FLARM in Stealth Mode at US 15M/Standard Nationals - Loved It!

On 8/20/2015 1:56 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
Bob, eh...where to begin?

If you look carefully...I was not quoting anyone else. It was not in
response to any other comments. My post stands alone as my personal
opinion. TALK ABOUT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND PUTTING WORDS INTO ONES MOUTH!

Honestly, nice try. Cute. But unfortunately entirely ineffective.

Allow me to suggest that you have a drink, relax I think you are wound a
little tight today.

I too am thoroughly enamored with the mind of the soaring pilot.
Entertaining for sure but often making literally no sense and adding
literally no value.

Sean

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 3:40:35 PM UTC-4, Bob Whelan wrote:
As a non-contest-participating but
thoroughly-enamored-with-just-about-all-facets-of-soaring sailplane
pilot, I'm enjoying this particular thread for multiple reasons.

By way of trying to more clearly illustrate a point I'll make below,
I've taken the liberty of rearranging (and editing for brevity's sake)
the order of the two posts below, because the rational engineer in me
kinda choked on what seems to me a gross
misrepresentation/oversimplification of a reasoned and thoughtfully
expressed point of view. So count me as someone who has no problem with
agreeing to disagree, but who does have a problem with misrepresentation
of a another's view along the way to expressing one's own opinion.

On 8/20/2015 12:08 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4,
wrote:
I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If
tactical use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it -

I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions
(with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for
skill and judgement. EXACTLY!

The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I
admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict:
whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function
it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of
getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed
opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are
and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we
are about soaring competition.

We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and
then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight
logging.

Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest
levels?
Major snip

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to
safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira
Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite
fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it
easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider
as a valid parameter.

Chip Bearden ASW 24 "JB" U.S.A.

FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition
Mode), there will still be leeches.
Snip

This debate really comes down to people who don't like/want change and
people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation)
into the mix.
Snip

Sean

For the record, I've never met either of the above posters (and after
this whiny post, both may hope to keep things that way!)...

Geez Louise, Sean, do you REALLY imagine JB's argument comes down to his
view on change? (I, for one, don't. Were I to attempt to put words in
JB's mouth I'd probably say something like: "This debate really comes
down to people who wish to limit the use of FLARM to the vision 'sold to
the gliding community by FLARM's creators,' and those who would like to
use ALL of its presently-perceived capabilities.")

Respectfully, Bob W.

I'm prolly gonna regret this, but the anal part of me insists I not let this
slide into silent oblivion, since it reasonably appears I'm being accused of
putting words in someone else's mouth...

So, OK, your reply to my post raised a smidgen of doubt in my mind...had I or
had I not seen a post from you, where a rather lengthy response was top-posted
to another rather lengthy post from JB? (That dual-input post was the post to
which I replied by changing the order and then editing-by-snipping.) Turns out
I had, both on nntp.aioe.org and news.eternal-september.org as read via
Thunderbird. I went back and looked in those places because where I first
looked for archival material - Google's archives - showed only a single,
sans-JB post from you in this thread...though it also shoes a recently deleted
post, which I'm guessing is the one from which I edited?

I'm not asking for an explanation, simply attempting to set my little part of
this particular record straight.

If I seem to have put words in your mouth that you feel are unwarranted, I
apologize.

Bob W.