+1 to the keep-it-simple approach

Rob Dunning




On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:27:02 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
This is a very curious email. Three big reasons for imposing stealth:

* There is currently significant resistance to non-Stealth FLARM in contests at the international level, spearheaded by the BGA and IGC. The short (and not comprehensive) summary is that experience to date and concerns about the tactical use of FLARM data for competitive advantage are viewed as negatives by the various groups.

... Coupled with similar concerns expressed by other national organizations (e.g. BGA) and the possible restriction at the WGC level restriction on use of FLARM data for tactical purposes is a conservative approach.

3. Anecdotal reports are surfacing that there is significant "heads-down" time being spent by pilots analyzing tactical data. This is seen as a negative safety influence. ..

Historically, the US has not followed IGC rules, long ago enacted: We do our own thing on starts, turnpoints (credit for distance in all cases), units, task types, finishes, a ban on team flying etc etc. All (well, most) for good reasons. Now, it is argued, we should put in a stealth mandate not because of actual IGC rules, but because there is "significant resistance" abroad, "concerns" which "various groups" view as negative (and other groups do not!) because there may at some point in the future be a "possible restriction at the WGC level?"

Then, we are told of a new, heretofore undiscussed safety concern -- the old heads down in the cockpit staring at instruments bugaboo from the GPS wars. Did we not put this to bed then? The whole reason flarm radar is opposed is because it is easier to follow using flarm -- you don't have to stick half a mile from the glider you want to follow and stare intently at it! Just as GPS frees you from staring at maps and slide rule computers, flarm radar frees you from the intense focus that regular following requires.

Were it even true, this is the first time I've heard of any of these "anecdotal reports" -- and I wrote the poll and do the annual safety review. And when was the last time the rules committee imposed a major, controversial rule because of "anecdotal reports," that surface for the first time only after the rule is proposed and passed?

The clear inconsistencies suggest a bit of grasping at straws.

Arguments over in the other thread that we have to ban it now because someday someone might write some better software are just as empty.

I think we'd get a lot further not throwing such smoke around the real issues: A group of senior high-scoring pilots doesn't want tech-savvy youngsters to move up the scoresheet a few notches by occasionally finding a thermal at a bit more distance than one can see. A lot of less technophobic pilots like a lot the situational awareness, and overall fun, of flying when you know where everyone else is, and is willing to share an occasional thermal in return for the chance to borrow one.

The obvious answer: Pilot's choice.

John Cochrane BB