On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 2:53:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:23:21 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

where can russell's paper be found?