On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 5:13:00 AM UTC-8, wrote:

Perhaps a better path for you and Andy would be to get involved in the ongoing discussion about the best range to show proximate traffic in competition (stealth) mode. (Remember intruder traffic is displayed at any range the FLARM set up can detect). Perhaps the range should be configurable to show proximate traffic farther away in western contests. The algorithm could also be modified to identify more threats. These are all possibilities. I still see no need to display contest ID, climb rate, i.e. all the competitive stuff. Relative altitude is displayed.

Good idea. As it happens, that's exactly what's happening. I agree climb rate display is not needed, but undithered altitude difference is important as is Contest ID - or you have no solution to the "you zig, I zag" problem - this is also an issue with ridge flying.

Don't forget what got one of our friends killed in Uvalde involved multiple ship formations - which also happens a lot. Who is the alarm for? Is there another glider to one side or the other? You don't know until you have only 10 seconds to (yikes!) look at the display and decide - and hope the other guy(s) don't null out your adjustment. There really is no perfect substitute for better situational awareness. Most pilots I talk to who fly these conditions think it's better to avoid a conflict than react to one where you may (or may not) need to make an impulse move because you don't know which way to turn (and the other pilot(s) may not make complementary turn decisions). Also keep in mind that you are more likely to get an alarm from a glider maneuvering to become a threat than is right on a collision course from max range all the way in. The odds that you will have a track on a glider from max range (and hold it) is low. The idea that Flarm will generate an alarm for conflicts at max range is only a partial solution.

Also, I think we can agree a few degrees of bank is all that is need to avoid traffic at 110 kts.

That's more true the further out the target is so you are making my point for me. A couple of degrees of bank is an easy fix 4-5 miles out because you can observe the change in tracks, it's less certain at 5-15 seconds and there is no backup plan when one glider goes right and the other goes left - that's a very bad oops!

This is analogous to two people walking down the hall at each other. Flarm open mode is with the lights on. Stealth mode is in a pitch black hallway where each person has a small, narrow beam flashlight. Now try it while you're running. Then try it while you're running a gentle slalom.

Note: I realize we flew for years without Flarm and only killed a handful of guys per decade. My main point is that if we have the technology installed to make most of that go away that is amazing! Why are proposing to go to a bunch of trouble to mandate less and require people to enforce rules that make it ANY worse when even the strongest advocates for stealth mode argue that it mostly affects middle of the scoresheet guys on marginal days (days that we already devalue as having a lot of luck factor) and the main benefit is we get more landouts - presumably with some more landout accidents and unhappy pilots. Generating more landouts isn't high on my list of priorities - it's a recipe for a smaller sport.

The pilot community was pretty clear they like flying with more situational awareness - for safety as well as enjoyment reasons. If we chase a lot of pilots out of racing to OLC and XC camp formats (or something else) how valid will contest result be then? Finishing third out of four competitors when the fourth guy was only fourth because he landed out on a marginal day is hardly a podium placing to take much pride in.

9B