breaking the chain of follies which will lead up to the accident. The question here is, how much of the potential chain (which Flarm has the potential to break) do we hide from view? The debate here is A) "what, when, where, why" is the situational awareness US PowerFlarm provides pilots "too much," and B) is the long-range information is extremely useful for tactical purposes resulting in US contest results that are..."out of order!" Zero proof. Zero examples. Zero evidence. Theoretical at best.

PowerFlarm has indeed saved me from at least 2 seriously close calls. But it has also scared the crap out of me (well more than it has saved me) by failing to warn me of many conflicts until the very last moment. That event goes against the fundamental goal of PowerFlarm...a last second warning that I was unable to ID where the threat was in time and react. A surprise! Flarm is far from perfect, and now we are already intentionally being forced to scale its capability down. That's damn scary.

I'm debating if the US contest community needs to spend time discussing the intentional handicapping of one of PoweFlarms core values, situational awareness. I feel that it is impossible to know the impact of this change for sure in US contests, this coming summer, or at all (before any new code has been written, let alone tested or studied in any professional way). Also, why is the RC taking the lead in this decision and discussion when WE are PowerFlarms customers. They should be communicating with us directly, openly and continuously about this important potential change. Crickets. I do not need the RC to be my only line of communication on this.

Mandatory ADSB is 3-5 years away, max. In two years other new technologies will likely be rampant and more affordable. I care about getting hit by aircraft other than gliders! The genie is out. WAY OUT. Safety is far bigger than the views SSA anti-technology oligarchy. This latest effort, once again, only buys them relief from their technology insecurities for a year, maybe two. This may explain the desperate rush to enact the comp mode mandate, but is it sensible or logical in respect to what is just ahead of us? I love defiance and fight, but this one is ridiculous on many practical levels.

The PowerFlarm system is, currently, open and equally beneficial to all. When leading other gliders out or well ahead, the carbon fuselage of my glider, for example, blocks my signal to those in a chase. Same for most of the 18m class (lots of carbon). So the leaders of my chosen class are already shielded a bit as few have a rear antenna installed. But in general, the same tactical information is available to all pilots who use Flarm.

On the other hand, some glide computers (CNi, LX, etc) offer large displays with custom UIs designed to better present Flarm data to the pilot, so I'm told. But so what. Outspending your competition as a means of competitive advantage has always been a option in most classed of competitive soaring! There are little to no restrictions on those technologies.

My FlarmView is set on 2-3 miles range (appx.) because that's all I reliably get. Most of the time it's set on 1 or .5 miles, so I can get a picture of what gliders may be setting off upcoming warnings. I can almost always see gliders at that range and usually see them visually well before noticing them via Flarm. Flarm is the confirmation, not the primary focus (eyes out the window is almost always the primary). But it's still the few gliders that get in close, undetected by eyes or Flarm and surprise me that concern me in terms of narrowing already imperfect situational awareness.

I'm very concerned (along with many other smart people, exclude me entirely from that group if you wish) that a significant change to the governing dynamics of Flarm warnings, range and any corresponding situational awareness is not well enough understood, and, therefore, dangerous to change on a dime without careful testing and study. Furthermore, I see no reason to make this change if one can simply not carry a Flarm onboard (not mandatory) in the contest. If one was worried about being leeched by a "Flarm genius," simply don't have one. Problem solved. You're now invisible again and happy as a clam!

If you are blaming Flarm for finding competitors (XG) in a start area, I have a lesson for you in the school of unintended consequences. The moment you describe was a rare Flarm confirmation of a visual sighting. I remember it well. I think I have video of it. Not a visual confirmation of a lonely Flarm blip 10 miles away. I do not have a ClearNav! Also, if I saw XG, he also see's 7T. He was probably well within 2, probably 1 mile. So what? I believe that pilots (if they so choose) will only move about the start area more actively in order to ID of key pilots if range or data shared by PowerFlarm is limited. Competition mode will do nothing to change this standard behavior. If a sophisticated Flarm usage "problem" exists now, the complex and unpredictable traffic in the start area will get even more intense, not less with competition mode. "Offending" pilots will simply be busier, more stressed, and forced to get into visual range of the contest letters of more gliders, as fast as possible, until they get their man! Danger will rise! I don't think this is a good strategy, but this is the way the game is played for many. The amount of head on and searching around the start area for key pilots may actually increase! I believe that competition mode will not improve safety in the start area. It will create some more aggressive behaviors, not less. Especially at the World Championship level but significant in the USA. Unintended consequences are a bitch in any complex human system. This one does not take a lot of careful thought to see coming.

On the last day of the PAGC, I attempted to stay away from Jerzy, and start first as he was struggling low. I hoped to get away and finish the nearly impossible task and that he would stay stuck for awhile longer and run out of time. It was an opportunity. That plan didn't work out but it was fun trying.

On other days, it was prudent to try and keep track of Jerzy (Team Canada really). If they appeared (visually or on Flarm), great. If not, great. Jerzy was doing the same with me (and others) I'm sure. Jerzy was/is the best pilot and was the likely winner of that event. He was clearly the pilot to beat in 15m! If one wanted to beat him, it was smart to try and understand what was happening with him when possible. Is this not true of all contests? Or are we trying to eliminate this too?

That said, the funny thing was if you look at the SeeYou traces (hard data, not emotionally driven fantasy, and disputing your statement about me), Jerzy and I were only flying together (loose term) for about 45 minutes of the entire PAGC contest! This was out of 3 or 4 contest days not including the day he and I were the only finishers. That day was thrown out, but it is worth noting that we never saw each other, ever on that day that we were still the only 2 finishers. Most of that 45 minutes of flying near each other resulted from him chasing me down from behind. I'll post the video of the SeeYou traces of every flight, if you wish, just to clarify these facts to our audience as necessary. I just do not see how Flarm is this threatening to people as to go this crazy about it. Perhaps I am wrong. But the bar needs to be very high concerning tangible "fairness" degradation to risk compromising Flarm safety. We are not even close now. With zero evidence.

So, Jerzy and I, to the best of my knowledge, flew 90%+ of the contest entirely out of visual or any Flarm range. Perhaps Jerzy was wisely eluding me, but I also had a great team mate (Pete) and we were honestly more focused on just learning how to team fly than following Flarm blips. Again, I don't believe Flarm leeching is a real thing. I think its fantasy. It's a very rare thing to find a lucky thermal because of Flarm in fact. So what. I thought we wanted fewer land outs in the USA! Maybe this is just because I have a tiny Flarm view. Im not sure. PAGC was as much about practice as anything for us. Sure we wanted to know what was happening, and all information available to us was fair game, but that contest was about survival. Hell, we even struggled to stay together as a paired team! We were probably together only 25% of the contest. I suppose this would have been a great contest to use Flarm for advantage. Perhaps you and Erik did a better job of utilizing Flarm and this is why you are in that camp. But at PAGC, I personally saw ZERO real tactical advantage from Flarm. Perhaps I am in need of coaching or something, but overall I do not see a need to worry about Flarm at this point.

So, again, the anti Flarm camps argument and unexplainable urgency to jam competition mode (stealth 2.0, even though stealth mode is almost entirely new and untested in competition) into the rules for 2016, is not very strong in my opinion. I have safety concerns and will not accept the dismissal of legitimate safety concerns while the philosophical debate of "is technology good for the sport" is treated with deathly seriousness by the majority of the RC.

I'm fine with a level playing field. I love one design in sailing which governs every aspect of the boats, sails and electronics. All are identical and virtually the same. But I honestly believe that a level playing field already exists with Flarm in soaring, unlike the added sophistication of state of the art flight computers (LX, CNi) which are openly accepted to provide their owners with a tactical advantage in commonly run US rules tasks (for example).

I have kept my Flarm in my glider, despite its imperfection and the fact that not all competitors are willing to invest in the safety of their fellow pilots. I honestly think the right answer for me is to remove the Flarm and just use my eyes. I'm tired of having to stay on guard for flarmless pilots who are, ironically, often some of the most aggressive in terms of close flying. This next year, if comp mode makes it into our 2016 rules, is going to be utter chaos.

For me Flarm is 99% safety, 1% fun info. I'm sure this explains my concern about this rash, sudden, new, major, extreme rule change for US soaring. The same US soaring that is struggling to keep itself going and grow. Many of us have all made big investments in PowerFlarm and it has taken years to get the a high enough percentage of working Flarms in contests to make them somewhat useful for collision avoidance. Just as we get there, the oligarchy decides to change the system dramatically with zero testing and against the wishes of a large number of pilots (including 2 of the RC itself!). I'm very surprised by all of this. Shocked in fact.

[smfidler]

I hope posting this does not cuase a stroke for some....

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/homebuilt-aircraft-and-homebuilt-aircraft-kits/resources-for-while-youre-building/building-articles/instruments-and-avionics/live-weather-and-traffic-for-less-than-$120

I wonder if the iPhone 7 will have an ADSB reciever on board? ;-)

Sean

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 8:43:19 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
> Okay, here we go. I'll be brief...
>
> Ultimate goal of proponents of open FLARM is to use this anti collision device tactically, as some new way to improve their soaring performance. The safety/SA argument is used as cover. Most people using this argument have never tried stealth. The competition mode with 5 km display of proximate target really negates this argument.


Sean (XC), the competition mode with 5km display of proximate target does not exist. When it does I will have no problem using it, provided it is tested well.

The issue is that this new proposal was rushed without adequate technology support. The current Stealth mode impacts safety and as far as I am concerned there is no tested alternative. So why a rule proposal for 2016? Why not wait until an appropriate solution exists and is fully tested, why not 2017?

Give me 5 km display around my glider and I will be fine with it. I don't need to see climb rates. I would like to know there is someone out there.

Yes, contrary to what Hank says this is a major change as current Stealth mode impacts safety.

Regards,
Andrzej

[XC]

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 9:50:22 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 8:43:19 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
> > Okay, here we go. I'll be brief...
> >
> > Ultimate goal of proponents of open FLARM is to use this anti collision device tactically, as some new way to improve their soaring performance. The safety/SA argument is used as cover. Most people using this argument have never tried stealth. The competition mode with 5 km display of proximate target really negates this argument.
>
>
> Sean (XC), the competition mode with 5km display of proximate target does not exist. When it does I will have no problem using it, provided it is tested well.
>
> The issue is that this new proposal was rushed without adequate technology support. The current Stealth mode impacts safety and as far as I am concerned there is no tested alternative. So why a rule proposal for 2016? Why not wait until an appropriate solution exists and is fully tested, why not 2017?
>
> Give me 5 km display around my glider and I will be fine with it. I don't need to see climb rates. I would like to know there is someone out there.
>
> Yes, contrary to what Hank says this is a major change as current Stealth mode impacts safety.
>
> Regards,
> Andrzej

5 km does sound like a good compromise. The current 2 km does work quite well and we could run the 2016 season with that but the alarmists are shouting down that option. Too bad they aren't willing to try it.

I looked at the link supplied by Sean regarding the the do it yourself ADS-B box. Here are a couple of thoughts that I don't think have been mentioned so far.

1) FLARM has a proprietary algorithm that determines which nearby gliders will trigger an alarm. In an ADS-B world, don't we still need that? Don't we need a glider specific ADB-S set up? If so can't the competition mode be transferred to ADS-B?

2) Looks like building a cheap ADS-B specific for sailplane racing should be a breeze. At $120 there should be few complaints about adoption.

Go ahead and complain now if you wish.

XC

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

> 1) FLARM has a proprietary algorithm that determines which nearby gliders will trigger an alarm. In an ADS-B world, don't we still need that? Don't we need a glider specific ADB-S set up? If so can't the competition mode be transferred to ADS-B?

2) Looks like building a cheap ADS-B specific for sailplane racing should be a breeze. At $120 there should be few complaints about adoption.


Easier said than done to mash Flarm collision algorithms onto ADS-B position reporting. The two systems have some fundamental architectural difference - previously discussed here - that make it hard to use ADS-B to both do good collision warning and not go totally nuts in thermals and other close proximity flying.

You could certainly in theory write software for a home brew ADS-B In receiver that did whatever you like in terms of filtering traffic. I think the challenge will be getting agreement to require pilots to carry that device and only that device for receiving ADS-B. You also get into the cost and complexities of supporting the code and the customers and....wait for it...product liability if it has a problem.

The other problem is Flarm will use ICAO addresses to de-duplicate targets carrying both ADS-B and Flarm, reverting to the more sophisticated Flarm algorithm and transmission when it has a good Flarm signal. Trying to do that across two separate devices would be very complicated.

The reason you'd want it would be to layer in UAT and ADS-R traffic that Flarm doesn't pick up...and in the process to circumvent stealth, I suppose.

9B

[Andrew Ainslie]

Something occurred to me as I was reading this thread. I left competitive soaring for 14 years, and was amazed at the phenomenal, gorgeous technology at our fingertips when I returned. FLARM was one of the most impressive. But, of course, its safety benefits are contingent upon a majority of gliders having one onboard.

Now we're talking about a rule that makes that FLARM less useful in competitions. This has the side effect of making some pilots, particularly in sports class, question the value of buying and installing one. That relatively small change in incentives to the individual may have the unintended consequence of reducing the usefulness of the technology to the group, perhaps even leading to the death of someone with a FLARM that hits someone without, because the latter just didn't think it was worth it.

I say, let's leave the technology completely available in contests. Do that, and installing a FLARM is utterly worth it, And the end result of that will be a higher take up of the technology, benefiting every single one of us.. And not only in contests, since that same pilot will have it on during every weekend flight thereafter.

Safety should come first. Let it be a tactical tool, because the wonderful side effect will be increased take up, and thereafter increased safety for all of us.

[[email protected]]

Andy,
So we'll really need a power FLARM and an ADS-B device. Wow I've already got 4 gps antennae floating around under my glare shield.

Serious question: What can the FLARM folks do to integrate the desirsed features of ads-b and Flarm into a single box? Isn't it quite possible that an enhanced Flarm will do all these things including a competition mode?

XC

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 4:56:01 PM UTC-6, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:

> From my perspective, this is a fairly narrow view of what racing means. As presented above, it would be primarily a contest of stick skills. Same start, same thermals, same course... He/she who flies better, wins. sort of like the recent contest in Dubai.


Exactly; that's what a RACE is, by definition. If Dubai had thermals, it would have been interesting, as it was, it was a final-glide-off ;^). RACING should be about minimizing variables and luck, and maximizing stick skills..


> I prefer the concept of racing to include tactical and strategic decision making, the pilots understanding of weather; picking optimal turn points; knowing when to "go deep"; selecting the best start time for the day; using knowledge of the competitors ships, habits, strengths and weaknesses; when to lead, when to follow, when to leave the pack. And yes, using FLARM info to my best advantage (as well as glide computers, moving maps, and polarized sun glasses, etc.)


What you describe is a CONTEST, not a RACE. Set a task or goal or objective, then do your best to accomplish it better than anyone else. That's fine, and fun, just like golf or chess or OLC - but it's not RACING!


> Both perspectives are valid of course. I just prefer the latter
>
> Matt Herron

I enjoy both also - but it is increasingly hard to find glider RACING in the US anymore, with the virtual demise of speed tasks and the banishment of start lines, one-fix-in-the-circle turnpoints, and line finishes.

Kirk
66

[Greg Delp]

What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

[smfidler]

The situational awareness (SA) value of PowerFlarm (or chance to break the long "chain" of sensory "non-events" required for two pilots to close into each other and collide undetected) or of these inexpensive ADSB systems is, IMHO, very high. I don't think they should be banned as they are now going to be! Its a very good thing to see unknown traffic targets in a 5-10km range from a safety perspective, even if (and I am not saying it does) it has tactical value as well. Some of these targets might by airliners or military aircraft moving at high speed.

I think taking ID, climb rates, altitude, etc away from gliders outside 5km is fine. Most of that data is useless anyway, although altitude might aid in certain strategy assumptions. Again, as long as all safety value is maintained with the highest priority, philosophical compromises are acceptable to me.

Its the ability of pilots with Flarm/ADSB/other "radar" to keep "filling in" a mental picture of traffic around them and how they are approaching via an occasional quick scan of that radar that I believe results in 80% of Flarms true safety value. Most warnings are annoying, but that is usually because you already know they are coming. This SA helps pilots focus their external traffic scan and pick out relevant traffic earlier by giving them some intelligence on where to concentrate attention. This is extremely valuable for safety and has not been mentioned much by its opponents.

If you cut that radar picture down too much (say less than 3 miles, for example) the chances of pilots not noticing the other traffic increases. Pure fact. Indisputable. 1 mile (2km) is highly dangerous in my opinion and makes Flarm essentially useless.

Sean

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
> What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.

FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct

Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.

But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?

But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....

[jfitch]

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
> > What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.
>
> I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.
>
> FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct
>
> Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.
>
> But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?
>
> But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....

This is why I have become apathetic about arguing against stealth mode. The RC's decision will be irrelevant in just a couple of years, and I will have all the situational awareness I want, stealth or no stealth. No one from that camp has responded to this issue, other than a desperate hope that the FAA will grant some sort of waiver for gliders in competition, allowing them to impose stealth mode on ADS-B. I am not the slightest bit concerned that such a thing would happen.

I fully agree with Sean's statement that situational awareness is 80% of the value of Flarm. I have stated several times that with situational awareness, if you are getting an unexpected collision alarm you were not paying attention and ought to review your procedures. ADS-B will provide this even absent Flarm. You won't get accurate rate of climb, but you don't get that from Flarm, either.

Given that much long range Flarm type data will be available to all without restriction shortly, the only rational decision the RC could make is to allow open Flarm now, so that it will be less of a shock to the racing community when it happens.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
> > What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.
>
> I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.
>
> FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct
>
> Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.
>
> But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?
>
> But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....


Um - yup.

We had a discussion on another thread (or was it this one?) about implementing traffic filtering based on registered competitor ICAO addresses at the glide computer - which would require all glide software being used in contests to implement it (including the open source stuff where an enterprising pilot could "adjust" it himself). It would also likely require daily inspections that each pilot had a full and correct ICAO database. Those of us who have multiple glide computers/situational displays would have to submit some sort of file for each one for each day and failure to submit a file that shows the correct database for each display in the cockpit - my cockpit has 5 such devices - would be DQ'd for the day. Display can't produce a file because it lost power or was reset in flight or just had some sort of error - DQ for the day. Each display in the cockpit for each pilot would need to be verified each day by the scorer.

You'd have trouble eliminating tiny home-brew ADS-B receivers and you'd never eliminate the smartphone stuff. Makes my head spin - and gives me nightmares of nasty emails from Ron Gleason. ;-)

If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).

Bottle ----->> ...Genie

Might be good to find Andrzej in the start cylinder and go when he goes. It'll be like a having lantern on a moonless night. I am presuming any glider in range will be able to see the TIS-B traffic transmitted for Andrzej's benefit.

Good times.

9B

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:37:29 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
> > > What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.
> >
> > I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.
> >
> > FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct
> >
> > Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.
> >
> > But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?
> >
> > But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....
>
>
> Um - yup.
>
> We had a discussion on another thread (or was it this one?) about implementing traffic filtering based on registered competitor ICAO addresses at the glide computer - which would require all glide software being used in contests to implement it (including the open source stuff where an enterprising pilot could "adjust" it himself). It would also likely require daily inspections that each pilot had a full and correct ICAO database. Those of us who have multiple glide computers/situational displays would have to submit some sort of file for each one for each day and failure to submit a file that shows the correct database for each display in the cockpit - my cockpit has 5 such devices - would be DQ'd for the day. Display can't produce a file because it lost power or was reset in flight or just had some sort of error - DQ for the day. Each display in the cockpit for each pilot would need to be verified each day by the scorer.
>
> You'd have trouble eliminating tiny home-brew ADS-B receivers and you'd never eliminate the smartphone stuff. Makes my head spin - and gives me nightmares of nasty emails from Ron Gleason. ;-)
>
> If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).
>
> Bottle ----->> ...Genie
>
> Might be good to find Andrzej in the start cylinder and go when he goes. It'll be like a having lantern on a moonless night. I am presuming any glider in range will be able to see the TIS-B traffic transmitted for Andrzej's benefit.
>
> Good times.
>
> 9B

Andy, I was planning on attending one National contest this year, but since the RC vote, I am delaying registration. I may make other plans for this year as a result of this uncertainty.

If the Stealth mode were to be approved I am done flying contests.

[Andrzej Kobus]

There has been a lot of talk about tactical use of PowerFlarm. Proponents of Stealth mode imply that tactical advantage is the reason why people buy PowerFlarm.

If the proponents of Stealth mode are right then once you eliminate that reason adoption of PowerFlarm is going to stall completely.

Is that what we want?

You can't have it both ways.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:29:40 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> There has been a lot of talk about tactical use of PowerFlarm. Proponents of Stealth mode imply that tactical advantage is the reason why people buy PowerFlarm.
>
> If the proponents of Stealth mode are right then once you eliminate that reason adoption of PowerFlarm is going to stall completely.
>
> Is that what we want?
>
> You can't have it both ways.

There may be a few who make the case that the big benefit of Flarm is for tactical advantage. Most certainly it is an added benefit, and admittedly, an additional selling point.
I tell anyone that asks my advice on the topic that they should use Flarm because it can improve their safety margin, most especially in contests with a larger group of gliders near them. That is why I bought it and I believe that is a good enough reason on it's own.
I do not know of many, if any, that are anti Flarm given the safety benefit.. There are more than a few that are strongly questioning the effect of Flarm radar on our sport. That does not make us anti safety.
What do I personally want? I would like Flarm in every glider in the contest and to have it have absolutely no affect on the competition beyond the absence of collisions and close scary misses.
There is no reason to now shout me down in rebuttal. The positions of others are quite well known.
UH

[Andrew Ainslie]

Hank, you'll never get away with that! Not only is your post a reprised rebuttal in itself making your comment that no one need reply sorta funny, but your contention that reducing FLARM range is not anti safety is pretty dubious! That's exactly why this is being so hotly debated.

[Clay[_4_]]

Seems to me that increasing Flarm range will bring about an increase in head down time. Perhaps a very large increase, as more and more info is provided. We are increasing the head down workload especially if it turns out to have more tactical value than some claim. I think it's arguable that at some point the incremental benefit to safety is zero or negative. Maybe that point is 2 km.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:19:46 AM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> Hank, you'll never get away with that! Not only is your post a reprised rebuttal in itself making your comment that no one need reply sorta funny, but your contention that reducing FLARM range is not anti safety is pretty dubious! That's exactly why this is being so hotly debated.

Sorry Andrew, I guess my writing was not clear enough. I was simply stating that I do not see an anti Flarm positions being brought forth. I do see some that want limitations to tactical Flarm radar.
I described my personal ideal view, but did not make and case for how it could or would be done. This is a complex issue that is far from black and white.
Cheers
UH

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:31:09 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:19:46 AM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> > Hank, you'll never get away with that! Not only is your post a reprised rebuttal in itself making your comment that no one need reply sorta funny, but your contention that reducing FLARM range is not anti safety is pretty dubious! That's exactly why this is being so hotly debated.
>
> Sorry Andrew, I guess my writing was not clear enough. I was simply stating that I do not see an anti Flarm positions being brought forth. I do see some that want limitations to tactical Flarm radar.
> I described my personal ideal view, but did not make and case for how it could or would be done. This is a complex issue that is far from black and white.
> Cheers
> UH

Yes, this is a complex issue that requires time.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 11:37:29 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
/snip/

> If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).

The client service volume or "hockey puck" for TIS-B and ADS-R services is 15 nm radius and +/- 3,500' around the client aircraft. Still may be plenty entertaining with a few ADS-B Out equipped gliders amongst the contest fleet.

TIS-B relies on the ADS-B ground coverage and SSR coverage so in places won't work at low altitudes.

Yo get TIS-B for transponder equipped aircraft and only those not equipped with ADS-B Out (but obviously you get those with ADS-B direct or ADS-R which is even more accurate/better coverage) and you don't see ICAO codes for Mode A/C transponder equipped aircraft or those with UAT Out in anonymous mode.... so you won't necessarily be able to tell which glider/contest ID etc..

We have had serious safety issues in certain airspace and responsible pilots in those areas have equipped their gliders with transponders and a few with 1090ES Out as well. They don't get to decide to use those transponders or not in a contest if so equipped.

And I will not be surprised if mandatory transponder and ADS-B Out (or TABS) carriage is required for gliders in future, then it is even easier. With long range and no reliance on ground coverage.

The client/receiver side... Glider and body cavity searches for USB sticks....don't think that is going to work.

Yep the genie is out the bottle. Actually maybe several of them out of several bottles.

[jfitch]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:07:32 AM UTC-8, wrote:
<SNIP> to have it have absolutely no affect on the competition

Do you believe that about any new technology? So the RC should make the Ventus 3 and JS-1 illegal, for example? What is it about this new technology that makes you separate it, in your mind, from any others that have gone before and will come? A new sailplane with an improved polar is a measurable - not just theoretical - advantage. One thing that never changes about mechanized competition, is that it always changes. In this case, ADS-B is going to guarantee it will change.

[Steve Koerner]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 9:58:40 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:07:32 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> <SNIP> to have it have absolutely no affect on the competition
>
> Do you believe that about any new technology? So the RC should make the Ventus 3 and JS-1 illegal, for example? What is it about this new technology that makes you separate it, in your mind, from any others that have gone before and will come? A new sailplane with an improved polar is a measurable - not just theoretical - advantage. One thing that never changes about mechanized competition, is that it always changes. In this case, ADS-B is going to guarantee it will change.

Exactly. And the miracle of this particular technological advance is that it comes to us absolutely free in the sense that all we are debating here is whether or not we should disable a capability this is present and working in already purchased equipment. It's kind of like having a debate now about whether or not to allow winglets on sailplanes. I guess we could all just remove our winglets (or saw them off) and we'd be able to dial back to them good old days of racing without all that stupid technology advancement stuff. Right?

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:51:19 AM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> You get TIS-B for transponder equipped aircraft and only those not equipped with ADS-B Out (but obviously you get those with ADS-B direct or ADS-R which is even more accurate/better coverage) and you don't see ICAO codes for Mode A/C transponder equipped aircraft or those with UAT Out in anonymous mode.... so you won't necessarily be able to tell which glider/contest ID etc.
>

The point being that one ADS-B Out equipped glider will light up (within a 15 nm radius) all transponder-equipped contest gliders in range of SSR with pretty decent resolution (but no ICAO ID unless Mode S). They should be visible not just to the pilot with ADS-B out, but to anyone with ADS-B In-equipped PowerFlarm - so long as the glider with ADS-B Out is requesting 1090ES transmission for TIS-B traffic - which ought to be the case since I doubt gliders would equip with UAT In only.

A small number of gliders out on course so equipped and reasonably spaced ought to light up pretty much everyone on task equipped with a transponder and within a 7,000' altitude band.

Not sure what the percentage of racing gliders equipped with transponders is - but I suspect a lot.

9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 1:06:43 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
> The point being that one ADS-B Out equipped glider will light up (within a 15 nm radius) all transponder-equipped contest gliders in range of SSR with pretty decent resolution (but no ICAO ID or aircraft type information unless Mode S). They should be visible not just to the pilot with ADS-B out, but to anyone with ADS-B In-equipped PowerFlarm - so long as the glider with ADS-B Out is requesting 1090ES transmission for TIS-B traffic - which ought to be the case since I doubt gliders would equip with UAT In only.

*** Clarification - it needs to be confirmed that PowerFlarm will show TIS-B traffic lit up by someone else with ADS-B Out. Otherwise you are looking at needing a $100 USB stick (or serial, or WiFi - and preferably dual-band) ADS-B In module - which would be useful in seeing power traffic as well as gliders. The home-brew units seem to see TIS-B traffic just fine.

Looks like a conundrum. But we haven't seen it in action yet so stay tuned....

9B

[Richard Pfiffner]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 1:14:44 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 1:06:43 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >
> > The point being that one ADS-B Out equipped glider will light up (within a 15 nm radius) all transponder-equipped contest gliders in range of SSR with pretty decent resolution (but no ICAO ID or aircraft type information unless Mode S). They should be visible not just to the pilot with ADS-B out, but to anyone with ADS-B In-equipped PowerFlarm - so long as the glider with ADS-B Out is requesting 1090ES transmission for TIS-B traffic - which ought to be the case since I doubt gliders would equip with UAT In only.
>
> *** Clarification - it needs to be confirmed that PowerFlarm will show TIS-B traffic lit up by someone else with ADS-B Out. Otherwise you are looking at needing a $100 USB stick (or serial, or WiFi - and preferably dual-band) ADS-B In module - which would be useful in seeing power traffic as well as gliders. The home-brew units seem to see TIS-B traffic just fine.
>
> Looks like a conundrum. But we haven't seen it in action yet so stay tuned...
>
> 9B

Andy,

I have seen it in action. A power plane Cirrus at Siskiyou Co has an ADS-b out. I see them taxi out and takeoff head south on my Powerflarm.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[ND]

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 5:56:01 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 10:31:15 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > When I race, I want to RACE (see definition in another excellent post).
> > And IMO, in the perfect race, everyone would use the same thermals, on the same task, and finish within seconds of each other. That would be a test of soaring skill, not of luck, weather guessing, and local knowledge.
>
>
> From my perspective, this is a fairly narrow view of what racing means. As presented above, it would be primarily a contest of stick skills. Same start, same thermals, same course... He/she who flies better, wins. sort of like the recent contest in Dubai.
>
> I prefer the concept of racing to include tactical and strategic decision making, the pilots understanding of weather; picking optimal turn points; knowing when to "go deep"; selecting the best start time for the day; using knowledge of the competitors ships, habits, strengths and weaknesses; when to lead, when to follow, when to leave the pack. And yes, using FLARM info to my best advantage (as well as glide computers, moving maps, and polarized sun glasses, etc.)
>
> Both perspectives are valid of course. I just prefer the latter
>
> Matt Herron

i agree with you for the most part, although i would like to see more assigned tasks rather than MAT's, and the grand prix concept is a really intriguing element of this relative to everyone being on a level playnig field with the start. i think we should all fly the same course (I.E. AST) but its the deviations, the routes, and the decisions that makes the difference.

[ND]

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 2:53:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:23:21 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
> >
> > You don't need to apologize to me as I had no part in bringing PowerFlarm to US, but you can call me a PowerFlarm pusher anyway since I am advocating its use to the full extend for safety reasons. I also installed ADSB-out in my glider for safety reasons at great expense. If I did not see PowerFlarm improving my safety I would take it out of my glider.
> >
> > Here is a fact, RC proposed (contrary to Flarm recommendation) compulsory use of Stealth mode without dealing with reduced safety issue. Then when RC finally figured out (thanks to RAS) that Stealth was not such a good idea they renamed it to the Competition mode without proper definition by the vendor of what it would be. This was less than 3 months before the first competition of 2016. Flarm does not have a Competition mode available at this time that RC is talking about.
> >
> > I am sorry but this decision is a sign of RC incompetence at best. How can you mandate something that is not defined and it does not exist and then hope that maybe it shows up in time for the first contest?
> >
> > Everyone reasonable can accept changes provided the change is clearly defined and tested to ensure safety is not compromised. Some discussion prior to making such a huge decision would be in order as well. I guess we already had that on RAS.
> >
> > In the past RC stated that no major change can happen without being properly tested. What happened to that? I guess it was a different group of people back then, a little bit more restrained perhaps.
> >
> > We don't want RC to become a knee jerk reaction group imposing their will on the rest of the pilots. What happened to a democratic process? The poll does not support this decision.
> >
> > I have no issue with bringing a change as long as it is done with proper consultation and the technology is there to avoid negative safety impact. That is not the case now. Nothing is ready. It is time to give it up for 2016.
> >
> > Let's do proper polling for 2017 to truly understand what pilots want and meantime figure out the technology puzzle.
>
> UH Response:
> I have worked quite hard when discussing this topic to be respectful of the views of others and speak in a manner that reflects my experience and opinions while trying to make it clear that they were just that.
> I may stray a bit from that philosophy in responding to the message above..
> Fact- The allegation that the RC has not considered the safety implications of use of Stealth or a follow on version(Competition)are simply not true.. In our discussions 9B made a strong case for these concerns and they have been part of the continuing dialog among our group. The "competition" mode is not our relabeling of Stealth, but in fact is the label being used in discussions by members of the IGC and ourselves with Flarm wherein changes are expected to be made to address concerns that arose out of the implementation of the 2015 version of Stealth tested in the UK. Report that I have read is that version was well accepted by pilots, but that meaningful concerns were identified related to other glider users of Flarm and well as UK military users that have Flarm. As of this time, we do not have clarity as to the details of the coming revision.
> Fact- RAS had not one thing to do with our understanding of the factors related to this process, with the exception of the level of passion it would raise from a few.
> Fact- It is planned that the RC is to review the best information we have about the next version before proceeding with the rule as currently drafted. We have agreed that if the coming version does not meet the needs of our situation, we will not proceed.
> Fact- The RC is on a rules schedule that requires us to complete changes before the winter board meeting. That may seem like a rush, and sometimes it is, but that is the process we live with.
> Fact- The RC takes it's obligation to let affected parties know about actions that affect them in a timely manner so that they can plan accordingly.
> The allegation of incompetence, with an implication of worse, is nothing less than insulting. The volunteers who work for all of us deserve better than this kind of public treatment.
> Fact- This is not a major change and it has been tested at the national level with favorable results, though not without concerns voiced by some.
> Fact - This is not a "knee jerk" reaction. Some action of this type has been under discussion literally from the initial introduction of Flarm. The experiences in Europe described in Russell Cheatham's paper reinforced these original concerns and led to consideration of action.
> There is a very real likelihood that what will be developed by Flarm will not meet our expectations. I am sure that whatever is done will not satisfy everyone. Please rest assured that the US RC is doing the best we can to act in a responsible manner to address the wide variety of considerations related to this topic. If we do not believe that the next progression of Flarm will be acceptable, we will not proceed.
> Respectfully
> UH

where can russell's paper be found?

[ND]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:37:29 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
> > > > What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.
> > >
> > > I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.
> > >
> > > FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct
> > >
> > > Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.
> > >
> > > But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only.... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?
> > >
> > > But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....
> >
> >
> > Um - yup.
> >
> > We had a discussion on another thread (or was it this one?) about implementing traffic filtering based on registered competitor ICAO addresses at the glide computer - which would require all glide software being used in contests to implement it (including the open source stuff where an enterprising pilot could "adjust" it himself). It would also likely require daily inspections that each pilot had a full and correct ICAO database. Those of us who have multiple glide computers/situational displays would have to submit some sort of file for each one for each day and failure to submit a file that shows the correct database for each display in the cockpit - my cockpit has 5 such devices - would be DQ'd for the day. Display can't produce a file because it lost power or was reset in flight or just had some sort of error - DQ for the day. Each display in the cockpit for each pilot would need to be verified each day by the scorer.
> >
> > You'd have trouble eliminating tiny home-brew ADS-B receivers and you'd never eliminate the smartphone stuff. Makes my head spin - and gives me nightmares of nasty emails from Ron Gleason. ;-)
> >
> > If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).
> >
> > Bottle ----->> ...Genie
> >
> > Might be good to find Andrzej in the start cylinder and go when he goes.. It'll be like a having lantern on a moonless night. I am presuming any glider in range will be able to see the TIS-B traffic transmitted for Andrzej's benefit.
> >
> > Good times.
> >
> > 9B
>
> Andy, I was planning on attending one National contest this year, but since the RC vote, I am delaying registration. I may make other plans for this year as a result of this uncertainty.
>
> If the Stealth mode were to be approved I am done flying contests.

whaaaaat? are you SERIOUS? Flarm isn't even mandatory yet. there are people still flying without them. i will stick with racing no matter what happens to it, because i love gliding and the spirit of coming together to fly/race together. one thing that doesn't go my way would never deter me.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 10:54:41 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 10:01:03 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 4:40:49 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> > >
> > > Biggest loser, though, is the sport of soaring. We lose our heros. These are the great personalities that make this sport attractive young pilots. This sport was built by bold pilots who did great things, who consistently demonstrated an uncanny knack for finding thermals when no one else could.
> >
> > I have to say when I read this it sounded like a description of Ramy flying OLC from Monterrey to Truckee and back or Gordo and Jim Payne doing crazy distance flights in the wave.
> >
> > Racing is really about tactical optimization under uncertainty, which is why you find so much gaggling and other tactical behavior - quite a different sport from OLC altogether. Flarm adds some dynamism to the pure tactical game of yore by spreading out the field. It's not clear that wanting to use Flarm tactically is much more than an emotional security blanket. It may in fact result in more spreading out of the field, more independent action and more heroic flying.
> >
> > Funny how things go full circle sometimes.
> >
> > 9B
>
> A sailplane contest should determine who is the best glider pilot. In fact that is the first rule in the rule book. We all know what skills it takes whether pure cross country, badges, OLC, or competition. That's why in the past contest winners were also record holders.
>
> The rules should reward those who possess these better soaring skills. Now we are getting into this BS that a glider contest is about something else, a new set of skills. Further proof that we have a fuzzy picture of what our sport is about.
>
> If we can't even get together on what our sport is about, how can we expect bright young people to be sold on it.
>
> XC

I concur with XC. You guys that support Flarm for safety reasons is fine, but how about looking outside the old fashioned way and make your own decisions. My current career position has me looking inside the cockpit a large percentage of the time, technology is great, but is really limits pilot awareness especially outside the cockpit. You can keep your contests, and I'll be looking outside when I'm flying my glider for fun...

[Pat Russell[_2_]]

> where can russell's paper be found?

http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/FlarmStealth