The truth about Flarm Stealth and Competition definition...

[smfidler]

OK, the peanut gallergy is driving me crazy. So I did a quick internet search and found this very relevant document from FLARM:

How to Use FLARM(R) in Gliding Competitions?
http://www.segelflugbedarf24.de/flarm/download/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

The document includes some pretty interesting descriptons of what "stealth and competition mode" are and, more imortantly are not. Based on the discussions here...I am shocked. I honestly have no idea what the RC is expecting Flarm to magically become...whith a new version of competiton mode. I have a guess...MORE DANGEROUS! USELESS?

From the document...

COMPETITION MODE: Basically, according to FLARM, this simply TUNES DOWN the number of alerts. THATS IT!
Competition Mode
Traffic alerts are issued based on an algorithmic assessment of potentially dangerous traffic. These algorithms have been greatly improved in version 4of the firmware. Nevertheless, as a competition pilot, you might want this assessment to result in less alerts, i.e. increase the level of danger above which an alert is issued. Consequently, if you check 'Competition Mode (less Alarms)' in the official FlarmTool PC software, then alert distances and alert times are reduced by approximately 2 seconds; this reduces nuisance alerts in high-density traffic but REQUIRES FASTER ACTION.
Other things to do if FLARM is too distracting:
- turn volume down / off (don't forget to turn it up again) - double-click the button (suppresses alarms for
5 minutes, but other aircraft will still get alarms)

REQUIRES FASTER ACTION? WFT? WTF?

STEALTH MODE: From Flarm itself..."Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons."
"Stealth Mode
The data FLARM(R) receives from other is available at the serial port to external devices like PDA's or graphical displays which can thus display the nearby environment in detail. While this information is useful for you, you might not want your competitors to make use of this information, and others might have the similar asymmetrical preferences. With the stealth mode (named 'Privacy' before) in FLARM(R), you can choose the trade-off acceptable for you between two modes:
* 'Stealth Mode' unchecked: you have full access to the data you receive from others with Stealth Mode disabled and, and others have full access to the data you send about yourself if they have Stealth Mode disabled, or
* 'Stealth Mode' checked: you have limited access to the data you receive from others and, and others have limited access to the data you send about yourself independent of their Stealth Mode setting.
Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons.
Note that the FLARM(R) flight log-file stores the information on stealth settings and changes so a competition authority could easily enforce the use (or non-use) if desirable. Changes to stealth mode are effective with a two minute delay, see the manual for details."

Again: Flarm states, "STEALTH MODE INHERENTLY REDUCES (R E D U C E S) SOME OF THE BENIFITS OF THE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS (S I T U A T I O N A L A W A R E N E S S.....!!!!!) FOR YOURSELF AND SURROUNDING AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!!"

WIth that, I have absolutely no idea what we are expecting "competition mode 2.0" to solve for us. It must a flavor of Stealth mode that the RC must be pushing. You know, the one that requires FASTER ACTION! Competition mode actually DE-TUNES close in alerts as not to annoy a pilot who is highly tuned and alert to traffic already. WFT? DE-TUNES SAFETY? Probably why they dont recommend it, hmmm?

Anyway, I thought this document was interesting. If it has not been previously shared, Im shocked. But just encase, there you go.

We need to stop the madness and think about what we are doing...THIS IS MADNESS.

Sean

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 6:58:27 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
> OK, the peanut gallergy is driving me crazy. So I did a quick internet search and found this very relevant document from FLARM:
>
> How to Use FLARM(R) in Gliding Competitions?
> http://www.segelflugbedarf24.de/flarm/download/Flarm_Competitions.pdf
>
> The document includes some pretty interesting descriptons of what "stealth and competition mode" are and, more imortantly are not. Based on the discussions here...I am shocked. I honestly have no idea what the RC is expecting Flarm to magically become...whith a new version of competiton mode. I have a guess...MORE DANGEROUS! USELESS?
>
> From the document...
>
> COMPETITION MODE: Basically, according to FLARM, this simply TUNES DOWN the number of alerts. THATS IT!
> Competition Mode
> Traffic alerts are issued based on an algorithmic assessment of potentially dangerous traffic. These algorithms have been greatly improved in version 4of the firmware. Nevertheless, as a competition pilot, you might want this assessment to result in less alerts, i.e. increase the level of danger above which an alert is issued. Consequently, if you check 'Competition Mode (less Alarms)' in the official FlarmTool PC software, then alert distances and alert times are reduced by approximately 2 seconds; this reduces nuisance alerts in high-density traffic but REQUIRES FASTER ACTION.
> Other things to do if FLARM is too distracting:
> - turn volume down / off (don't forget to turn it up again) - double-click the button (suppresses alarms for
> 5 minutes, but other aircraft will still get alarms)
>
> REQUIRES FASTER ACTION? WFT? WTF?
>
> STEALTH MODE: From Flarm itself..."Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons."
> "Stealth Mode
> The data FLARM(R) receives from other is available at the serial port to external devices like PDA's or graphical displays which can thus display the nearby environment in detail. While this information is useful for you, you might not want your competitors to make use of this information, and others might have the similar asymmetrical preferences. With the stealth mode (named 'Privacy' before) in FLARM(R), you can choose the trade-off acceptable for you between two modes:
> * 'Stealth Mode' unchecked: you have full access to the data you receive from others with Stealth Mode disabled and, and others have full access to the data you send about yourself if they have Stealth Mode disabled, or
> * 'Stealth Mode' checked: you have limited access to the data you receive from others and, and others have limited access to the data you send about yourself independent of their Stealth Mode setting.
> Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons.
> Note that the FLARM(R) flight log-file stores the information on stealth settings and changes so a competition authority could easily enforce the use (or non-use) if desirable. Changes to stealth mode are effective with a two minute delay, see the manual for details."
>
> Again: Flarm states, "STEALTH MODE INHERENTLY REDUCES (R E D U C E S) SOME OF THE BENIFITS OF THE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS (S I T U A T I O N A L A W A R E N E S S.....!!!!!) FOR YOURSELF AND SURROUNDING AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!!"
>
> WIth that, I have absolutely no idea what we are expecting "competition mode 2.0" to solve for us. It must a flavor of Stealth mode that the RC must be pushing. You know, the one that requires FASTER ACTION! Competition mode actually DE-TUNES close in alerts as not to annoy a pilot who is highly tuned and alert to traffic already. WFT? DE-TUNES SAFETY? Probably why they dont recommend it, hmmm?
>
> Anyway, I thought this document was interesting. If it has not been previously shared, Im shocked. But just encase, there you go.
>
> We need to stop the madness and think about what we are doing...THIS IS MADNESS.
>
> Sean

I'm curious how old that document is........ The "competition mode" may be an old one and NOT relevant to the current proposed one from the SSA RC and other national RC groups.

This page (document date of March 2015...)..... http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FLARM_OperatingManual_226_EN.pdf has some other info.

The major point (in my eye) is on page 13, paragraph 3 where it states (Flarm states in their document) that in OPTIMUM installations, forward range exceeds 5KM, other directions is 3KM.

Thus, the SSA RC wanting to possibly limit range to 5KM (in a proposed competition mode "that does not exist yet" to replace the current stealth mode) fits within what some pilots want and is within what Flarm is willing to state.

[Ron Gleason]

On Saturday, 2 January 2016 16:58:27 UTC-7, smfidler wrote:
> OK, the peanut gallergy is driving me crazy. So I did a quick internet search and found this very relevant document from FLARM:
>
> How to Use FLARM(R) in Gliding Competitions?
> http://www.segelflugbedarf24.de/flarm/download/Flarm_Competitions.pdf
>
> The document includes some pretty interesting descriptons of what "stealth and competition mode" are and, more imortantly are not. Based on the discussions here...I am shocked. I honestly have no idea what the RC is expecting Flarm to magically become...whith a new version of competiton mode. I have a guess...MORE DANGEROUS! USELESS?
>
> From the document...
>
> COMPETITION MODE: Basically, according to FLARM, this simply TUNES DOWN the number of alerts. THATS IT!
> Competition Mode
> Traffic alerts are issued based on an algorithmic assessment of potentially dangerous traffic. These algorithms have been greatly improved in version 4of the firmware. Nevertheless, as a competition pilot, you might want this assessment to result in less alerts, i.e. increase the level of danger above which an alert is issued. Consequently, if you check 'Competition Mode (less Alarms)' in the official FlarmTool PC software, then alert distances and alert times are reduced by approximately 2 seconds; this reduces nuisance alerts in high-density traffic but REQUIRES FASTER ACTION.
> Other things to do if FLARM is too distracting:
> - turn volume down / off (don't forget to turn it up again) - double-click the button (suppresses alarms for
> 5 minutes, but other aircraft will still get alarms)
>
> REQUIRES FASTER ACTION? WFT? WTF?
>
> STEALTH MODE: From Flarm itself..."Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons."
> "Stealth Mode
> The data FLARM(R) receives from other is available at the serial port to external devices like PDA's or graphical displays which can thus display the nearby environment in detail. While this information is useful for you, you might not want your competitors to make use of this information, and others might have the similar asymmetrical preferences. With the stealth mode (named 'Privacy' before) in FLARM(R), you can choose the trade-off acceptable for you between two modes:
> * 'Stealth Mode' unchecked: you have full access to the data you receive from others with Stealth Mode disabled and, and others have full access to the data you send about yourself if they have Stealth Mode disabled, or
> * 'Stealth Mode' checked: you have limited access to the data you receive from others and, and others have limited access to the data you send about yourself independent of their Stealth Mode setting.
> Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons.
> Note that the FLARM(R) flight log-file stores the information on stealth settings and changes so a competition authority could easily enforce the use (or non-use) if desirable. Changes to stealth mode are effective with a two minute delay, see the manual for details."
>
> Again: Flarm states, "STEALTH MODE INHERENTLY REDUCES (R E D U C E S) SOME OF THE BENIFITS OF THE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS (S I T U A T I O N A L A W A R E N E S S.....!!!!!) FOR YOURSELF AND SURROUNDING AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!!"
>
> WIth that, I have absolutely no idea what we are expecting "competition mode 2.0" to solve for us. It must a flavor of Stealth mode that the RC must be pushing. You know, the one that requires FASTER ACTION! Competition mode actually DE-TUNES close in alerts as not to annoy a pilot who is highly tuned and alert to traffic already. WFT? DE-TUNES SAFETY? Probably why they dont recommend it, hmmm?
>
> Anyway, I thought this document was interesting. If it has not been previously shared, Im shocked. But just encase, there you go.
>
> We need to stop the madness and think about what we are doing...THIS IS MADNESS.
>
> Sean

If you do not like the first answer keep searching till you find what you do like! All kidding aside you are illustrating one of the challenges and problems with the FLARM and PowerFLARM technology and solution.

While I have seen the referenced document I do not know what version of the technology it is referencing and illustrating. Is it FLARM or PowerFLARM? What firmware version? Does it apply to functionality delivered by the CORE technology or CORE technology and third party vendors? Does the PC configuration tool still exist and what is the relationship to the online configuration tool?

I encourage the FLARM developers/company to make sure they date stamp every document, reference the relevant hardware and software, expiration date and any other information that allows the end user to understand the relevance.

Many folks on this forum and the SSA RC knows what it takes to think of, design, develop, deliver, test, QA, document, release, deliver and support quality life dependent software. For some reason many of these folks appear to want to forget the disciplines of what it takes to 'do it right' or IMO they are mi optic and are trying to forward their agendas.

IMO the right course of action for the SSA RC is to allow PowerFLARM devices in OPEN mode for ALL SSA sanctioned competitions. I can live with pilot choice of what MODE they want to operate in but I believe that is a compromise and would require yet another waiver to signed by all pilots competing..

Come on lets put the egos aside, the 'save the purity stances' and all other stop technology creep angles and move forward.

This is not your fathers soaring environment anymore.

Furthermore, I believe if the SSA RC requires STEALTH mode and for some reason the SSA BOD agrees you will see less organizations and individuals willing to organize and host SSA sanctioned competitions. The liability is too high. Argue you all want about the is this still competition but the number of venues hosting competitions will be so small that discussion will be moot. Go down this path is you want to kill off sanctioned competitions in the US.

Ron Gleason

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 8:37:21 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 January 2016 16:58:27 UTC-7, smfidler wrote:
> > OK, the peanut gallergy is driving me crazy. So I did a quick internet search and found this very relevant document from FLARM:
> >
> > How to Use FLARM(R) in Gliding Competitions?
> > http://www.segelflugbedarf24.de/flarm/download/Flarm_Competitions.pdf
> >
> > The document includes some pretty interesting descriptons of what "stealth and competition mode" are and, more imortantly are not. Based on the discussions here...I am shocked. I honestly have no idea what the RC is expecting Flarm to magically become...whith a new version of competiton mode. I have a guess...MORE DANGEROUS! USELESS?
> >
> > From the document...
> >
> > COMPETITION MODE: Basically, according to FLARM, this simply TUNES DOWN the number of alerts. THATS IT!
> > Competition Mode
> > Traffic alerts are issued based on an algorithmic assessment of potentially dangerous traffic. These algorithms have been greatly improved in version 4of the firmware. Nevertheless, as a competition pilot, you might want this assessment to result in less alerts, i.e. increase the level of danger above which an alert is issued. Consequently, if you check 'Competition Mode (less Alarms)' in the official FlarmTool PC software, then alert distances and alert times are reduced by approximately 2 seconds; this reduces nuisance alerts in high-density traffic but REQUIRES FASTER ACTION.
> > Other things to do if FLARM is too distracting:
> > - turn volume down / off (don't forget to turn it up again) - double-click the button (suppresses alarms for
> > 5 minutes, but other aircraft will still get alarms)
> >
> > REQUIRES FASTER ACTION? WFT? WTF?
> >
> > STEALTH MODE: From Flarm itself..."Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons."
> > "Stealth Mode
> > The data FLARM(R) receives from other is available at the serial port to external devices like PDA's or graphical displays which can thus display the nearby environment in detail. While this information is useful for you, you might not want your competitors to make use of this information, and others might have the similar asymmetrical preferences. With the stealth mode (named 'Privacy' before) in FLARM(R), you can choose the trade-off acceptable for you between two modes:
> > * 'Stealth Mode' unchecked: you have full access to the data you receive from others with Stealth Mode disabled and, and others have full access to the data you send about yourself if they have Stealth Mode disabled, or
> > * 'Stealth Mode' checked: you have limited access to the data you receive from others and, and others have limited access to the data you send about yourself independent of their Stealth Mode setting.
> > Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons.
> > Note that the FLARM(R) flight log-file stores the information on stealth settings and changes so a competition authority could easily enforce the use (or non-use) if desirable. Changes to stealth mode are effective with a two minute delay, see the manual for details."
> >
> > Again: Flarm states, "STEALTH MODE INHERENTLY REDUCES (R E D U C E S) SOME OF THE BENIFITS OF THE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS (S I T U A T I O N A L A W A R E N E S S.....!!!!!) FOR YOURSELF AND SURROUNDING AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!!"
> >
> > WIth that, I have absolutely no idea what we are expecting "competition mode 2.0" to solve for us. It must a flavor of Stealth mode that the RC must be pushing. You know, the one that requires FASTER ACTION! Competition mode actually DE-TUNES close in alerts as not to annoy a pilot who is highly tuned and alert to traffic already. WFT? DE-TUNES SAFETY? Probably why they dont recommend it, hmmm?
> >
> > Anyway, I thought this document was interesting. If it has not been previously shared, Im shocked. But just encase, there you go.
> >
> > We need to stop the madness and think about what we are doing...THIS IS MADNESS.
> >
> > Sean
>
> If you do not like the first answer keep searching till you find what you do like! All kidding aside you are illustrating one of the challenges and problems with the FLARM and PowerFLARM technology and solution.
>
> While I have seen the referenced document I do not know what version of the technology it is referencing and illustrating. Is it FLARM or PowerFLARM? What firmware version? Does it apply to functionality delivered by the CORE technology or CORE technology and third party vendors? Does the PC configuration tool still exist and what is the relationship to the online configuration tool?
>
> I encourage the FLARM developers/company to make sure they date stamp every document, reference the relevant hardware and software, expiration date and any other information that allows the end user to understand the relevance.
>
> Many folks on this forum and the SSA RC knows what it takes to think of, design, develop, deliver, test, QA, document, release, deliver and support quality life dependent software. For some reason many of these folks appear to want to forget the disciplines of what it takes to 'do it right' or IMO they are mi optic and are trying to forward their agendas.
>
> IMO the right course of action for the SSA RC is to allow PowerFLARM devices in OPEN mode for ALL SSA sanctioned competitions. I can live with pilot choice of what MODE they want to operate in but I believe that is a compromise and would require yet another waiver to signed by all pilots competing.
>
> Come on lets put the egos aside, the 'save the purity stances' and all other stop technology creep angles and move forward.
>
> This is not your fathers soaring environment anymore.
>
> Furthermore, I believe if the SSA RC requires STEALTH mode and for some reason the SSA BOD agrees you will see less organizations and individuals willing to organize and host SSA sanctioned competitions. The liability is too high. Argue you all want about the is this still competition but the number of venues hosting competitions will be so small that discussion will be moot. Go down this path is you want to kill off sanctioned competitions in the US.
>
> Ron Gleason

Ron, I don't think this statement is true "the SSA RC knows what it takes to think of, design, develop, deliver, test, QA, document, release, deliver and support quality life dependent software"

Probably only 2 guys on RC understand what it means to develop such software. Actions speak volume and the actions 3 out of 5 members of the RC committee took prove that they don't understand software development process. If they did they would have never voted on the Stealth mode or Competition mode until a proper solution was in place.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 3:58:27 PM UTC-8, smfidler wrote:
> OK, the peanut gallergy is driving me crazy. So I did a quick internet search and found this very relevant document from FLARM:
>
> How to Use FLARM(R) in Gliding Competitions?
> http://www.segelflugbedarf24.de/flarm/download/Flarm_Competitions.pdf
>
> The document includes some pretty interesting descriptons of what "stealth and competition mode" are and, more imortantly are not. Based on the discussions here...I am shocked. I honestly have no idea what the RC is expecting Flarm to magically become...whith a new version of competiton mode. I have a guess...MORE DANGEROUS! USELESS?
>
> From the document...
>
> COMPETITION MODE: Basically, according to FLARM, this simply TUNES DOWN the number of alerts. THATS IT!
> Competition Mode
> Traffic alerts are issued based on an algorithmic assessment of potentially dangerous traffic. These algorithms have been greatly improved in version 4of the firmware. Nevertheless, as a competition pilot, you might want this assessment to result in less alerts, i.e. increase the level of danger above which an alert is issued. Consequently, if you check 'Competition Mode (less Alarms)' in the official FlarmTool PC software, then alert distances and alert times are reduced by approximately 2 seconds; this reduces nuisance alerts in high-density traffic but REQUIRES FASTER ACTION.
> Other things to do if FLARM is too distracting:
> - turn volume down / off (don't forget to turn it up again) - double-click the button (suppresses alarms for
> 5 minutes, but other aircraft will still get alarms)
>
> REQUIRES FASTER ACTION? WFT? WTF?
>
> STEALTH MODE: From Flarm itself..."Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons."
> "Stealth Mode
> The data FLARM(R) receives from other is available at the serial port to external devices like PDA's or graphical displays which can thus display the nearby environment in detail. While this information is useful for you, you might not want your competitors to make use of this information, and others might have the similar asymmetrical preferences. With the stealth mode (named 'Privacy' before) in FLARM(R), you can choose the trade-off acceptable for you between two modes:
> * 'Stealth Mode' unchecked: you have full access to the data you receive from others with Stealth Mode disabled and, and others have full access to the data you send about yourself if they have Stealth Mode disabled, or
> * 'Stealth Mode' checked: you have limited access to the data you receive from others and, and others have limited access to the data you send about yourself independent of their Stealth Mode setting.
> Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons.
> Note that the FLARM(R) flight log-file stores the information on stealth settings and changes so a competition authority could easily enforce the use (or non-use) if desirable. Changes to stealth mode are effective with a two minute delay, see the manual for details."
>
> Again: Flarm states, "STEALTH MODE INHERENTLY REDUCES (R E D U C E S) SOME OF THE BENIFITS OF THE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS (S I T U A T I O N A L A W A R E N E S S.....!!!!!) FOR YOURSELF AND SURROUNDING AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!!"
>
> WIth that, I have absolutely no idea what we are expecting "competition mode 2.0" to solve for us. It must a flavor of Stealth mode that the RC must be pushing. You know, the one that requires FASTER ACTION! Competition mode actually DE-TUNES close in alerts as not to annoy a pilot who is highly tuned and alert to traffic already. WFT? DE-TUNES SAFETY? Probably why they dont recommend it, hmmm?
>
> Anyway, I thought this document was interesting. If it has not been previously shared, Im shocked. But just encase, there you go.
>
> We need to stop the madness and think about what we are doing...THIS IS MADNESS.
>
> Sean

Just to clarify - and reference to Competition Mode in reference to the most recent RC discussion is really a discussion of a proposed (though not fully specified) successor to Stealth Mode that would presumably attempt to address some of the shortcomings of the current instantiation of Stealth Mode.. Competition Mode as described in Flarm documentation was never part of the discussion and its features were NOT intended to be integrated with Stealth to create the proposed new version of Stealth.

The confusing name change (from Stealth to Competition) was because some felt the term "Stealth" made it sound too much like the user of this mode was trying to be invisible (of course that's pretty much exactly what he's trying to do). Rebranding the mode to "Competition" might not so obviously point out this fact - partly for liability concerns and partly for the hoi polloi. Of course if it ever came to it, any decent tort lawyer will look at the history and email traffic (and r.a.s. posts) and figure this out, at which point it looks like somebody was trying to cover something up.

9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
> Probably only 2 guys on RC understand what it means to develop such software. Actions speak volume and the actions 3 out of 5 members of the RC committee took prove that they don't understand software development process. If they did they would have never voted on the Stealth mode or Competition mode until a proper solution was in place.

There are two or three software guys on the RC, depending on your definition. Some of them are optimists. :-)

There is an ongoing discussion between the IGC, representatives from UK soaring and Flarm on the topic of revisions to Stealth functionality. The RC will ascertain the status of that effort and whether specific concerns voiced by US pilots are being adequately addressed. I am hopeful that the RC would not inflict inappropriately spec'd or insufficiently tested software on the US racing pilot community. More information should be forthcoming later in the month.

9B

[Hartley Falbaum[_2_]]

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 6:58:27 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
> OK, the peanut gallergy is driving me crazy. So I did a quick internet search and found this very relevant document from FLARM:
>
> How to Use FLARM(R) in Gliding Competitions?
> http://www.segelflugbedarf24.de/flarm/download/Flarm_Competitions.pdf
>
> The document includes some pretty interesting descriptons of what "stealth and competition mode" are and, more imortantly are not. Based on the discussions here...I am shocked. I honestly have no idea what the RC is expecting Flarm to magically become...whith a new version of competiton mode. I have a guess...MORE DANGEROUS! USELESS?
>
> From the document...
>
> COMPETITION MODE: Basically, according to FLARM, this simply TUNES DOWN the number of alerts. THATS IT!
> Competition Mode
> Traffic alerts are issued based on an algorithmic assessment of potentially dangerous traffic. These algorithms have been greatly improved in version 4of the firmware. Nevertheless, as a competition pilot, you might want this assessment to result in less alerts, i.e. increase the level of danger above which an alert is issued. Consequently, if you check 'Competition Mode (less Alarms)' in the official FlarmTool PC software, then alert distances and alert times are reduced by approximately 2 seconds; this reduces nuisance alerts in high-density traffic but REQUIRES FASTER ACTION.
> Other things to do if FLARM is too distracting:
> - turn volume down / off (don't forget to turn it up again) - double-click the button (suppresses alarms for
> 5 minutes, but other aircraft will still get alarms)
>
> REQUIRES FASTER ACTION? WFT? WTF?
>
> STEALTH MODE: From Flarm itself..."Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons."
> "Stealth Mode
> The data FLARM(R) receives from other is available at the serial port to external devices like PDA's or graphical displays which can thus display the nearby environment in detail. While this information is useful for you, you might not want your competitors to make use of this information, and others might have the similar asymmetrical preferences. With the stealth mode (named 'Privacy' before) in FLARM(R), you can choose the trade-off acceptable for you between two modes:
> * 'Stealth Mode' unchecked: you have full access to the data you receive from others with Stealth Mode disabled and, and others have full access to the data you send about yourself if they have Stealth Mode disabled, or
> * 'Stealth Mode' checked: you have limited access to the data you receive from others and, and others have limited access to the data you send about yourself independent of their Stealth Mode setting.
> Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons.
> Note that the FLARM(R) flight log-file stores the information on stealth settings and changes so a competition authority could easily enforce the use (or non-use) if desirable. Changes to stealth mode are effective with a two minute delay, see the manual for details."
>
> Again: Flarm states, "STEALTH MODE INHERENTLY REDUCES (R E D U C E S) SOME OF THE BENIFITS OF THE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS (S I T U A T I O N A L A W A R E N E S S.....!!!!!) FOR YOURSELF AND SURROUNDING AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!!"
>
> WIth that, I have absolutely no idea what we are expecting "competition mode 2.0" to solve for us. It must a flavor of Stealth mode that the RC must be pushing. You know, the one that requires FASTER ACTION! Competition mode actually DE-TUNES close in alerts as not to annoy a pilot who is highly tuned and alert to traffic already. WFT? DE-TUNES SAFETY? Probably why they dont recommend it, hmmm?
>
> Anyway, I thought this document was interesting. If it has not been previously shared, Im shocked. But just encase, there you go.
>
> We need to stop the madness and think about what we are doing...THIS IS MADNESS.
>
> Sean

I am reading all this with interest and no knowledge. I have a FLARM, but have not flown in Stealth mode.I have read all the FLARM documentation I can find and am still confused. Please, someone, enlighten me. Does stealth mode only show collision alerts? Does Competition mode show close-in, non-threat, traffic, and suppress traffic further away? I would be really nice to know if someone is in your blind spot. It would also be nice to know that the thermal you are about to enter is populated. There are times in the southeast when visibility is quite limited. Thanks in advance

Hartley Falbaum "KF" USA

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 5:09:53 AM UTC-8, Hartley Falbaum wrote:
>
> I am reading all this with interest and no knowledge. I have a FLARM, but have not flown in Stealth mode.I have read all the FLARM documentation I can find and am still confused. Please, someone, enlighten me. Does stealth mode only show collision alerts? Does Competition mode show close-in, non-threat, traffic, and suppress traffic further away? I would be really nice to know if someone is in your blind spot. It would also be nice to know that the thermal you are about to enter is populated. There are times in the southeast when visibility is quite limited. Thanks in advance
>
> Hartley Falbaum "KF" USA

I believe this is the current spec for PRIV (Stealth Mode) - see p 13.

http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/FTD-14-FLARM-Configuration-Specification-1.02.pdf

In short, stealth suppresses all traffic information outside of a cylinder +/- 984 feet in altitude and a radius of 1.24 statue miles. Within that airspace volume it also suppresses all Flarm ID, climb rate, track and speed information for all Flarm traffic that does not have an active collision alarm. Only relative position and relative altitude (with random noise added so you can't figure out if the target is climbing) are provided inside that airspace volume. For traffic with an active collision alarm it provides all the available Flarm information EXCEPT Flarm ID, so you don't know who it is under any circumstances (which can present a problem if you have the need to call him off - though without FlarmNet or some other translation to Contest ID, it's a pretty clumsy way to address someone).

Hope that helps.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:32:13 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:

>
> I believe this is the current spec for PRIV (Stealth Mode) - see p 13.
>
> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/FTD-14-FLARM-Configuration-Specification-1.02.pdf
>
> In short, stealth suppresses all traffic information outside of a cylinder +/- 984 feet in altitude and a radius of 1.24 statue miles. Within that airspace volume it also suppresses all Flarm ID, climb rate, track and speed information for all Flarm traffic that does not have an active collision alarm. Only relative position and relative altitude (with random noise added so you can't figure out if the target is climbing) are provided inside that airspace volume. For traffic with an active collision alarm it provides all the available Flarm information EXCEPT Flarm ID, so you don't know who it is under any circumstances (which can present a problem if you have the need to call him off - though without FlarmNet or some other translation to Contest ID, it's a pretty clumsy way to address someone).
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> 9B


What if the software had an option to suppress Flarm ID and climb rate, while keeping all the other Powerflarm features out to the maximum range of PowerFlarm? Wouldn't that keep all the safety features of PowerFlarm while eliminating leeching, and also preventing pilots from getting information about where the good thermals are?

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 12:06:14 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:32:13 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
> >
> > I believe this is the current spec for PRIV (Stealth Mode) - see p 13.
> >
> > http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/FTD-14-FLARM-Configuration-Specification-1.02.pdf
> >
> > In short, stealth suppresses all traffic information outside of a cylinder +/- 984 feet in altitude and a radius of 1.24 statue miles. Within that airspace volume it also suppresses all Flarm ID, climb rate, track and speed information for all Flarm traffic that does not have an active collision alarm. Only relative position and relative altitude (with random noise added so you can't figure out if the target is climbing) are provided inside that airspace volume. For traffic with an active collision alarm it provides all the available Flarm information EXCEPT Flarm ID, so you don't know who it is under any circumstances (which can present a problem if you have the need to call him off - though without FlarmNet or some other translation to Contest ID, it's a pretty clumsy way to address someone).
> >
> > Hope that helps.
> >
> > 9B
>
>
> What if the software had an option to suppress Flarm ID and climb rate, while keeping all the other Powerflarm features out to the maximum range of PowerFlarm? Wouldn't that keep all the safety features of PowerFlarm while eliminating leeching, and also preventing pilots from getting information about where the good thermals are?


That's been discussed and would satisfy some.

Ideally you'd like ID available at minimum for traffic with an active alarm so you can say "9B turn right" at a safe distance. Relative altitude data allows some sense of climb rate - with a little math.

However, others have argued that being able to see any glider circling at beyond visual range - especially when you really need a thermal to avoid an outlanding - irreparably harms the spirit of the sport. This view contends that finding another glider climbing should depend solely on the pilot's natural visual acuity (or ability to afford Lasik).

9B

[XC]

> Ideally you'd like ID available at minimum for traffic with an active alarm so you can say "9B turn right" at a safe distance. Relative altitude data allows some sense of climb rate - with a little math.
>
> However, others have argued that being able to see any glider circling at beyond visual range - especially when you really need a thermal to avoid an outlanding - irreparably harms the spirit of the sport. This view contends that finding another glider climbing should depend solely on the pilot's natural visual acuity (or ability to afford Lasik).
>
> 9B

9B,

Obviously you are trying to goad me on with that last comment. I'll bite.

Some of us still believe that looking at clouds and terrain, finding thermals yourself, is an important part of the sport. Throughout these threads this is still a lot of talk overstated talk about safety that is covering for what some folks really want, to buddy-fly their way around the race course..

BB has even said leading out is a losing strategy. Strange champions of the past were afraid to lead out. Is this the way we are heading?

FLARM with stealth as it is now really works well in a contest setting for collision avoidance. Those who claim otherwise have largely never tried it and/or want (need) to see others to make their way around the race course. Seems kind of weak-assed in my opinion.

Still waiting to hear what you think our sport should be about. You are on the RC. I'd like to know your vision on where we are going.

XC

[[email protected]]

>
> Ideally you'd like ID available at minimum for traffic with an active alarm so you can say "9B turn right" at a safe distance. Relative altitude data allows some sense of climb rate - with a little math.
>
> However, others have argued that being able to see any glider circling at beyond visual range - especially when you really need a thermal to avoid an outlanding - irreparably harms the spirit of the sport. This view contends that finding another glider climbing should depend solely on the pilot's natural visual acuity (or ability to afford Lasik).
>
> 9B

9B,

Obviously you are trying to goad me on with that last comment. I'll bite.

Some of us still believe that looking at clouds and terrain - finding thermals yourself, is an important part of the sport. Throughout these threads this is still a lot of overstated talk about safety that is covering for what some folks really want, to buddy-fly their way around the race course.

BB has even said leading out is a losing strategy. Strange, champions of the past weren't afraid to lead out. Is this the way we are heading?

FLARM with stealth as it is now really works well in a contest setting for collision avoidance. Those who claim otherwise have largely never tried it and/or want (in some cases need) to see others to make their way around the race course. Seems kind of weak-assed in my opinion.

Still waiting to hear what you think our sport should be about. You are on the RC. I'd like to know your vision for the future of the sport. Which parts should be keep that are essential to the sport?

Should we keep the part about not running a motor? Or should we begin to allow 2 five minutes periods of sustainer motor operation? That would be safer* yet and it would keep those who didn't get enough recent practice to stay higher up on the score sheet longer. Would that make for a better race?

XC

*Not sure sustainer motors have a good safety record compared to pure gliders.

[XC]

> Ideally you'd like ID available at minimum for traffic with an active alarm so you can say "9B turn right" at a safe distance. Relative altitude data allows some sense of climb rate - with a little math.
>
> However, others have argued that being able to see any glider circling at beyond visual range - especially when you really need a thermal to avoid an outlanding - irreparably harms the spirit of the sport. This view contends that finding another glider climbing should depend solely on the pilot's natural visual acuity (or ability to afford Lasik).
>
> 9B

9B,

Obviously you are trying to goad me on with that last comment. I'll bite.

Some of us still believe that looking at clouds and terrain, finding thermals yourself, is an important part of the sport. Throughout these threads this is still a lot of talk overstated talk about safety that is covering for what some folks really want, to buddy-fly their way around the race course..

BB has even said leading out is a losing strategy. Strange, champions of the past weren't afraid to lead out. Is this the way we are heading?

FLARM with stealth as it is now really works well in a contest setting for collision avoidance. Those who claim otherwise have largely never tried it and/or want (need) to see others to make their way around the race course. Seems kind of weak-assed in my opinion.

Still waiting to hear what you think our sport should be about. You are on the RC. I'd like to know your vision on where we are going. What parts are essential to the sport?

Should we keep the part about not running a motor? Or should we allow folks to run their motors for 2 five minute periods? This would arguably be safer and those who maybe didn't get enough practice in could stay competitive on the score sheet longer. Still seems like an arbitrary limit, though.

I'd hate to limit engine technology. If we only allow 10 minutes of engine time they better count. I'd want to get some good performance out of my engine. All this too can be part of the undefined future of our sport.

XC

[WB]

C'mon you Luddite! Why have a limit on engine run? This is not you granddad's soaring anymore. In fact, we should encourage the use of propulsion technology by mandating Front Electric Sustainer technology for all competitions at the National level. It's obviously all for SAFETY!

I also take great offense to the idea that the Luddites in the "peanut gallery", who should, after all, be keeping their little inconsequential mouths shut while the big boys are talking, might object to one of the most demonstrably enabling technologies of all time: performance enhancing drugs. Such pharmacological tech has proven time and again to be extremely effective at proving performance in conditions of high physical and mental stress. And now, the development of "nootropic" drugs offer a way to improve soaring safety dramatically through enhanced mental function in the cockpit. It would be little short of criminal to deny pilots such safety enhancing technology. Think of the liability issues if contest organizers elect to deny pilots this one chance at survival. Only those Luddite morons on the RC, oh, and the peanut gallery, would condone limiting this technology.

WB 😜

[smfidler]

Wow man! Just Wow!

Safety concerns equal "weak-assed!" Yeah baby! Yes! Here we go. That's it Sean! Give into your feelings...let them flow....strike me down with all of your hate and give into the dark side..............Yes, yes!!! :-)

You know, you guys have been right all along...Flarm does mean that nobody ever finds a thermal on their own! We all just float around aimlessly, monitoring the screen, waiting for 10 knots to appear next to a blip on the ClearNav 10 miles ahead and just...head on over, mixing cocktails while singing along with the Sinatra channel on our XM radio.

"Fly me to the moon and let us dance among the stars.....". http://youtu.be/oCW9Hey6IVY. :-). We just whistle along and watch those "suckers" ahead of us aimlessly trying to do it the old fashioned way. Into the wind, and uphill both ways! Then, when we wear them out and they get frustrated, they'll inevitably do something stupid and we pass them inverted, while giving them the bird like in Top Gun! Yep. I personally haven't found a thermal since 2011.

This thread is now as ridiculous as it is awesome. Its almost better than actual watered down US OLC/HAT luck tasks! The rising level of paranoid, insecure and literal fantasy world accusations dealt out by the anti Flarm gang keep us all coming back for more. I honestly can't wait to hear what's next! My stomach actually hurts as I type this from laughing so hard with visions of the way "it is done" in my cockpit above...

"Fly me to the moon.......trumpet solo..... In other words........ baby kiss me..." Mixing perfect drinks, talking on my phone, with scouts calling in additional weather and data analysis from my private weather satellite. Sometimes I don't even notice that a have landed. Tiffany has to knock on the canopy is I sit inside oblivious to the outside evniornmemt. Yep, it's pretty spectacular what technology has done to our sport.

Man I love Frank Sinatra! And man-O-man how I love my secret minibar hidden in the armrest of the 29....http://onemileatatime.img.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IMG_72351.jpg What do you think of the gold trim. Fantastic!

Yep, until Flarm, I had no idea how easy contest flying was. All I needed was a ClearNav, a secret/custom autopilot and my secret mini bar to give me something to do as I watched my cell phone. Soon I'll be World Champion! Oh wait a minute, damn, now without Flarm I probably can't even finish a task, I'm so poor at soaring. Same for 80% of us who hav come to completely rely on PowerFlarm. We won't know what to do now. We are all really WEAK ASSED.

And the thought of soaring without my minibar, what fun is that? Oh well. Time to take up golf.

Signed...one of XCs (stealth/comp/crazy mode fanboy 1) supposedly "weak assed" pilots...who fraudulently "pretends" he is concerned about safety...so he can mercilessly leech superior pilots...via Flarm, 10 miles behind, with my secret autopilot, my hidden minibar, and my co-pilot Mr. Frank Sinatra, even though all of my flight traces are publically available and prove this is ridiculous....and I know this because I take the time to study many flight traces (mine and many others)...and simply does not see any evidence of a Flarm leaching problem....wait, that's crazy talk. Sorry...

To the rest of you, I promise not to fly with my minibar anymore and will destroy my top secret Flarm slaved auto-pilot. Yep, Sean (XC, and the RC) got me, yet again!

[WB]

C'mon you Luddite! Why have a limit on engine run? This is not you granddad's soaring anymore. In fact, we should encourage the use of propulsion technology by mandating Front Electric Sustainer technology for all competitions at the National level. It's obviously all for SAFETY!

I also take great offense to the idea that the Luddites in the "peanut gallery", who should, after all, be keeping their little inconsequential mouths shut while the big boys are talking, might object to one of the most demonstrably enabling technologies of all time: performance enhancing drugs. Such pharmacological tech has proven time and again to be extremely effective at proving performance in conditions of high physical and mental stress. And now, the development of "nootropic" drugs offer a way to improve soaring safety dramatically through enhanced mental function in the cockpit. It would be little short of criminal to deny pilots such safety enhancing technology. Think of the liability issues if contest organizers elect to deny pilots this one chance at survival. Only those Luddite morons on the RC, oh, and the peanut gallery, would condone limiting this technology.

WB 😜

[XC]

I figured that weak-assed remark would get someone going. Let me try to tone it down and explain myself. Rules that drive racing pilots to a successful strategy of group-flying the task weaken the attractiveness and the meaningfulness of the sport.

In 34 years of flying gliders, I've scared myself a few times. I never thought the sport was hugely dangerous. If I did, I wouldn't be doing it and I wouldn't have let my daughter sign up for the club.

There are dangers though and the risk of midairs is one of them. I think we can agree midair collisions not the greatest risk in soaring. FLARM was developed along with a stealth mode to be used in competition. The system works pretty well based on our experience at Harris Hill and contests in Europe when it comes to reducing the risk of midairs while not encouraging group flying.

I still think the concerns about SA are overstated especially since the competition mode discussion is thinking about 5 km which is quite a bit given the slow speeds we fly and the fact that collision warnings are not included in this limit. I still don't see the a legitimate reason for displaying contest numbers other than following. The loudest opponents of FLARM with stealth or competition mode have never tried it.

Yes, think people are being dogmatic about this idea that all technology is good for our sport. Folks need to think a little more critically and that means deciding on a framework that provides a context for decision making about the future of the sport. Not just all technology is good and leading us in the right direction or the only direction.

So I'm sorry I set you off, Sean, with that weak-assed remark. I'm growing tired of this whole discussion and I guess it shows. Your a good pilot and will probably represent us on the US Team some day soon. Have been selected? I don't even know. Good luck to you either way. I hope you win the whole thing. My concern is that when you are crowned the national or world champion it won't be as meaningful as it once was because no one able to preserve the valued aspects of the sport.


XC

,

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:18:22 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
> Wow man! Just Wow!
>
> Safety concerns equal "weak-assed!" Yeah baby! Yes! Here we go. That's it Sean! Give into your feelings...let them flow....strike me down with all of your hate and give into the dark side..............Yes, yes!!! :-)
>
> You know, you guys have been right all along...Flarm does mean that nobody ever finds a thermal on their own! We all just float around aimlessly, monitoring the screen, waiting for 10 knots to appear next to a blip on the ClearNav 10 miles ahead and just...head on over, mixing cocktails while singing along with the Sinatra channel on our XM radio.
>
> "Fly me to the moon and let us dance among the stars.....". http://youtu..be/oCW9Hey6IVY. :-). We just whistle along and watch those "suckers" ahead of us aimlessly trying to do it the old fashioned way. Into the wind, and uphill both ways! Then, when we wear them out and they get frustrated, they'll inevitably do something stupid and we pass them inverted, while giving them the bird like in Top Gun! Yep. I personally haven't found a thermal since 2011.
>
> This thread is now as ridiculous as it is awesome. Its almost better than actual watered down US OLC/HAT luck tasks! The rising level of paranoid, insecure and literal fantasy world accusations dealt out by the anti Flarm gang keep us all coming back for more. I honestly can't wait to hear what's next! My stomach actually hurts as I type this from laughing so hard with visions of the way "it is done" in my cockpit above...
>
> "Fly me to the moon.......trumpet solo..... In other words........ baby kiss me..." Mixing perfect drinks, talking on my phone, with scouts calling in additional weather and data analysis from my private weather satellite.. Sometimes I don't even notice that a have landed. Tiffany has to knock on the canopy is I sit inside oblivious to the outside evniornmemt. Yep, it's pretty spectacular what technology has done to our sport.
>
> Man I love Frank Sinatra! And man-O-man how I love my secret minibar hidden in the armrest of the 29....http://onemileatatime.img.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IMG_72351.jpg What do you think of the gold trim. Fantastic!
>
> Yep, until Flarm, I had no idea how easy contest flying was. All I needed was a ClearNav, a secret/custom autopilot and my secret mini bar to give me something to do as I watched my cell phone. Soon I'll be World Champion! Oh wait a minute, damn, now without Flarm I probably can't even finish a task, I'm so poor at soaring. Same for 80% of us who hav come to completely rely on PowerFlarm. We won't know what to do now. We are all really WEAK ASSED.
>
> And the thought of soaring without my minibar, what fun is that? Oh well.. Time to take up golf.
>
> Signed...one of XCs (stealth/comp/crazy mode fanboy 1) supposedly "weak assed" pilots...who fraudulently "pretends" he is concerned about safety...so he can mercilessly leech superior pilots...via Flarm, 10 miles behind, with my secret autopilot, my hidden minibar, and my co-pilot Mr. Frank Sinatra, even though all of my flight traces are publically available and prove this is ridiculous....and I know this because I take the time to study many flight traces (mine and many others)...and simply does not see any evidence of a Flarm leaching problem....wait, that's crazy talk. Sorry...
>
> To the rest of you, I promise not to fly with my minibar anymore and will destroy my top secret Flarm slaved auto-pilot. Yep, Sean (XC, and the RC) got me, yet again!

Sean (Fidler), whatever you're smoking, hope you brought enough for the rest of us.... (learned a long time ago in school....).

As stated before (in multiple threads/posts), this discussion (if you call it that) is NOT about reducing safety, it's "giving breathing room" to figure out new technology.
Granted, the FAA (in the USofA) may make it a moot point in a few years, but that does NOT belittle the current concern.

Same could be said for earlier tech that appeared, or, was determined it was needed.

Yes, I remember when "time date stamp" cameras were mandated because someone figured out how to do a "short course" but "document it" on film for a "declared course".....

Yes, call me old.

While the genie may be out of the bottle, I applaud multiple RC's to try and give some time to figure out what is needed/required to:

1-Promote safety (have not seen anything that is truly against that in the US).
2-"Make it fair & relative" for "contest flying" (I don't recall the SSA ever listing a "race schedule", only a "contest schedule" [figured I would close that comment thread here & now]).

As I linked before, I feel that the "current proposed SSA RC competition mode" is a decent compromise for the peeps that want more safety, but also limits some of the possible tactical advantage of "full open Flarm".

It's NOT just the US, it's other soaring governing bodies that want similar.. Hope some "pro full Flarm" peeps are "shaking the tree" on other sites around the world to show their dissatisfaction with the proposed rules direction across the globe.
You're not??!!, Why not!!, you know, the "whole safety in numbers across the globe" thang.....

Based on what I think the SSA RC is currently proposing (5KM limit) fits within the basics of what Flarm (you know, the people that actually MAKE & WRITE SOFTWARE FOR their device) are stating.

What, you want an engraved invitation to the party?

Am I talking over your head?

I feel the SSA RC is attempting to do a good compromise for NOW, who really gives a poop about 2020 until at least 2019?

Maybe someone can enlist Trump to make it part of his 2016 platform, not that it will happen.....

[Andrzej Kobus]

"I feel that the "current proposed SSA RC competition mode" is a decent compromise for the peeps that want more safety, but also limits some of the possible tactical advantage of "full open Flarm". "

Can you point me to specifications of this so called "competition" mode? What vapor ware are you talking about? The only thing that was voted on was "stealth" mode.

Let's stick to facts not wishes.

[Andrew Ainslie]

XC said earlier (I can't find how to copy threads so I'll do it manually).... "Throughout these threads this is still a lot of talk overstated talk about safety that is covering for what some folks really want, to buddy-fly their way around the race course.

BB has even said leading out is a losing strategy. Strange, champions of the past weren't afraid to lead out. Is this the way we are heading?

FLARM with stealth as it is now really works well in a contest setting for collision avoidance. Those who claim otherwise have largely never tried it and/or want (need) to see others to make their way around the race course. Seems kind of weak-assed in my opinion. "

Sean,

Your statements are increasingly close to ad hominem attacks for anyone that disagrees with you. So let me join you, albeit on the other side.

SOME folks (me included) really, really don't want to die because some Luddite wants to turn back the clock on new technology.

SOME folks want to see people because they don't want to hit them. NOT because they're weak assed followers.

And SOME folks want to spend their evenings with their loved ones for a long long time.

And THIS folk couldn't care less about following. THIS folk simply doesn't want to die unnecessarily.

I'm actually so sick of this stupid discussion that I'll make a statement right now. I WILL NOT fly in a contest where Luddites like yourself choose to risk death for some purported "strong assed" manly chest thumping stupidity.

Aren't you safety officer for our club? God, I shudder at the thought.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:57:50 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> "I feel that the "current proposed SSA RC competition mode" is a decent compromise for the peeps that want more safety, but also limits some of the possible tactical advantage of "full open Flarm". "
>
> Can you point me to specifications of this so called "competition" mode? What vapor ware are you talking about? The only thing that was voted on was "stealth" mode.
>
> Let's stick to facts not wishes.

In other posts, opening up the range to 5KM, looks like most other items of "US Stealth" are kept. This keeps within some of "current" (March 2015 by Flarm, unlike undated document linked by Sean Fidler regarding "competition mode") Flarm info regarding "under optimum range, 5KM is OK" but "may" exceed that in optimum conditions.

If you've kept up on a bit of this discussion (spread all over RAS), you would have seen this more than once......

I did......

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:36:45 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:

> 9B,
>
> Obviously you are trying to goad me on with that last comment. I'll bite.
>
> Some of us still believe that looking at clouds and terrain, finding thermals yourself, is an important part of the sport. Throughout these threads this is still a lot of talk overstated talk about safety that is covering for what some folks really want, to buddy-fly their way around the race course.
>
> BB has even said leading out is a losing strategy. Strange, champions of the past weren't afraid to lead out. Is this the way we are heading?
>
> FLARM with stealth as it is now really works well in a contest setting for collision avoidance. Those who claim otherwise have largely never tried it and/or want (need) to see others to make their way around the race course.. Seems kind of weak-assed in my opinion.
>
> Still waiting to hear what you think our sport should be about. You are on the RC. I'd like to know your vision on where we are going. What parts are essential to the sport?
>
> Should we keep the part about not running a motor? Or should we allow folks to run their motors for 2 five minute periods? This would arguably be safer and those who maybe didn't get enough practice in could stay competitive on the score sheet longer. Still seems like an arbitrary limit, though.
>
> I'd hate to limit engine technology. If we only allow 10 minutes of engine time they better count. I'd want to get some good performance out of my engine. All this too can be part of the undefined future of our sport.
>
> XC

Hey Sean,

Wasn't trying to goad you particularly. It was more philosophical - but I know you're always up to the philosophical challenge.

My vision for the sport. Okay, pressure's on...

I think soaring competitions (or contests - note that I don't say "race", which is an important sub-part of the skills needed in soaring competition, but not the whole) should test a number of skills, all of which are related to the ability to make distance over the ground, primarily in a minimum amount of time, all without benefit of propulsion by means of stored energy (gasoline, electrons, rubber bands, nuclear reactors, etc.) and without proprietary assistance from others (that is, it needs to be your performance (philosophy on two-seaters will need its own thread).

While there are a wide array of skills that contribute to being good at achieving the above objective, I think the paramount skill is the ability to make optimal strategic and tactical decisions with complex information inputs under uncertainty. This boils down to two basic tenets. Tenet 1: Don't pick sub-par climbs and, Tenet 2: Don't get so low that you can't pick the thermal you want. Fundamentally, we are testing pilots' abilities to trade off these two tenets. In flight this boils down to two types of decisions, 1) which line will have the best energy and 2) should I stop and climb here or press on in hope of finding better lift (BB has written quite eloquently on the latter item in his "A little faster please" article - if you haven't, read it. It includes a lot on decisions about altitude and thermal lift distribution versus the "stop to climb" decision and upwind/downwind/crosswind starts and turnpoint decisions). In general, the more complex and varied the information inputs involved in testing that ability, the better and more accurate the test of soaring skills.

In constructing soaring competitions, they need to be subject to a constraint of fairness, which is: every pilot needs the same opportunity to make the same in-flight tradeoff decisions. Note that this does not necessarily mean that every pilot needs to make the exact same flight in a giant bomber formation. Now, some people will argue that if every glider isn't flying in exactly the same air at exactly the same time random and unpredictable differences in weather can make all the difference and that's all luck. I can sympathize and understand this perspective and agree that some poorly thought through logic can end up looking pretty clever if the unexpected happens weather-wise, but generally I think better pilots are better at reading the weather and integrating macro and micro level forecasts and weather clues into their decision-making. This to me is an important skill that comes into play whether your rage of course line flexibility is 5 miles or 50 miles.

There is an element of risk tolerance that figures into all of this that I personally think needs to go so far but no further in terms of contests encouraging or accepting "bet your life" or "bet your glider" decisions. A significant amount of risk is inevitable, but I don't see willingness to take on risk - or belief that you can pull off risky decisions when others can't or won't - as a skill set we want to test for its own sake. I don't think we should try to eliminate every landout or risk of landout no matter what. There is plenty of time to be lost just by taking a 2 knot thermal instead of a 4-knot thermal and pilots will press for the better climb as their comfort-level dictates. But ensuring that a pilot at 1000' desperate for a climb has to put into a field doesn't do anything to improve how we judge soaring performance, in fact every landout just complicates matters because we have to translate miles to miles per hour (or more exactly translate both to points with formulas that arbitrarily weight the two metrics differently). If we can't compare performance exactly then it undermines the validity of the results. We tolerate this because we have to - landouts are inevitable but the ideal goal would be to challenge pilots' decision-making skills to the maximum without having to figure out how many points a mike is worth..

So what are the skills we want to test? My view (in order of importance):

1) Ability to make decisions about the optimal path to fly to achieve the best speed over the course - this can include small deviations to maximize energy, places to look for lift based on terrain, clouds or other indicators (like gliders or raptors climbing) and macro decisions about where to go when task flexibility is greater (as in AAT and MAT formats).

2) Ability to best estimate how to make use of the available lift in terms of when to climb, when to press on, when to cruise or dolphin.

(I go back and forth on the priority order between 1 and 2)

3) Ability to understand weather and how it affects likely task performance at the micro-level and macro-level both in terms of forecast weather and weather dynamics over the course of the day, including the ability to integrate new information as weather changes. Note that 3) interplays with 1) on many days.

4) Ability to extract the most energy out of lift sources. This includes thermalling technique, search technique, etc.

5) Stick skills - the ability to fly at the right speed, right flap setting, right bank angle, judge the final glide, not crash into a ridge, etc. I see these as table-stakes for flying, but not something we are trying to test explicitly. Leave that to the Red Bull racing pilots.

I'm sure there are other things I am forgetting so I reserve the right to revise my list.

So, how does this vision for the sport affect philosophy for technology like Flarm and ADS-B? They are at the simplest level another source of information that needs to be balanced against and integrated with other information inputs. More information puts more pressure on good decision-making ("go for the cu on course or the glider climbing a mile off course in the blue?" is a more complex decision than "go for the cu on course - it's all you've got").

Sure, some pilots may decide that they can latch onto others decisions and more Flarm range may give them more opportunity to try, but all the evidence is that if you are borrowing someone else'd decisions without even knowing what they are deciding it's very hard to perform well, except in some very narrow scope. There are just too many variables and they change way too dynamically to blindly follow and win most of the time. Even if it were possible to use more information about other gliders I don't believe this fundamentally changes the sport - other gliders are just more information. If it is true that you can win just by following then we are all fools not to fly the gaggle all the time, regardless of technology enablers. If we don't like the gaggle, we should change how we score and set up tasks (and maybe penalize leeching - it's pretty easy) rather than scapegoating technology. These practices pre- and post-date every technology shift. It's not about technology and technology doesn't significantly alter the balance - I looked for it.

I feel the same way about weather data - so long as we confirm that it is reasonably available to all at affordable cost. It gives more information for complex tradeoff decisions rather than flying blindly. Why flying blindly is viewed as a skill totally escapes me. Guts to press into a thunderstorm without knowing what's ahead? It's not a "skill" I think soaring contests should be testing.

Hope that's a decent start at a reply.

9B
Andy Blackburn
RC "Revolutionary"

[Andrew Ainslie]

XC

For what it's worth, some of us genuinely just want to be a little safer. THat's all. I couldn't give a continental poo about leaching, I never could.... Probably why I've never been all that high in the rankings. I just want to fly occasionally with friends, learn a little more about soaring... Oh yeah, and minimize the probability of dying because I hit someone in midair.

If that makes me a weak-assed... Well, anything, then that's what I am.

But at the very least, please, accept that some people genuinely just think that compromising a safety device to be "strong assed" is... Well, dumb. Sorry Sean, but I'll take "weak assed" over "dumb" any day. You, of course, are welcome to take the other side.

[SoaringXCellence]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:15:36 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:36:45 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
>
> > 9B,
9B
> Andy Blackburn
> RC "Revolutionary"

Andy,

The best reply I've read so far!

I've been reading the thread(s) and thinking about the "race" versus "contest" definitions.

Historically, if we want to go there, it is not about racing in a single line to a turnpoint and then on to the next. We have seen many of the "historical" races where two competitors fly from turnpoint to turnpoint and are not following the same line. The famous AJ Smith/ Geroge Moffat race on the last day of the 1969 National (a traditional race if there ever was one) where George goes left and AJ goes straight, show that the contest is about decision making and meteorological perceptions.

Except for the Grand Prix style (which SF loves so much) we almost never follow closely to other gliders and one a line where every glider is in the same air. If that makes it unfair so be it. That's what the CONTEST is all about.

Mike (when I race I chose my own line)

[Andrew Ainslie]

Well, I've now deleted two posts where I got overly irritated at Sean for his "weak assed" comments and insinuations that those of us who are concerned about safety aren't really, we're just not "real men" and can't fly without help. Sheesh Sean!

And then comes along Andy Blackburn with an eloquent, well written, logical argument that makes any continuation of those sorts of "I'm tougher than you", "you're a wimp and I'm a real man", hopefully look as weak as they are.. Thank you, Andy. I haven't met you (I don't think), but look forward to doing so.

And for what it's worth, I personally couldn't care less about leaching. Or about winning a contest - and I suspect there are a lot like me. I get to fly 1 or 2 contests a year because of my job. One of my main aims is to maximize the chance of leaving that contest alive. It's yet another group that I hope the RC considers - us amateurs who do this not for the glory, not for the hope of standing on some wooden pedestal holding a tin trophy, but for the fun of hanging out, safely, with our friends. Pretty weak-assed, but there it is.

I still remember an elderly gentleman (no longer with us) missing me by about 20 feet some 17 years ago at Newcastle as he went straight through my thermal at 100 mph. I swear I saw his eyes... And he still didn't see me as he went by. I'll fully admit that I was so focused on centering that I didn't see him coming either. Anything - absolutely anything - that I can do to not repeat that little bit of fun is great with me. And I suspect that if the same gentleman had a device that gave him 60 seconds warning, he'd still be searching around trying to find where the warning was coming from me as he smacked into me. A few minutes sounds a lot nicer to me than 60 seconds, thank you very much.

[XC]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:15:36 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:36:45 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
>
> > 9B,
> >
> > Obviously you are trying to goad me on with that last comment. I'll bite.
> >
> > Some of us still believe that looking at clouds and terrain, finding thermals yourself, is an important part of the sport. Throughout these threads this is still a lot of talk overstated talk about safety that is covering for what some folks really want, to buddy-fly their way around the race course.
> >
> > BB has even said leading out is a losing strategy. Strange, champions of the past weren't afraid to lead out. Is this the way we are heading?
> >
> > FLARM with stealth as it is now really works well in a contest setting for collision avoidance. Those who claim otherwise have largely never tried it and/or want (need) to see others to make their way around the race course. Seems kind of weak-assed in my opinion.
> >
> > Still waiting to hear what you think our sport should be about. You are on the RC. I'd like to know your vision on where we are going. What parts are essential to the sport?
> >
> > Should we keep the part about not running a motor? Or should we allow folks to run their motors for 2 five minute periods? This would arguably be safer and those who maybe didn't get enough practice in could stay competitive on the score sheet longer. Still seems like an arbitrary limit, though.
> >
> > I'd hate to limit engine technology. If we only allow 10 minutes of engine time they better count. I'd want to get some good performance out of my engine. All this too can be part of the undefined future of our sport.
> >
> > XC
>
> Hey Sean,
>
> Wasn't trying to goad you particularly. It was more philosophical - but I know you're always up to the philosophical challenge.
>
> My vision for the sport. Okay, pressure's on...
>
> I think soaring competitions (or contests - note that I don't say "race", which is an important sub-part of the skills needed in soaring competition, but not the whole) should test a number of skills, all of which are related to the ability to make distance over the ground, primarily in a minimum amount of time, all without benefit of propulsion by means of stored energy (gasoline, electrons, rubber bands, nuclear reactors, etc.) and without proprietary assistance from others (that is, it needs to be your performance (philosophy on two-seaters will need its own thread).
>
> While there are a wide array of skills that contribute to being good at achieving the above objective, I think the paramount skill is the ability to make optimal strategic and tactical decisions with complex information inputs under uncertainty. This boils down to two basic tenets. Tenet 1: Don't pick sub-par climbs and, Tenet 2: Don't get so low that you can't pick the thermal you want. Fundamentally, we are testing pilots' abilities to trade off these two tenets. In flight this boils down to two types of decisions, 1) which line will have the best energy and 2) should I stop and climb here or press on in hope of finding better lift (BB has written quite eloquently on the latter item in his "A little faster please" article - if you haven't, read it. It includes a lot on decisions about altitude and thermal lift distribution versus the "stop to climb" decision and upwind/downwind/crosswind starts and turnpoint decisions). In general, the more complex and varied the information inputs involved in testing that ability, the better and more accurate the test of soaring skills.
>
> In constructing soaring competitions, they need to be subject to a constraint of fairness, which is: every pilot needs the same opportunity to make the same in-flight tradeoff decisions. Note that this does not necessarily mean that every pilot needs to make the exact same flight in a giant bomber formation. Now, some people will argue that if every glider isn't flying in exactly the same air at exactly the same time random and unpredictable differences in weather can make all the difference and that's all luck. I can sympathize and understand this perspective and agree that some poorly thought through logic can end up looking pretty clever if the unexpected happens weather-wise, but generally I think better pilots are better at reading the weather and integrating macro and micro level forecasts and weather clues into their decision-making. This to me is an important skill that comes into play whether your rage of course line flexibility is 5 miles or 50 miles.
>
> There is an element of risk tolerance that figures into all of this that I personally think needs to go so far but no further in terms of contests encouraging or accepting "bet your life" or "bet your glider" decisions. A significant amount of risk is inevitable, but I don't see willingness to take on risk - or belief that you can pull off risky decisions when others can't or won't - as a skill set we want to test for its own sake. I don't think we should try to eliminate every landout or risk of landout no matter what. There is plenty of time to be lost just by taking a 2 knot thermal instead of a 4-knot thermal and pilots will press for the better climb as their comfort-level dictates. But ensuring that a pilot at 1000' desperate for a climb has to put into a field doesn't do anything to improve how we judge soaring performance, in fact every landout just complicates matters because we have to translate miles to miles per hour (or more exactly translate both to points with formulas that arbitrarily weight the two metrics differently). If we can't compare performance exactly then it undermines the validity of the results. We tolerate this because we have to - landouts are inevitable but the ideal goal would be to challenge pilots' decision-making skills to the maximum without having to figure out how many points a mike is worth.
>
> So what are the skills we want to test? My view (in order of importance):
>
> 1) Ability to make decisions about the optimal path to fly to achieve the best speed over the course - this can include small deviations to maximize energy, places to look for lift based on terrain, clouds or other indicators (like gliders or raptors climbing) and macro decisions about where to go when task flexibility is greater (as in AAT and MAT formats).
>
> 2) Ability to best estimate how to make use of the available lift in terms of when to climb, when to press on, when to cruise or dolphin.
>
> (I go back and forth on the priority order between 1 and 2)
>
> 3) Ability to understand weather and how it affects likely task performance at the micro-level and macro-level both in terms of forecast weather and weather dynamics over the course of the day, including the ability to integrate new information as weather changes. Note that 3) interplays with 1) on many days.
>
> 4) Ability to extract the most energy out of lift sources. This includes thermalling technique, search technique, etc.
>
> 5) Stick skills - the ability to fly at the right speed, right flap setting, right bank angle, judge the final glide, not crash into a ridge, etc. I see these as table-stakes for flying, but not something we are trying to test explicitly. Leave that to the Red Bull racing pilots.
>
> I'm sure there are other things I am forgetting so I reserve the right to revise my list.
>
> So, how does this vision for the sport affect philosophy for technology like Flarm and ADS-B? They are at the simplest level another source of information that needs to be balanced against and integrated with other information inputs. More information puts more pressure on good decision-making ("go for the cu on course or the glider climbing a mile off course in the blue?" is a more complex decision than "go for the cu on course - it's all you've got").
>
> Sure, some pilots may decide that they can latch onto others decisions and more Flarm range may give them more opportunity to try, but all the evidence is that if you are borrowing someone else'd decisions without even knowing what they are deciding it's very hard to perform well, except in some very narrow scope. There are just too many variables and they change way too dynamically to blindly follow and win most of the time. Even if it were possible to use more information about other gliders I don't believe this fundamentally changes the sport - other gliders are just more information. If it is true that you can win just by following then we are all fools not to fly the gaggle all the time, regardless of technology enablers. If we don't like the gaggle, we should change how we score and set up tasks (and maybe penalize leeching - it's pretty easy) rather than scapegoating technology. These practices pre- and post-date every technology shift. It's not about technology and technology doesn't significantly alter the balance - I looked for it.
>
> I feel the same way about weather data - so long as we confirm that it is reasonably available to all at affordable cost. It gives more information for complex tradeoff decisions rather than flying blindly. Why flying blindly is viewed as a skill totally escapes me. Guts to press into a thunderstorm without knowing what's ahead? It's not a "skill" I think soaring contests should be testing.
>
> Hope that's a decent start at a reply.
>
> 9B
> Andy Blackburn
> RC "Revolutionary"

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I agree with almost everything you've said about priorities. Our two view points differ in one fundamental way that I can think of. I believe we should be measuring these same abilities with the pilot and glider taken as one system competing against and amongst other pilots. Pulling in more and more information from people outside the glider just means you are using their abilities. This homogenates not differentiates pilots abilities in my view.

You'll see as time goes on that people are talking more and more about the FLARM thermal values. When you hear this you know that the pilot was able to pick one thermal over another based on someone else's analysis of that thermal. They never had to size up the look of the cloud or sample the air that was already done for them, This is already happening.

Do you believe we should be able to talk to people on the ground during competitions? Serious question. Can I have an expert glider pilot with a bank of computers coach me through the flight? That would be an example of having more information to balance. I think that is nuts but they are all about it at the Worlds.

Enough on that now I have to respond to VW.

XC

[XC]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:15:36 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:36:45 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
>
> > 9B,
> >
> > Obviously you are trying to goad me on with that last comment. I'll bite.
> >
> > Some of us still believe that looking at clouds and terrain, finding thermals yourself, is an important part of the sport. Throughout these threads this is still a lot of talk overstated talk about safety that is covering for what some folks really want, to buddy-fly their way around the race course.
> >
> > BB has even said leading out is a losing strategy. Strange, champions of the past weren't afraid to lead out. Is this the way we are heading?
> >
> > FLARM with stealth as it is now really works well in a contest setting for collision avoidance. Those who claim otherwise have largely never tried it and/or want (need) to see others to make their way around the race course. Seems kind of weak-assed in my opinion.
> >
> > Still waiting to hear what you think our sport should be about. You are on the RC. I'd like to know your vision on where we are going. What parts are essential to the sport?
> >
> > Should we keep the part about not running a motor? Or should we allow folks to run their motors for 2 five minute periods? This would arguably be safer and those who maybe didn't get enough practice in could stay competitive on the score sheet longer. Still seems like an arbitrary limit, though.
> >
> > I'd hate to limit engine technology. If we only allow 10 minutes of engine time they better count. I'd want to get some good performance out of my engine. All this too can be part of the undefined future of our sport.
> >
> > XC
>
> Hey Sean,
>
> Wasn't trying to goad you particularly. It was more philosophical - but I know you're always up to the philosophical challenge.
>
> My vision for the sport. Okay, pressure's on...
>
> I think soaring competitions (or contests - note that I don't say "race", which is an important sub-part of the skills needed in soaring competition, but not the whole) should test a number of skills, all of which are related to the ability to make distance over the ground, primarily in a minimum amount of time, all without benefit of propulsion by means of stored energy (gasoline, electrons, rubber bands, nuclear reactors, etc.) and without proprietary assistance from others (that is, it needs to be your performance (philosophy on two-seaters will need its own thread).
>
> While there are a wide array of skills that contribute to being good at achieving the above objective, I think the paramount skill is the ability to make optimal strategic and tactical decisions with complex information inputs under uncertainty. This boils down to two basic tenets. Tenet 1: Don't pick sub-par climbs and, Tenet 2: Don't get so low that you can't pick the thermal you want. Fundamentally, we are testing pilots' abilities to trade off these two tenets. In flight this boils down to two types of decisions, 1) which line will have the best energy and 2) should I stop and climb here or press on in hope of finding better lift (BB has written quite eloquently on the latter item in his "A little faster please" article - if you haven't, read it. It includes a lot on decisions about altitude and thermal lift distribution versus the "stop to climb" decision and upwind/downwind/crosswind starts and turnpoint decisions). In general, the more complex and varied the information inputs involved in testing that ability, the better and more accurate the test of soaring skills.
>
> In constructing soaring competitions, they need to be subject to a constraint of fairness, which is: every pilot needs the same opportunity to make the same in-flight tradeoff decisions. Note that this does not necessarily mean that every pilot needs to make the exact same flight in a giant bomber formation. Now, some people will argue that if every glider isn't flying in exactly the same air at exactly the same time random and unpredictable differences in weather can make all the difference and that's all luck. I can sympathize and understand this perspective and agree that some poorly thought through logic can end up looking pretty clever if the unexpected happens weather-wise, but generally I think better pilots are better at reading the weather and integrating macro and micro level forecasts and weather clues into their decision-making. This to me is an important skill that comes into play whether your rage of course line flexibility is 5 miles or 50 miles.
>
> There is an element of risk tolerance that figures into all of this that I personally think needs to go so far but no further in terms of contests encouraging or accepting "bet your life" or "bet your glider" decisions. A significant amount of risk is inevitable, but I don't see willingness to take on risk - or belief that you can pull off risky decisions when others can't or won't - as a skill set we want to test for its own sake. I don't think we should try to eliminate every landout or risk of landout no matter what. There is plenty of time to be lost just by taking a 2 knot thermal instead of a 4-knot thermal and pilots will press for the better climb as their comfort-level dictates. But ensuring that a pilot at 1000' desperate for a climb has to put into a field doesn't do anything to improve how we judge soaring performance, in fact every landout just complicates matters because we have to translate miles to miles per hour (or more exactly translate both to points with formulas that arbitrarily weight the two metrics differently). If we can't compare performance exactly then it undermines the validity of the results. We tolerate this because we have to - landouts are inevitable but the ideal goal would be to challenge pilots' decision-making skills to the maximum without having to figure out how many points a mike is worth.
>
> So what are the skills we want to test? My view (in order of importance):
>
> 1) Ability to make decisions about the optimal path to fly to achieve the best speed over the course - this can include small deviations to maximize energy, places to look for lift based on terrain, clouds or other indicators (like gliders or raptors climbing) and macro decisions about where to go when task flexibility is greater (as in AAT and MAT formats).
>
> 2) Ability to best estimate how to make use of the available lift in terms of when to climb, when to press on, when to cruise or dolphin.
>
> (I go back and forth on the priority order between 1 and 2)
>
> 3) Ability to understand weather and how it affects likely task performance at the micro-level and macro-level both in terms of forecast weather and weather dynamics over the course of the day, including the ability to integrate new information as weather changes. Note that 3) interplays with 1) on many days.
>
> 4) Ability to extract the most energy out of lift sources. This includes thermalling technique, search technique, etc.
>
> 5) Stick skills - the ability to fly at the right speed, right flap setting, right bank angle, judge the final glide, not crash into a ridge, etc. I see these as table-stakes for flying, but not something we are trying to test explicitly. Leave that to the Red Bull racing pilots.
>
> I'm sure there are other things I am forgetting so I reserve the right to revise my list.
>
> So, how does this vision for the sport affect philosophy for technology like Flarm and ADS-B? They are at the simplest level another source of information that needs to be balanced against and integrated with other information inputs. More information puts more pressure on good decision-making ("go for the cu on course or the glider climbing a mile off course in the blue?" is a more complex decision than "go for the cu on course - it's all you've got").
>
> Sure, some pilots may decide that they can latch onto others decisions and more Flarm range may give them more opportunity to try, but all the evidence is that if you are borrowing someone else'd decisions without even knowing what they are deciding it's very hard to perform well, except in some very narrow scope. There are just too many variables and they change way too dynamically to blindly follow and win most of the time. Even if it were possible to use more information about other gliders I don't believe this fundamentally changes the sport - other gliders are just more information. If it is true that you can win just by following then we are all fools not to fly the gaggle all the time, regardless of technology enablers. If we don't like the gaggle, we should change how we score and set up tasks (and maybe penalize leeching - it's pretty easy) rather than scapegoating technology. These practices pre- and post-date every technology shift. It's not about technology and technology doesn't significantly alter the balance - I looked for it.
>
> I feel the same way about weather data - so long as we confirm that it is reasonably available to all at affordable cost. It gives more information for complex tradeoff decisions rather than flying blindly. Why flying blindly is viewed as a skill totally escapes me. Guts to press into a thunderstorm without knowing what's ahead? It's not a "skill" I think soaring contests should be testing.
>
> Hope that's a decent start at a reply.
>
> 9B
> Andy Blackburn
> RC "Revolutionary"

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I agree with almost everything you've said about priorities. Our two view points differ in one fundamental way that I can think of. I believe we should be measuring these same abilities with the pilot and glider taken as one system competing against and amongst other pilots. Pulling in more and more information from people outside the glider just means you are using their abilities. This homogenizes not differentiates pilots abilities in my view.

You'll see as time goes on that people are talking more and more about the FLARM thermal values. When you hear this you know that the pilot was able to pick one thermal over another based on someone else's analysis of that thermal. They never had to size up the look of the cloud or sample the air that was already done for them, This is already happening.

Do you believe we should be able to talk to people on the ground during competitions? Serious question. Can I have an expert glider pilot with a bank of computers coach me through the flight? That would be an example of having more information to balance. I think that is nuts but they are all about it at the Worlds.

Enough on that now I have to respond to VW.

XC

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

I think the real point about STEALTH mode is still being missed. There
are now many users of FLARM, increasingly aircraft other than gliders
are fitting it. Here in the UK GA and the military are fitting it.

Competition pilots do not operate in an airspace bubble of their own,
they share the sky with pilots who are not flying in competitions. None
of these other gliders or aircraft would set STEALTH mode and could
be forgiven for thinking that they have the full features of FLARM. They
do not, if a glider has STEALTH mode set then all other users have only
the reduced features available.

If the setting of STEALTH mode only effected those flying in the
competition then it might be acceptable, provided ALL the pilots in the
competition agree to the reduction in safety margins. It is not about the
risks to competition pilots it is about the degraded service provided to
those not in competition who may not even know that they are
receiving a reduced service.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:10:42 PM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> Well, I've now deleted two posts where I got overly irritated at Sean for his "weak assed" comments and insinuations that those of us who are concerned about safety aren't really, we're just not "real men" and can't fly without help. Sheesh Sean!
>
> And then comes along Andy Blackburn with an eloquent, well written, logical argument that makes any continuation of those sorts of "I'm tougher than you", "you're a wimp and I'm a real man", hopefully look as weak as they are. Thank you, Andy. I haven't met you (I don't think), but look forward to doing so.
>
> And for what it's worth, I personally couldn't care less about leaching. Or about winning a contest - and I suspect there are a lot like me. I get to fly 1 or 2 contests a year because of my job. One of my main aims is to maximize the chance of leaving that contest alive. It's yet another group that I hope the RC considers - us amateurs who do this not for the glory, not for the hope of standing on some wooden pedestal holding a tin trophy, but for the fun of hanging out, safely, with our friends. Pretty weak-assed, but there it is.
>
> I still remember an elderly gentleman (no longer with us) missing me by about 20 feet some 17 years ago at Newcastle as he went straight through my thermal at 100 mph. I swear I saw his eyes... And he still didn't see me as he went by. I'll fully admit that I was so focused on centering that I didn't see him coming either. Anything - absolutely anything - that I can do to not repeat that little bit of fun is great with me. And I suspect that if the same gentleman had a device that gave him 60 seconds warning, he'd still be searching around trying to find where the warning was coming from me as he smacked into me. A few minutes sounds a lot nicer to me than 60 seconds, thank you very much.


Andrew,
I already tried to tone down what I said in the "weak assed" post. We've covered some of this already in other posts. I'll try to be brief.

1) We are talking about a competition or stealth option in contest flying only.

2) There is a fair amount of heads down time associated with open FLARM usage that off sets or in my opinion outweighs the SA gained in regard to safety. So much so that I think some people will over do it and their soaring performance will suffer. This is a nod to Andy's comment on balancing the new technology.

3) Several folks have tried to make it seem that this is about me be overly competitive. Not so. I just think the score sheet should rank who are the better soaring pilots and all that entails, especially in say the top half of the positions. I'll finish where I finish and if I land out, not only will I make some new acquaintances, I will have time to think about what I did to get there. I will not blame bad luck or randomness. I don't get any better by doing that.

4) The idea that cross country or racing is starting to involve using a display to read values and pick this thermal or that one at a distance is "weak assed" or watered down from what it once was. I do believe this. This what I meant to say. If I insulted those who simply go to contests for a good time and learn or who's only goal is to get around the course and back home, I apologize. Like I said getting frustrated. So nothing to do with safety.. Open FLARM and FLARM used in a competition or stealth mode both offer plenty of safety to prevent the near miss you described. Safety of open FLARM being better due to SA is overstated due to the heads down time mentioned above.

Thanks for not posting your overly-irritated responses,

XC

[Andrew Ainslie]

OK, let's just handle your major point, Sean - the heads down problem. When would you prefer someone to be heads down - 4 minutes before smacking into you, or 60 seconds before smacking into you?

[XC]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 12:01:54 AM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> OK, let's just handle your major point, Sean - the heads down problem. When would you prefer someone to be heads down - 4 minutes before smacking into you, or 60 seconds before smacking into you?

I don't understand your question. I'd rather people not be heads down trying to read the screen and interpreting when a collision alert is active and the audio warning is telling them where to look. I'd rather people not be looking at the screen when in and out the turn point. Same is true of the looking at the flight computer too much.

Of course, I would rather there be no smacking.

XC

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:03:31 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:57:50 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > "I feel that the "current proposed SSA RC competition mode" is a decent compromise for the peeps that want more safety, but also limits some of the possible tactical advantage of "full open Flarm". "
> >
> > Can you point me to specifications of this so called "competition" mode? What vapor ware are you talking about? The only thing that was voted on was "stealth" mode.
> >
> > Let's stick to facts not wishes.
>
> In other posts, opening up the range to 5KM, looks like most other items of "US Stealth" are kept. This keeps within some of "current" (March 2015 by Flarm, unlike undated document linked by Sean Fidler regarding "competition mode") Flarm info regarding "under optimum range, 5KM is OK" but "may" exceed that in optimum conditions.
>
> If you've kept up on a bit of this discussion (spread all over RAS), you would have seen this more than once......
>
> I did......

So once again, where is the specification?

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 03:15 04 January 2016, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
>Hey Sean,
>
>Wasn't trying to goad you particularly. It was more philosophical - but I
>k=
>now you're always up to the philosophical challenge.
>
>My vision for the sport. Okay, pressure's on...
>
>I think soaring competitions (or contests - note that I don't say "race",
>w=
>hich is an important sub-part of the skills needed in soaring
competition,
>=
>but not the whole) should test a number of skills, all of which are
>related=
> to the ability to make distance over the ground, primarily in a minimum
>am=
>ount of time, all without benefit of propulsion by means of stored energy
>(=
>gasoline, electrons, rubber bands, nuclear reactors, etc.) and without
>prop=
>rietary assistance from others (that is, it needs to be your performance
>(p=
>hilosophy on two-seaters will need its own thread).=20
>
>While there are a wide array of skills that contribute to being good at
>ach=
>ieving the above objective, I think the paramount skill is the ability to
>m=
>ake optimal strategic and tactical decisions with complex information
>input=
>s under uncertainty. This boils down to two basic tenets. Tenet 1: Don't
>pi=
>ck sub-par climbs and, Tenet 2: Don't get so low that you can't pick the
>th=
>ermal you want. Fundamentally, we are testing pilots' abilities to trade
>of=
>f these two tenets. In flight this boils down to two types of decisions,
>1)=
> which line will have the best energy and 2) should I stop and climb here
>o=
>r press on in hope of finding better lift (BB has written quite
eloquently
>=
>on the latter item in his "A little faster please" article - if you
>haven't=
>, read it. It includes a lot on decisions about altitude and thermal lift
>d=
>istribution versus the "stop to climb" decision and
>upwind/downwind/crosswi=
>nd starts and turnpoint decisions). In general, the more complex and
>varied=
> the information inputs involved in testing that ability, the better and
>mo=
>re accurate the test of soaring skills.=20
>
>In constructing soaring competitions, they need to be subject to a
>constrai=
>nt of fairness, which is: every pilot needs the same opportunity to make
>th=
>e same in-flight tradeoff decisions. Note that this does not necessarily
>me=
>an that every pilot needs to make the exact same flight in a giant bomber
>f=
>ormation. Now, some people will argue that if every glider isn't flying
in
>=
>exactly the same air at exactly the same time random and unpredictable
>diff=
>erences in weather can make all the difference and that's all luck. I can
>s=
>ympathize and understand this perspective and agree that some poorly
>though=
>t through logic can end up looking pretty clever if the unexpected
happens
>=
>weather-wise, but generally I think better pilots are better at reading
>the=
> weather and integrating macro and micro level forecasts and weather
clues
>=
>into their decision-making. This to me is an important skill that comes
>int=
>o play whether your rage of course line flexibility is 5 miles or 50
miles.
>
>There is an element of risk tolerance that figures into all of this that
I
>=
>personally think needs to go so far but no further in terms of contests
>enc=
>ouraging or accepting "bet your life" or "bet your glider" decisions. A
>sig=
>nificant amount of risk is inevitable, but I don't see willingness to
take
>=
>on risk - or belief that you can pull off risky decisions when others
>can't=
> or won't - as a skill set we want to test for its own sake. I don't
think
>=
>we should try to eliminate every landout or risk of landout no matter
>what.=
> There is plenty of time to be lost just by taking a 2 knot thermal
>instead=
> of a 4-knot thermal and pilots will press for the better climb as their
>co=
>mfort-level dictates. But ensuring that a pilot at 1000' desperate for a
>cl=
>imb has to put into a field doesn't do anything to improve how we judge
>soa=
>ring performance, in fact every landout just complicates matters because
>we=
> have to translate miles to miles per hour (or more exactly translate
both
>=
>to points with formulas that arbitrarily weight the two metrics
>differently=
>). If we can't compare performance exactly then it undermines the
validity
>=
>of the results. We tolerate this because we have to - landouts are
>inevitab=
>le but the ideal goal would be to challenge pilots' decision-making
skills
>=
>to the maximum without having to figure out how many points a mike is
>worth=
>..=20
>
>So what are the skills we want to test? My view (in order of importance):
>
>1) Ability to make decisions about the optimal path to fly to achieve the
>b=
>est speed over the course - this can include small deviations to maximize
>e=
>nergy, places to look for lift based on terrain, clouds or other
>indicators=
> (like gliders or raptors climbing) and macro decisions about where to go
>w=
>hen task flexibility is greater (as in AAT and MAT formats). =20
>
>2) Ability to best estimate how to make use of the available lift in
terms
>=
>of when to climb, when to press on, when to cruise or dolphin.
>
>(I go back and forth on the priority order between 1 and 2)
>
>3) Ability to understand weather and how it affects likely task
>performance=
> at the micro-level and macro-level both in terms of forecast weather and
>w=
>eather dynamics over the course of the day, including the ability to
>integr=
>ate new information as weather changes. Note that 3) interplays with 1)
on
>=
>many days.
>
>4) Ability to extract the most energy out of lift sources. This includes
>th=
>ermalling technique, search technique, etc.
>
>5) Stick skills - the ability to fly at the right speed, right flap
>setting=
>, right bank angle, judge the final glide, not crash into a ridge, etc. I
>s=
>ee these as table-stakes for flying, but not something we are trying to
>tes=
>t explicitly. Leave that to the Red Bull racing pilots.
>
>I'm sure there are other things I am forgetting so I reserve the right to
>r=
>evise my list.
>
>So, how does this vision for the sport affect philosophy for technology
>lik=
>e Flarm and ADS-B? They are at the simplest level another source of
>inform=
>ation that needs to be balanced against and integrated with other
>informati=
>on inputs. More information puts more pressure on good decision-making
>("go=
> for the cu on course or the glider climbing a mile off course in the
>blue?=
>" is a more complex decision than "go for the cu on course - it's all
>you'v=
>e got").=20
>
>Sure, some pilots may decide that they can latch onto others decisions
and
>=
>more Flarm range may give them more opportunity to try, but all the
>evidenc=
>e is that if you are borrowing someone else'd decisions without even
>knowin=
>g what they are deciding it's very hard to perform well, except in some
>ver=
>y narrow scope. There are just too many variables and they change way too
>d=
>ynamically to blindly follow and win most of the time. Even if it were
>poss=
>ible to use more information about other gliders I don't believe this
>funda=
>mentally changes the sport - other gliders are just more information. If
>it=
> is true that you can win just by following then we are all fools not to
>fl=
>y the gaggle all the time, regardless of technology enablers. If we don't
>l=
>ike the gaggle, we should change how we score and set up tasks (and maybe
>p=
>enalize leeching - it's pretty easy) rather than scapegoating technology.
>T=
>hese practices pre- and post-date every technology shift. It's not about
>te=
>chnology and technology doesn't significantly alter the balance - I
looked
>=
>for it.
>
>I feel the same way about weather data - so long as we confirm that it is
>r=
>easonably available to all at affordable cost. It gives more information
>fo=
>r complex tradeoff decisions rather than flying blindly. Why flying
>blindly=
> is viewed as a skill totally escapes me. Guts to press into a
>thunderstorm=
> without knowing what's ahead? It's not a "skill" I think soaring
contests
>=
>should be testing.
>
>Hope that's a decent start at a reply.
>
>9B
>Andy Blackburn
>RC "Revolutionary"
>

Well reasoned Andy. Do you mind if I use it in my lectures?

Whilst I agree with pretty much all of what you say the reality is somewhat
different. My experience over 15 years of racing is that handicapped
regional competitions do generally reward the pilot with the best XC
skills. #1 XC skill here is not landing out!

In single class Nationals however the principal skill is different. I have
observed two types of winning pilot here:

The 1st type has immense XC skill and does their own thing. They win
sometimes but usually have a day or two where they lose out big time.

The other, and more successful type, stays religiously in the leading
gaggle. The group think of the gaggle generally stays airborne and finishes
near the top. Several days near the top puts you within a few points of a
championship win.

Often there is one outstanding pilot who ends up dragging the gaggle around
all week. They usually win, but I have seen them usurped by the friendly
follower who starts 10 seconds later and hits the line at the same time
again and again.

When I moved from regionals to nationals I missed this point for a couple
of years!

To win an international today you have to team fly and use the gaggle.
Intelligence from the ground using live weather and tracking information
seems to be an increasing part.

Whilst I prefer to use stealth mode I fear that this technology cat is out
of the bag and we shall have to embrace it sooner or later.

Jim

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:57:50 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> "I feel that the "current proposed SSA RC competition mode" is a decent compromise for the peeps that want more safety, but also limits some of the possible tactical advantage of "full open Flarm". "
>
> Can you point me to specifications of this so called "competition" mode? What vapor ware are you talking about? The only thing that was voted on was "stealth" mode.
>
> Let's stick to facts not wishes.

Clarification to avoid a misunderstanding I may have caused.
UH described in an earlier message some attributes that I believe would meaningfully address Stealth in a manner that could provide a variant that would provide a version very close to current open mode while at least partially addressing the concerns of pilots who want the tactical aspects reduced.
It was not comprehensive, nor complete and does NOT represent the opinion of the RC.
These comments were for consideration by those who read this forum. I believe it is possible to come up with and improvement that most pilots can accept. That remains to be seen. It has been intended to foster constructive dialog.
UH

[Tom (2N0)]

My -29 was in a mid-air at Uvalde (before I owned it). The first thing I bought for my Antares 20E was a PowerFlarm. To me this issue is about decreasing the abilities of a safety device.

I run a helicopter emergency service. We have changed the safety culture of our industry by agreeing that "safety is not proprietary". Could our competitors gain an advantage with some of the information shared? Absolutely, but the greater benefit of safety out weights the small risk of losing a few flights.

Does this sound familiar?

Tom 2N0 / TK

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Can someone please explain why RC is pushing this position at this time? There is no "competition" mode software available. ADS-B is four years from making all this teeth gnashing pointless, as far as I know the top ten finishers in each national are not loudly complaining about Flarm leeching (we already have visual leeching), Leeching is not illegal via the rules anyway ( how many times does the top pilot leech the second place pilot on the last day of a competition) and the number one...RC will not make FLARM mandatory, but they will mandate FLARM be hobbled by software not available that reduces the anti-collision information and distance. ALL THIS WILL BE MOOT IN FOUR YEARS, and possibly sooner due to early adopters of ADS-B out! Wouldn't a better use of resources be to attempt to get 100% acceptance of FLARM? Just saying....

[Dan Marotta]

No dice - if you think there's a possible conflict it's incumbent upon
you to alter your course, not to tell someone else to get out of your way.

I can see it now... There's the leader up ahead and it looks like he's
climbing. I'll transmit, "9B, turn right immediately for collision
avoidance!" There now... I'll just move into the thermal he's just
vacated. Gee, look how quickly I can overtake him.

The second paragraph is obviously for comic relief to this interminable
squabble.

On 1/3/2016 1:49 PM, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Ideally you'd like ID available at minimum for traffic with an active alarm so you can say "9B turn right" at a safe distance. Relative altitude data allows some sense of climb rate - with a little math.

--
Dan, 5J

[smfidler]

Some good points Andy. I disagree with much of it, but I'm sure that you are not surprised by this. ;-).

I have to call US tasking "philosophy" out again. This will be a nice intermission from the Flarm fantasy discussion.

In a word, US tasking SUCKS! And, it's getting worse all the time. First, the idea that an assigned task does not "test" weather skill (but a HAT, MAT or TAT does) is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard within the sport of soaring.

The more variability or "vagueness" in a given tasks requirement to "consolidate" and get back to a defined point along a set race course, via your skills (weather knowledge, pilot skill, tactical efficiency, puzzle solving skills) while flying down a "leg" of a task, the EASIER the task is. This ranges from timed, area tasks of up to 60 miles in diameter (2800+ sq. miles) to 1 mile assiged turns. The more tightly defined the task is, the better it is. It's that simple. PERIOD.

We (SSA/US) fly almost exclusively "easy tasks" (75% TAT last I checked), and have created whole new types of even easier tasks in the USA (see one or even zero "turn" MAT, i.e. OLC, i.e. HAT). Easy, vague and by definition very prone to being lucky in the broad randomness that results in an individual score via the formulas of our US scoring program, WinScore.. Some call the ability to wander around only flying the best weather, skill. Sure, but it requires LESS SKILL when you don't have to bring it back to an assigned turn, several times throughout the task. Sadly, many seem to love this randomness. They somehow see an objective measurement in it. We do area tasks roughly 75% of the time in the USA, so someone must be happy. I for one am continuously disgusted by it. Less variables, less luck (racing tasks). More variables, more luck (go wherever the hell you wish, tasks). 2000 words describing what elements you wish to "TEST?" is a waste of time, but you do write very well Andy!

I want to test how fast a pilot can get around a race course. Pure, simple, no bull ****. Right now, we do this only a few times a year within the USA, that's it. At World Championships, they do it 50% of the time. I say that's not enough!

Example. You're flying down an 80-mile leg of a real racing, assigned task.. All the while, you must carefully adjust your strategy and tactics to find the most efficient means of getting yourself back to the assigned turn point. This is an entirely more difficult game than managing an area task. First of all, you have the same exact race track (not really in the USA, but for the sake of time) for every pilot. Imagine that! If you choose to waiver way off course during an assigned task, for a good weather reason of course (you know, the superior weather knowledge) that deviation must always be tempered by the need to pay it back and get back to the turn point at some point. A far more complex puzzle. In area tasks, you only have the find the fastest way to keep going "that a way" and towards the easiest weather available in that huge range. You are never "boxed in" and forced to suffer from a poor weather decision on that leg (having to pay back the extra distance), or to cross difficult spots more efficiently than your competitors.

Going down a "leg?" (one can't really define any leg of an Area task, can they?) of an Area "task?" which can be 30 miles or 90 miles in length (for example), or vary up to 60 miles laterally depending on said pilots superior weather knowledge (ROTFL). This sure sounds like racing to me! Seriously, should the word "racing" even be used in SSA descriptions of contests any more? Its almost fraud to call our tasks, "races." In fact, it IS fraud! See definition of "race."

We should instead start call our tasks...

"Mileage/time=speed calculations of flight traces over a series of (up to) 2800 square mile weather variability assessment tests, aided by our clearNav that basically does all the time/distance stuff for us (Frank Sinatra music optional)." How is this really different from OLC already? Anyone?

Boy, ESPN must be kicking down our doors to get the rights to cover this "sport!" Sailplane racing! Im sure they will have color commentary of the scoring process as well. Multiple camera angles, mood lighting, elevator music, commercial free, etc.

Anyway, these area "tasks" are, by definition, designed to allow our pilots to choose what weather is "easiest" to fly so they do not land out! Area tasks allow the pilot to pick and choose the best clouds to follow into a huge general area of THEIR OWN choosing. You can turn back anytime you wish if you get into trouble. For example, I'm low now on an upwind Area task "leg", NO PROBLEM! You can just choose to turn at this HIGHLY CONVIENENT point and go downwind. Hell, it doesn't matter. It's all based on the concept of a minimum time! Get out of jail free! You might even time to change to a new Sinatra CD!

Now, compare that to the developed skills of an assigned task pilot. Getting low on an upwind leg is a real problem. You have to figure it out and complete the race course, and lose real time around a REAL RACE TRACK vs. your smarter competitors. Oh, the humanity of that. How terrible! How uncivilized. I won't have time to make a new gin and tonic!

Area tasks are, quite literally, infant tasks in comparison to assigned (real racing). They are the favorite task type of tourists who also want OLC to be considered a real form of meaningful "competition?" Some clowns want "no" racing tasks in the USA. None! 3% racing is too much! Hey, I've got a new word to describe area tasks! Let's call them weak-assed tasks! Thanks Sean! WATs!

Assigned tasks are "grown up" tasks. For true racing sailplane pilots. The task real glider pilots WANT to fly each day. Nobody really wakes up in the morning and wants to fly an area task at a contest. Do they? If so, I mourn for you! Assigned tasks force real consequences for strategy and tactical mistakes and require resilient, brilliant pilots to win consistently.. I, for one, have more respect for the winner of an assigned task, then I do for a huge area task. Assigned tasks are tasks of complete racing champions. Champions who are, IMO, better sailplane pilots in literally every form of measure. Stick and rudder skills, WHAT A BUNCH OF ABSOLUTE CRAP. Anyone who says this is what makes a good assigned task competitor has zero understanding of the sport of sailplane competition.

Look at Sailplane Grand Prix. Let's see how pilots who only fly WATs, you know, with their superior weather skills, do in Grand Prix for example. They will get destroyed. On the other hand, how will the top SGP pilots do when they must fly area tasks. Answer, they still win. They are complete pilots. Tougher mentally. Precision matters. Decision making and puzzle solution skills matter.

Furthermore, the reason everyone runs out and buys the fancy computers (I passed by the way) is to allow the computer to help MAKE THE TURN AREA DECISION for them! Those decisions are critical to being successful in the very vague, very obtuse Area tasks. These computers are designed to much better tell you if you (for example) can turn now or if you need to try make a few more miles is less than perfect clouds (oh the humanity...). I'll call the fancy computers that are great at making decisions for their pilots in US tasks, weak-assed technology! ;-) You know, unlike PowerFlarm (where all pilots have the same data), when you buy a fancy flight computer, you have SUPERIOR technology than your competitors! This ADVANTAGE helps you make better decisions while flying complex tasks (every single timed task type in fact). What a horrible, HORRIBLE, unfair, awful thing.......right? RC that just voted to limit FLARM (perhaps risking safety)? Right?

You know, I have just realized something. I need to accept it. We really are going to only run OLC "tasks" in the SSA 10 years. OLC tasks will be formally introduced as an actual task by the SSA this year (next year at the latest), and without specific guidance and an overlying policy that prevents it, most regionals will immediately begin calling OLC as tasks 80% of the time. I can see it now! In 5 years, nearly 100% of our regional tasking will be OLC (many will still argue that OLC is racing) and 50% of our nationals tasks will be OLC "racing." And so on... An area task will be voodoo then! LOL!

I'll be running a US Grand Prix racing league and will not even bother with SSA contests by this point. 3% (or less) is not going to keep my attention.

For me, the only form of competition that I am truly interested in involves one simple measured element, speed around a set RACING track. The other stuff is a compromise when the weather is bad, except in the USA of course. Times tasks are the main course here, but I digress. Assigned tasks require only stopwatch. They do not even require an elaborate scoring program (or an experienced, scorer!) and its highly subjective formulas (see Andys post) trying to "best assess" what elements of "racing" sailplanes are most important to you as a person. For example, leeching penalties. WOW. Like little economist attempting to plan economies, our RC tries to plan what soaring competition "should be" for us. And it is becoming ANYTHING but racing. What a complete disaster this has become.

Remember, in assigned tasks, pilots are free to go anywhere they want in between the set turn points. That alone provides nearly infinite variables by itself, by itself. The difference is, they have to always bring it back to a specific turn point that may not be at the end of a magical line of puffy white clouds. Simple.

The only reason to run a TAT is when the weather is in question or the class that must account for broad handicap range (sports). Times, area task are, by definition, "compromise tasks!" HATs and MATs are, in comparison, huge compromise tasks. I'm honestly amazed we still make our pilots come back to a 2 mile finish cylinder. Why not a 60 mile finish "area?" Sometimes it's hard to come back to that small point in space. Its too hard! Right?

Sean

[smfidler]

Andrew, you rock! Well said. Great point.

Even though I am willing to consider a "reduced SA...mode" for PowerFlarm, safety (at all levels of competitiveness) seems to overwhelmingly outweight any potential, philosphical tactical benifit. If I was on the RC I would have to understand that 50% of the pilots (at least) are of this viewpoint. I am concerned that they are blinded by pure emotion in many ways.

Sean

[smfidler]

The point is simple. Situational awareness. Say it slowly, sound it out ;-).

4 minutes of knowledge knowing a glider is out there, or 60 seconds, or 10?

Cant get much simpler than that. This is not a difficult concept.

The more SA, the safer it is for all, period. This is enitirely independent of any insecurity some feel about potentially giving out actionable BVR leeching info to dozens of gin and tonic siping, sinatra listening leeches who have been stealing medals from you for the past 5 years. ;-) You know, the ones who pass you inverted on final glide, giving your the bird. ;-)

"Fly me to the moon....and let me dance among the stars....!"

Sean (7T)

[ND]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:18:22 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
> Wow man! Just Wow!
>
> Safety concerns equal "weak-assed!" Yeah baby! Yes! Here we go. That's it Sean!

http://e.lvme.me/743pv7l.jpg

[waremark]

Are any of the people who want to limit the usefulness of Flarm the same people who have developed the sophisticated use of team flying tactics in international competition?

[waremark]

Are any of the people who want to limit the usefulness of Flarm the same people who have developed the sophisticated use of team flying tactics in international competition?

[XC]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 12:38:20 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
> The point is simple. Situational awareness. Say it slowly, sound it out ;-).
>
> 4 minutes of knowledge knowing a glider is out there, or 60 seconds, or 10?
>
> Cant get much simpler than that. This is not a difficult concept.
>
> The more SA, the safer it is for all, period. This is enitirely independent of any insecurity some feel about potentially giving out actionable BVR leeching info to dozens of gin and tonic siping, sinatra listening leeches who have been stealing medals from you for the past 5 years. ;-) You know, the ones who pass you inverted on final glide, giving your the bird. ;-)
>
> "Fly me to the moon....and let me dance among the stars....!"
>
> Sean (7T)

Is there really a benefit of tracking a glider on your FLARM display for 4 minutes? Take a situation where there are 4 other gliders in your proximity.. Keeping track of them all continuously with FLARM is a lot of heads down time. A lot of the gliders are more than 1000 feet difference in altitude and are no collision threat. Having all that displayed clutters the important info so is really only of tactical benefit.

Now that I think of it - a good competition mode may be unlimited range and just not show targets greater that 1500 differential altitude. Just a thought.

Anyway, the concept is more complex than you are stating. (Is sarcasm-ing a word? Any noun can be verbed I suppose.)

Since you used my name in the post about tasking, want to state that I agree with you that more AT's are a good thing. I like them. When AAT's are called due to possible CB's or the like, I prefer smaller radius turns like 5 nm for the FAI classes.

XC

[Christopher Giacomo]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 12:00:53 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> No dice - if you think there's a possible conflict it's incumbent
> upon you to alter your course, not to tell someone else to get out
> of your way.
>
>
>
> I can see it now...* There's the leader up ahead and it looks like
> he's climbing.* I'll transmit, "9B, turn right immediately for
> collision avoidance!"* There now...* I'll just move into the thermal
> he's just vacated.* Gee, look how quickly I can overtake him.

> The second paragraph is obviously for comic relief to this
> interminable squabble.
>
> Dan, 5J

Or the alternative debate....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvRYd8U7qGY

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 9:26:02 AM UTC-8, smfidler wrote:
> Some good points Andy. I disagree with much of it, but I'm sure that you are not surprised by this. ;-).
>
> I have to call US tasking "philosophy" out again. This will be a nice intermission from the Flarm fantasy discussion.
>
> In a word, US tasking SUCKS! And, it's getting worse all the time. First, the idea that an assigned task does not "test" weather skill (but a HAT, MAT or TAT does) is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard within the sport of soaring.
>
> The more variability or "vagueness" in a given tasks requirement to "consolidate" and get back to a defined point along a set race course, via your skills (weather knowledge, pilot skill, tactical efficiency, puzzle solving skills) while flying down a "leg" of a task, the EASIER the task is. This ranges from timed, area tasks of up to 60 miles in diameter (2800+ sq. miles) to 1 mile assiged turns. The more tightly defined the task is, the better it is. It's that simple. PERIOD.
>
> We (SSA/US) fly almost exclusively "easy tasks" (75% TAT last I checked), and have created whole new types of even easier tasks in the USA (see one or even zero "turn" MAT, i.e. OLC, i.e. HAT). Easy, vague and by definition very prone to being lucky in the broad randomness that results in an individual score via the formulas of our US scoring program, WinScore.. Some call the ability to wander around only flying the best weather, skill. Sure, but it requires LESS SKILL when you don't have to bring it back to an assigned turn, several times throughout the task. Sadly, many seem to love this randomness. They somehow see an objective measurement in it. We do area tasks roughly 75% of the time in the USA, so someone must be happy. I for one am continuously disgusted by it. Less variables, less luck (racing tasks). More variables, more luck (go wherever the hell you wish, tasks). 2000 words describing what elements you wish to "TEST?" is a waste of time, but you do write very well Andy!
>
> I want to test how fast a pilot can get around a race course. Pure, simple, no bull ****. Right now, we do this only a few times a year within the USA, that's it. At World Championships, they do it 50% of the time. I say that's not enough!
>
> Example. You're flying down an 80-mile leg of a real racing, assigned task. All the while, you must carefully adjust your strategy and tactics to find the most efficient means of getting yourself back to the assigned turn point. This is an entirely more difficult game than managing an area task.. First of all, you have the same exact race track (not really in the USA, but for the sake of time) for every pilot. Imagine that! If you choose to waiver way off course during an assigned task, for a good weather reason of course (you know, the superior weather knowledge) that deviation must always be tempered by the need to pay it back and get back to the turn point at some point. A far more complex puzzle. In area tasks, you only have the find the fastest way to keep going "that a way" and towards the easiest weather available in that huge range. You are never "boxed in" and forced to suffer from a poor weather decision on that leg (having to pay back the extra distance), or to cross difficult spots more efficiently than your competitors.
>
> Going down a "leg?" (one can't really define any leg of an Area task, can they?) of an Area "task?" which can be 30 miles or 90 miles in length (for example), or vary up to 60 miles laterally depending on said pilots superior weather knowledge (ROTFL). This sure sounds like racing to me! Seriously, should the word "racing" even be used in SSA descriptions of contests any more? Its almost fraud to call our tasks, "races." In fact, it IS fraud! See definition of "race."
>
> We should instead start call our tasks...
>
> "Mileage/time=speed calculations of flight traces over a series of (up to) 2800 square mile weather variability assessment tests, aided by our clearNav that basically does all the time/distance stuff for us (Frank Sinatra music optional)." How is this really different from OLC already? Anyone?
>
> Boy, ESPN must be kicking down our doors to get the rights to cover this "sport!" Sailplane racing! Im sure they will have color commentary of the scoring process as well. Multiple camera angles, mood lighting, elevator music, commercial free, etc.
>
> Anyway, these area "tasks" are, by definition, designed to allow our pilots to choose what weather is "easiest" to fly so they do not land out! Area tasks allow the pilot to pick and choose the best clouds to follow into a huge general area of THEIR OWN choosing. You can turn back anytime you wish if you get into trouble. For example, I'm low now on an upwind Area task "leg", NO PROBLEM! You can just choose to turn at this HIGHLY CONVIENENT point and go downwind. Hell, it doesn't matter. It's all based on the concept of a minimum time! Get out of jail free! You might even time to change to a new Sinatra CD!
>
> Now, compare that to the developed skills of an assigned task pilot. Getting low on an upwind leg is a real problem. You have to figure it out and complete the race course, and lose real time around a REAL RACE TRACK vs. your smarter competitors. Oh, the humanity of that. How terrible! How uncivilized. I won't have time to make a new gin and tonic!
>
> Area tasks are, quite literally, infant tasks in comparison to assigned (real racing). They are the favorite task type of tourists who also want OLC to be considered a real form of meaningful "competition?" Some clowns want "no" racing tasks in the USA. None! 3% racing is too much! Hey, I've got a new word to describe area tasks! Let's call them weak-assed tasks! Thanks Sean! WATs!
>
> Assigned tasks are "grown up" tasks. For true racing sailplane pilots. The task real glider pilots WANT to fly each day. Nobody really wakes up in the morning and wants to fly an area task at a contest. Do they? If so, I mourn for you! Assigned tasks force real consequences for strategy and tactical mistakes and require resilient, brilliant pilots to win consistently. I, for one, have more respect for the winner of an assigned task, then I do for a huge area task. Assigned tasks are tasks of complete racing champions. Champions who are, IMO, better sailplane pilots in literally every form of measure. Stick and rudder skills, WHAT A BUNCH OF ABSOLUTE CRAP. Anyone who says this is what makes a good assigned task competitor has zero understanding of the sport of sailplane competition.
>
> Look at Sailplane Grand Prix. Let's see how pilots who only fly WATs, you know, with their superior weather skills, do in Grand Prix for example. They will get destroyed. On the other hand, how will the top SGP pilots do when they must fly area tasks. Answer, they still win. They are complete pilots. Tougher mentally. Precision matters. Decision making and puzzle solution skills matter.
>
> Furthermore, the reason everyone runs out and buys the fancy computers (I passed by the way) is to allow the computer to help MAKE THE TURN AREA DECISION for them! Those decisions are critical to being successful in the very vague, very obtuse Area tasks. These computers are designed to much better tell you if you (for example) can turn now or if you need to try make a few more miles is less than perfect clouds (oh the humanity...). I'll call the fancy computers that are great at making decisions for their pilots in US tasks, weak-assed technology! ;-) You know, unlike PowerFlarm (where all pilots have the same data), when you buy a fancy flight computer, you have SUPERIOR technology than your competitors! This ADVANTAGE helps you make better decisions while flying complex tasks (every single timed task type in fact). What a horrible, HORRIBLE, unfair, awful thing.......right? RC that just voted to limit FLARM (perhaps risking safety)? Right?
>
> You know, I have just realized something. I need to accept it. We really are going to only run OLC "tasks" in the SSA 10 years. OLC tasks will be formally introduced as an actual task by the SSA this year (next year at the latest), and without specific guidance and an overlying policy that prevents it, most regionals will immediately begin calling OLC as tasks 80% of the time. I can see it now! In 5 years, nearly 100% of our regional tasking will be OLC (many will still argue that OLC is racing) and 50% of our nationals tasks will be OLC "racing." And so on... An area task will be voodoo then! LOL!
>
> I'll be running a US Grand Prix racing league and will not even bother with SSA contests by this point. 3% (or less) is not going to keep my attention.
>
> For me, the only form of competition that I am truly interested in involves one simple measured element, speed around a set RACING track. The other stuff is a compromise when the weather is bad, except in the USA of course.. Times tasks are the main course here, but I digress. Assigned tasks require only stopwatch. They do not even require an elaborate scoring program (or an experienced, scorer!) and its highly subjective formulas (see Andys post) trying to "best assess" what elements of "racing" sailplanes are most important to you as a person. For example, leeching penalties. WOW. Like little economist attempting to plan economies, our RC tries to plan what soaring competition "should be" for us. And it is becoming ANYTHING but racing. What a complete disaster this has become.
>
> Remember, in assigned tasks, pilots are free to go anywhere they want in between the set turn points. That alone provides nearly infinite variables by itself, by itself. The difference is, they have to always bring it back to a specific turn point that may not be at the end of a magical line of puffy white clouds. Simple.
>
> The only reason to run a TAT is when the weather is in question or the class that must account for broad handicap range (sports). Times, area task are, by definition, "compromise tasks!" HATs and MATs are, in comparison, huge compromise tasks. I'm honestly amazed we still make our pilots come back to a 2 mile finish cylinder. Why not a 60 mile finish "area?" Sometimes it's hard to come back to that small point in space. Its too hard! Right?
>
> Sean

I take your points and don't disagree that we should be calling more constrained tasks on average and more ATs where practical. I don't think we will do participation in the sport any favors driving up the landout percentages significantly in the process. I do think there is some skill in picking the macro lines of strongest weather that you wouldn't normally get in an AT, but also that there is skill in being required to get to a specific point. We all did it for years back before GPS and took pictures of the turnpoints to prove it. Also, we will have to tolerate more gaggling and leeching. I'm okay with that too.

You sure get excited about it. How's your CAPS LOCK holding up?

9B

[WB]

Aww crap, this was going so well, then everyone had to get all rational and stuff.

Many good points made by all. However, the assumption being made is that "open Flarm" will be just that: Flarm with all it's excellent capabilities intact to maximize situational awareness and safety. That would be optimal. No argument from me. However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?

[jfitch]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:01:47 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
<SNIP>> Is there really a benefit of tracking a glider on your FLARM display for 4 minutes? Take a situation where there are 4 other gliders in your proximity. Keeping track of them all continuously with FLARM is a lot of heads down time. A lot of the gliders are more than 1000 feet difference in altitude and are no collision threat. Having all that displayed clutters the important info so is really only of tactical benefit.

You need a better tactical display. No one I know tracks gliders for 4 minutes. You take a one second glance at the display and notice that there are 4 gliders the direction you are headed. A minute later another one second glance shows that one has headed off so there are still three. 2 minutes later another 1 second glance confirms that the 3 gliders are now pretty close, headed the opposite direction, and you should be looking for them that direction. You opt to alter course slightly right. A minute later a one second glance shows that your course alteration put the 3 other gliders safely to your left with no possibility of a conflict or Flarm alert. Situational awareness is only useful if you use it. You now have 4 seconds total heads down time spent over 4 minutes to completely eliminate any conflict with 4 other gliders with no other tactical benefit.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:01:47 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
>
> Is there really a benefit of tracking a glider on your FLARM display for 4 minutes? Take a situation where there are 4 other gliders in your proximity. Keeping track of them all continuously with FLARM is a lot of heads down time. A lot of the gliders are more than 1000 feet difference in altitude and are no collision threat. Having all that displayed clutters the important info so is really only of tactical benefit.
>

I think 4 minutes was meant as part of a general visual scan rather than continuously fixating on the display. A scan that returns to the display within about 1/2 the lead time you'd expect to have for a target seems reasonable. If you only scan at the maximum lead-time a target can sneak in pretty close before you pick it up.

Four minutes of situational awareness lead time means scanning every minute or two. One minute of lead time means scanning every 30 seconds and 10 seconds of lead time would require you to have your head down pretty much continuously if you were concerned about nasty surprises. If you want to just wait for a target to become a collision threat and react to the collision alarm then by definition maintaining situational awareness to prevent conflicts is not part of your approach.

Because the "wait for the alarm to go off" makes some of us uncomfortable - the OODA loop is just too long with Flarm alarms in some cases - we prefer to keep track of aircraft in a bigger envelope before they get to alarm mode. Doing that is easier if you don't have to keep going back to the display to see what's new. For instance, I scan more frequently running cloud streets and convergence lines - particularly if I know there is traffic likely ahead because of an out and back course configuration, etc. I know that converging traffic can come up in a hurry and I want to be ahead of it if I can.

9B

[jfitch]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
<SNIP>
> Because the "wait for the alarm to go off" makes some of us uncomfortable -

I'll go further than that. In my experience a Flarm warning means someone is really close. In my opinion an unexpected flarm warning means you screwed the pooch. Luck or Flarm saved your ass and his. You should really consider changing how you fly. One part of that might be turning off stealth mode and taking a glance at a good tactical display once in awhile.

[XC]

> You need a better tactical display. No one I know tracks gliders for 4 minutes. You take a one second glance at the display and notice that there are 4 gliders the direction you are headed. A minute later another one second glance shows that one has headed off so there are still three. 2 minutes later another 1 second glance confirms that the 3 gliders are now pretty close, headed the opposite direction, and you should be looking for them that direction. You opt to alter course slightly right. A minute later a one second glance shows that your course alteration put the 3 other gliders safely to your left with no possibility of a conflict or Flarm alert. Situational awareness is only useful if you use it. You now have 4 seconds total heads down time spent over 4 minutes to completely eliminate any conflict with 4 other gliders with no other tactical benefit.

I am not believing you when you say you are looking at your display 4 seconds out of every 4 minutes.

The level one warnings begin to go off 13-18 seconds before a collision would happen. They are independent of the any stealth mode setting. That's a long time to make the small flight path adjustment necessary to avoid another glider. They are really pretty good but not perfect. Layer on top of that 2 km radius (going to 5 km now) and plus or minus 300 meters and you have all the situational awareness that is necessary.

The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC

[Craig Reinholt]

>However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?<


12.2.5 >> Contest penalty categories
12.2.5.1 Unsafe operation (including all phases of flight and ground operation) (Rule 10.9.1.4, Rule 10.9.4.4): maximum penalty = disqualification.
12.2.5.3 Unsportsmanlike conduct (including falsification of flight documentation) (Rule 6.3.3.6, Rule 6.6.5, Rule 10.7.1.1, Rule
10.8.8.4): maximum penalty = disqualification from the contest and ineligibility for Sanctioned competitions for a period of 5 years.

The examples you postulated above fall under the above penalty categories. IMO, contest management tends to be the "nice guy" and won't go down this road. Perhaps it's about time to enforce the rules.

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 4 January 2016 16:19:52 UTC-7, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> >However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?<
>
>
> 12.2.5 >> Contest penalty categories
> 12.2.5.1 Unsafe operation (including all phases of flight and ground operation) (Rule 10.9.1.4, Rule 10.9.4.4): maximum penalty = disqualification..
> 12.2.5.3 Unsportsmanlike conduct (including falsification of flight documentation) (Rule 6.3.3.6, Rule 6.6.5, Rule 10.7.1.1, Rule
> 10.8.8.4): maximum penalty = disqualification from the contest and ineligibility for Sanctioned competitions for a period of 5 years.
>
> The examples you postulated above fall under the above penalty categories.. IMO, contest management tends to be the "nice guy" and won't go down this road. Perhaps it's about time to enforce the rules.

SO Craig, how can this 'blockage' be automatically detected?

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 4 January 2016 16:19:52 UTC-7, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> >However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?<
>
>
> 12.2.5 >> Contest penalty categories
> 12.2.5.1 Unsafe operation (including all phases of flight and ground operation) (Rule 10.9.1.4, Rule 10.9.4.4): maximum penalty = disqualification..
> 12.2.5.3 Unsportsmanlike conduct (including falsification of flight documentation) (Rule 6.3.3.6, Rule 6.6.5, Rule 10.7.1.1, Rule
> 10.8.8.4): maximum penalty = disqualification from the contest and ineligibility for Sanctioned competitions for a period of 5 years.
>
> The examples you postulated above fall under the above penalty categories.. IMO, contest management tends to be the "nice guy" and won't go down this road. Perhaps it's about time to enforce the rules.

So Craig, how can this 'blockage' be automatically detected?

[WB]

Well, I would certainly consider anti-Flarm countermeasures to be unsportsmanlike in the extreme. However, unless Flarm use is mandated in that contest, then supressing one's Flarm signal or turning it off altogether would not be actionable under the rules. And, as Ron said, how would we know with certainty that someone was screwing around with their Flarm signal?

I know we gotta have rules, and situations arise where mandates are justified, but the idea of more rules and mandates generally sets my teeth on edge..

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 4 January 2016 17:42:19 UTC-7, WB wrote:
> Well, I would certainly consider anti-Flarm countermeasures to be unsportsmanlike in the extreme. However, unless Flarm use is mandated in that contest, then supressing one's Flarm signal or turning it off altogether would not be actionable under the rules. And, as Ron said, how would we know with certainty that someone was screwing around with their Flarm signal?
>
> I know we gotta have rules, and situations arise where mandates are justified, but the idea of more rules and mandates generally sets my teeth on edge.

Craig, aas Bill points out even if FLARM is mandatory is it mandatory that logs from the PF unit is turned in? Not every PF unit is able to produce a valid IGC file and many folks have other primary loggers. Even if a scorer gets all PF generated files how are they checked to determine if blockage has occurred? Scoring programs such as SeeYou Competition and SSA WINSCORE automatically determines if a airspace violation has occurred so are you advocating that these solution be upgraded to check PF files? Or do pilots turn in perceived blind gliders?

[Andrew Ainslie]

"The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC "

Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.

You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?

What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?

Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.

[jfitch]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 3:16:36 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
> > You need a better tactical display. No one I know tracks gliders for 4 minutes. You take a one second glance at the display and notice that there are 4 gliders the direction you are headed. A minute later another one second glance shows that one has headed off so there are still three. 2 minutes later another 1 second glance confirms that the 3 gliders are now pretty close, headed the opposite direction, and you should be looking for them that direction. You opt to alter course slightly right. A minute later a one second glance shows that your course alteration put the 3 other gliders safely to your left with no possibility of a conflict or Flarm alert. Situational awareness is only useful if you use it. You now have 4 seconds total heads down time spent over 4 minutes to completely eliminate any conflict with 4 other gliders with no other tactical benefit.
>
> I am not believing you when you say you are looking at your display 4 seconds out of every 4 minutes.
>
> The level one warnings begin to go off 13-18 seconds before a collision would happen. They are independent of the any stealth mode setting. That's a long time to make the small flight path adjustment necessary to avoid another glider. They are really pretty good but not perfect. Layer on top of that 2 km radius (going to 5 km now) and plus or minus 300 meters and you have all the situational awareness that is necessary.
>
> The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.
>
> XC

You may believe as you like. I probably look at the display somewhat less than 1 second/minute on average. My point is to look at and assess every glider on the display takes very little time, no more than one second, on a good display. Perhaps you have a poor one.

The 13 - 18 seconds you talk about is under ideal conditions. This is provably not the case in all situations. I have played around with friends to see just how close we can get before getting a warning and it is damn close under some circumstances. 2-3 seconds from potential impact. Come fly with me and I will prove it. These are not obscure situations, but ones you might easily find yourself in through a loss of situational awareness. This is why I concur with others who say that the situational awareness aspect is 80% of the value.

In stealth mode (and I assume the vaporware competition mode, but who knows?) you DO NOT get all of the situational data within 2, or 5 km. Read the spec. Altitude, track, and speed are not available until you get a collision warning. ID is not available ever. You literally do not know if a glider is coming or going.

I have been quite up front in saying that I want to use Flarm as an entertainment and educational tool. It's tactical use is quite limited (I have tried), and while it is a great safety tool, it protects against only a very rare event. I would say instead that the ongoing comments about heads down time is being made by those with a religious argument against Flarm technology who want to perpetuate the current status quo of tactics without objective reason. Let's not turn that into a safety argument.

One change that would make me and some others happier, is to make stealth non-reciprocal. That is, if you are flying in stealth it works as it does now, but if I am not I see everything. Since stealth is implemented on the receiving side, this would be easy to do and as risk free as a firmware change can get. In a Flarm and stealth mandated contest, you can still check to see if anybody in the contest cheated from the IGC file. But you would not be affecting everyone in the area, who may not even know a competition is going on.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 7:02:55 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> "The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.
>
> XC "
>
> Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.
>
> You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?
>
> What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?
>
> Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.

Not speaking for XC, but I'll take you at your word that you are sincerely interested in Flarm for the safety aspects. So am I. And, I'll say again, for me, I do not care about leeching, regardless of whether it's good 'ol visual leeching or Flarm enabled. As hard as I have tried, I can't making leeching work for me, and god help anyone who follows me. However, it is known, or at least strongly suspected, that pilots are turning off or suppressing Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Imagine someone being just out of reach of the podium on the last day by just a point or two. Inbound to the last turn, that pilot sees a chance to break from the pack and maybe grab a win. However, our pilot knows everyone and his brother will see him on their Flarms and rush in to exploit our intrepid pilot's good fortune. How tempting to just turn off the Flarm and zoom away for the win, but putting fellow competitors are risk. You and I, holding safety paramount, would never do such a thing. However, there will always be those who will (or are already doing it) for the sake of a win.

Limiting the tactical use of Flarm is at least worth exploring IF it will contribute to safety.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 8:57:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 7:02:55 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> > "The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.
> >
> > XC "
> >
> > Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.
> >
> > You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?
> >
> > What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?
> >
> > Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.
>
> Not speaking for XC, but I'll take you at your word that you are sincerely interested in Flarm for the safety aspects. So am I. And, I'll say again, for me, I do not care about leeching, regardless of whether it's good 'ol visual leeching or Flarm enabled. As hard as I have tried, I can't making leeching work for me, and god help anyone who follows me. However, it is known, or at least strongly suspected, that pilots are turning off or suppressing Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Imagine someone being just out of reach of the podium on the last day by just a point or two. Inbound to the last turn, that pilot sees a chance to break from the pack and maybe grab a win. However, our pilot knows everyone and his brother will see him on their Flarms and rush in to exploit our intrepid pilot's good fortune. How tempting to just turn off the Flarm and zoom away for the win, but putting fellow competitors are risk. You and I, holding safety paramount, would never do such a thing. However, there will always be those who will (or are already doing it) for the sake of a win.
>
> Limiting the tactical use of Flarm is at least worth exploring IF it will contribute to safety.

Since most of our antennas are on glare-shields it would be quite visible to competitors if someone tries to cheat by putting a hat over an antenna. If found cheating penalty should be disqualification.

I doubt if any of our top pilots would resort to that. Can you imagine the shame associated with such an action? We can argue here all day I just don't believe that 99% of contest pilots in the USA would do such a thing. The 1% that would do will probably not achieve much in a long run anyway if he needs to cheat to succeed. Somehow the top pilots can win no matter what. They were winning before Flarm and they are winning with Flarm. Some, I will not name don't have Flarm and they still win.

Maybe we should look for a solution and stop this back end forth.

[Andrew Ainslie]

A random check on flarm files, as we currently do for weights, would fix that.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 9:08:41 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 8:57:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 7:02:55 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> > > "The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.
> > >
> > > XC "
> > >
> > > Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.
> > >
> > > You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?
> > >
> > > What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?
> > >
> > > Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.
> >
> > Not speaking for XC, but I'll take you at your word that you are sincerely interested in Flarm for the safety aspects. So am I. And, I'll say again, for me, I do not care about leeching, regardless of whether it's good 'ol visual leeching or Flarm enabled. As hard as I have tried, I can't making leeching work for me, and god help anyone who follows me. However, it is known, or at least strongly suspected, that pilots are turning off or suppressing Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Imagine someone being just out of reach of the podium on the last day by just a point or two. Inbound to the last turn, that pilot sees a chance to break from the pack and maybe grab a win. However, our pilot knows everyone and his brother will see him on their Flarms and rush in to exploit our intrepid pilot's good fortune. How tempting to just turn off the Flarm and zoom away for the win, but putting fellow competitors are risk. You and I, holding safety paramount, would never do such a thing. However, there will always be those who will (or are already doing it) for the sake of a win.
> >
> > Limiting the tactical use of Flarm is at least worth exploring IF it will contribute to safety.
>
> Since most of our antennas are on glare-shields it would be quite visible to competitors if someone tries to cheat by putting a hat over an antenna. If found cheating penalty should be disqualification.
>
> I doubt if any of our top pilots would resort to that. Can you imagine the shame associated with such an action? We can argue here all day I just don't believe that 99% of contest pilots in the USA would do such a thing. The 1% that would do will probably not achieve much in a long run anyway if he needs to cheat to succeed. Somehow the top pilots can win no matter what. They were winning before Flarm and they are winning with Flarm. Some, I will not name don't have Flarm and they still win.
>
> Maybe we should look for a solution and stop this back end forth.

Let me fix my writing. I need to stop drinking wine while writing.

Since most of our PF antenna installations are on glare-shields it would be quite visible to competitors if someone tried to cheat by putting a hat over an antenna. If think cheating penalty should be disqualification.

I doubt if any of our top pilots would resort to that. Can you imagine the shame associated with such an action? We can argue here all day I just don't believe that 99% of contest pilots in the USA would do such a thing. The 1% that would do will probably not achieve much in a long run anyway if that person needs to cheat to succeed. Somehow the top pilots can win no matter what. They were winning before Flarm and they are winning with Flarm. Some, I will not name here don't have Flarm and they still win.

Maybe we should look for a solution and stop this back end forth.

[[email protected]]

>
> I doubt if any of our top pilots would resort to that. Can you imagine the shame associated with such an action? We can argue here all day I just don't believe that 99% of contest pilots in the USA would do such a thing. The 1% that would do will probably not achieve much in a long run anyway if that person needs to cheat to succeed. Somehow the top pilots can win no matter what. They were winning before Flarm and they are winning with Flarm. Some, I will not name here don't have Flarm and they still win.
>
> Maybe we should look for a solution and stop this back end forth.

Hi Andrzej, Not sure if you are responding to my post, but just in case you are, let me say again: I don't care about leeching. I don't care if someone wins by leeching. I don't care if someone wins a world championship by leeching with Flarm, Mark I Eyeball, or machine vision (google "optical collision avoidance). Competitive advantage was not the point of my last post. The point is: Given incentive to do so, there will be pilots who will suppress their Flarm output to deny competitors tactical information. In doing so, they put the rest of us at risk. I have no idea how much of a risk that is or will be. However, the people who developed Flarm wrote "We do not recommend the use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM(R) off for tactical reasons." (See S.Fidler's post that started this thread). They were concerned about the issue enough to write that. I happen to think they are correct.

I concur that we should look for a solution. Given Flarm or similar equipment, the best solution, in my opinion, is a competition mode that presents no incentive to suppress Flarm output. In the longer run, passive collision avoidance tech, such as machine vision systems, may provide a better solution.

[Andrew Ainslie]

"Given Flarm or similar equipment, the best solution, in my opinion, is a competition mode that presents no incentive to suppress Flarm output."

I love this logic. Let's suppress flarm output so no one suppresses flarm output.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 9:31:58 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> "Given Flarm or similar equipment, the best solution, in my opinion, is a competition mode that presents no incentive to suppress Flarm output."
>
> I love this logic. Let's suppress flarm output so no one suppresses flarm output.

Well, OK, Andrew, maybe I should have been more specific. Would you agree that not all the information coming from Flarm is relevant to safety? Some have suggested that a competition mode that does not present contest ID's and climb rate would do nicely to reduce the incentive to suppress or turn off Flarm. Is this not a reasonable compromise?

Wallace Berry
WB

[Andrew Ainslie]

Imagine trying to explain this to the FAA, or to your wife, or to a tort lawyer after an accident.

"Our contests were becoming too weak assed, so we found a way to make it more manly to stop people from finding out where other pilots were moving in 3 D at 100 mph until they were 60 seconds away... More or less,depending on their antenna location, how much metal was in their cockpit, etc etc.. Sometimes 90 seconds, sometimes 20 seconds, who knows? It's not like any of us really test how good each of our installations are. But I digress... We felt that the compromise in safety by reducing the device that let us know where everyone was by 75% was utterly worth the increased sense of manliness that we all felt. Oh, and apologies for your dead husband, he was a nice guy. For what it's worth, he felt like a total man just before he died, because he loved the testosterone laden sense of joy that comes from being a manly non follower".

Awesome.

Put differently, no, I don't agree.

[Andrew Ainslie]

Ok, truth be told, IF we could do that it'd be great. I get your point, and suppressing IDs and climb rates would be fine. Seems like a good compromise.... But, the authors of software like clearnav could write software to calculate a first derivative on height in about 3 minutes. Are we going to regulate that too?

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 10:33:32 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> Ok, truth be told, IF we could do that it'd be great. I get your point, and suppressing IDs and climb rates would be fine. Seems like a good compromise.... But, the authors of software like clearnav could write software to calculate a first derivative on height in about 3 minutes. Are we going to regulate that too?



You do have a point that tech can eventually outstrip regulation (and sometimes before the ink is dry on the reg).

Now that you mention it, I'm wondering why Clearnav and all the others have not added that feature. It could be a selling point.

[ND]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 8:02:55 PM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> "The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.
>
> XC "
>
> Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.
>
> You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?
>
> What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?
>
> Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.

it's 8 am and that's enough internet for me today already..... i get what you both (VW / XC) are saying and i'm not getting ****ed. i want to put something in perspective though; i don't have a flarm and you happily fly in my vicinity all summer. things get blown out of proportion on the internent. how about you two discuss it over a beer at the hill, eh? the internet makes people lose their **** unnecessarily. and andrew, this is NOT pointed directly at you at all. i think the entire discussion is getting a little too heated.

[Andrew Ainslie]

> it's 8 am and that's enough internet for me today already..... i get what you both (VW / XC) are saying and i'm not getting ****ed. i want to put something in perspective though; i don't have a flarm and you happily fly in my vicinity all summer. things get blown out of proportion on the internent.. how about you two discuss it over a beer at the hill, eh? the internet makes people lose their **** unnecessarily. and andrew, this is NOT pointed directly at you at all. i think the entire discussion is getting a little too heated.

What can I say? Every time Sean goes off and accuses anyone disagreeing with him as either a wimp or a liar, my blood pressure goes up about 20 points! But I'll shut up on this... for now. And I hope you get a FLARM this year :)