On 26 Feb, 16:13, stevehaley wrote:
On Feb 11, 7:48 pm, " wrote:

On Feb 10, 4:01 pm, stevehaley wrote:

I would actually like to see a 3rd mode here (on as default) to
suppress the altitude of all aircraft not in conflict from being sent
down the serial dataport.

What I was trying to say albeit badly was that I beleive that the
latest generation of flight computer software that use Flarm to
indicate climb rates are an aberation of the original concept of FLARM
(collision advoidance) and will
a) Encouraging more heads down fiddling in the cockpit
b) Destroying or marginalise an important skill element of our sport.

Personally I want to find my own thermals - If I spot birds or other
gliders circling then it is still skill at play and rewards good
lookout. I recognise that FLARM could be usefull in this mode in pair
or group flying BUT I strongly believe it is a mode that should be off
by default as opposed to on.

Yes I know people said the same thing about moving map displays but
with the complexity of modern european airspace it is becoming almost
impossible for you to navigate by map unless you already have an
intimate knowledege of the area.

As the software makers will not remove something they perceive as a
wow feature it is up to FLARM itself to marginalise it by making all
FLARMs either operate in full stealth mode by default or alternatively
introducing a 3rd default mode which supresses/randomises altitude for
all non conflict aircraft.

I have enough close encounters with GA pilots who have their heads
burried in their instruments - it would be a travesty if FLARM actualy
caused an accident as opposed to help avoid it.

rgds
Stephen



The displays that show climb rates and plan views of other Flarm
equipped gliders are third party devices or PDA softwares that take
advantage of the open Flarm dataport. As a Flarm user I would not
wish the functionality of my Flarm unit to be compromised in order to
control the activities of a third party display. I am happy enough
with Flarm developing a Stealth Mode to address any contest fairness
issues relating to the interaction of basic Flarm units and collision
alert displays but I think that if contest authorities, other bodies
or individuals seek to limit the functionality of third party displays
for safety or competitive reasons then they should address the use of
those displays directly and not via seeking to interfere with the
operation of underlying Flarm unit.

While it is reasonable to hypothesize that "radar" displays of Flarm
equipped gliders' positions and their climb rates might cause
distraction that is not yet tested or proven. In my experience using
the radio is highly distracting but we accept the sending and
receiving of thermal position and strength messages quite happily.
There is very strong evidence from research into the use of mobile
phones in automobiles that verbal exchanges (including with
passengers) are strongly associated with increased accident risk. I
think it is quite reasonable to hypothesize that, in a fully Flarm
glider environment, a properly sited Flarm "radar" display might
actually, overall, reduce distraction - partly by reducing needless
radio calls and partly by concentrating the mind of the pilot on the
relative positions of other nearby cruising gliders.

Iain