PowerFLARM leeching comments

On Nov 1, 7:42*pm, Richard wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:23*am, Mike the Strike wrote: I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. *My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas *is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. *The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of *the"stealth" mode. Mike Mike, I had exactly that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near cloudbase at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120 mph over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the southwest and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My Butterfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight ahead and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3 pass me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was around 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I have no problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT)

Tim,

I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le Display, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, *so I do not recommend the Stealth Mode. * More time to identify the threat is much better..

Richardwww.craggyaero.com

Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle
of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack
traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a
foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the
one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius
of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply
don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few
minutes.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:01:12 PM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:42*pm, Richard wrote: On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote: On Nov 1, 9:23*am, Mike the Strike wrote: I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. *My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas *is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. *The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of *the"stealth" mode. Mike Mike, I had exactly that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near cloudbase at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120 mph over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the southwest and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My Butterfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight ahead and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3 pass me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was around 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I have no problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT) Tim, I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le Display, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, *so I do not recommend the Stealth Mode. * More time to identify the threat is much better. Richardwww.craggyaero..com Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few minutes. Evan Ludeman / T8

Change your zoom on the Ultimate Le and you will only see the ones closer. The lady discriminates the threat with a voice warning "traffic 5 oclock 50 feet low"



Richard
www.craggyaero.com

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:01:12 PM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:42*pm, Richard wrote: On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote: On Nov 1, 9:23*am, Mike the Strike wrote: I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. *My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas *is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. *The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of *the"stealth" mode. Mike Mike, I had exactly that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near cloudbase at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120 mph over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the southwest and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My Butterfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight ahead and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3 pass me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was around 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I have no problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT) Tim, I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le Display, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, *so I do not recommend the Stealth Mode. * More time to identify the threat is much better. Richardwww.craggyaero..com Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few minutes. Evan Ludeman / T8

On SeeYou Mobile you can also set the zoom level that shows the Flarm Radar..

Always , Never, 1,2,5,10,20 nm you may want it at higher levels for situational awareness and to see fast moving ADS-B. I saw an ADS-B target that was coming out of Grant County at a climb rate of +6000 fpm and moving fast.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

At 00:01 02 November 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:42=A0pm, Richard wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:23=A0am, Mike the Strike wrote: I ha=
ve had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one
incide=
nt a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague
a=
t very high closing speeds. =A0My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy
an=
tennas =A0is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me
in
=
this scenario. =A0The more information the unit can provide the better -
th=
at is why I oppose use of =A0the"stealth" mode. Mike Mike, I had
exactl=
y that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near
cloudba=
se at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120
mph=
over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the
southwes=
t and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My
But=
terfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight
ahead=
and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3
pass=
me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was
ar=
ound 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I
have
no=
problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT)

Tim,

I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le
D=
isplay, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, =A0so I do not
reco=
mmend the Stealth Mode. =A0 More time to identify the threat is much
better=
..

Richardwww.craggyaero.com

Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle
of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack
traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a
foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the
one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius
of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply
don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few
minutes.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan,

Just to be clear, you see the traffic 4 miles out but you only get the
collision
warning message when it close enough to be a potential collision warning.

When you have flown in a Flarm rich environment for a season, you will
understand why putting it in stealth mode feels like flying with a
blindfold on.

Mike

Yes Mike (and Richard too),

There is no question that Flarm is a great tool for soaring. The issue here is should we use full range and information during contests.

Are we willing to change the sport so much and at what price? I have flown two nationals with Flarm and it was interesting. But, I personally feel it changes the sport too much in the full mode. It will spark an arms race of additional information and software analysis.

It allows easy leaching and changes the tactical flying style. You can see what gliders up to nearly ten miles away are doing.

At the nationals level I feel we should have Flarm in stealth mode. This provides the safety it was developed for, but allows pilots to focus on their own decision making and not on what pilots two to three miles away are doing.

I look forward to all the information that Flarm and new software will provide in flight, just also want to preserve the essence of competition soaring which is pilot against pilot.

Tim

I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of the"stealth" mode.


Mike,

we all know the history we had with poor range beginning of this season.

But I do think we have that under control now. If you still find 'cheesy' installations,
feel free to invite the responsible operators to improve them in everybody's interest.

Luckily, there's a correlation between the reception characteristics of most
installations and the conflict situation with highest approach speed (head-on)---
most antennas are in the nose and radiate best in front of the glider.

For parallel course, you don't need 10NM range because the potential closing
speeds are much lower.

We recommend not activating stealth!

Best
--Gerhard

On Nov 2, 4:23*am, wrote:

We recommend not activating stealth!

Best
--Gerhard

Presuming that the systems and installations in use have been well
tested in open mode for adequate range in all directions in open mode:
why not?

I really only want one thing from flarm: anti-collision warning.
Tracking "bugs" across a small cockpit display and trying to make
tactical decisions based on same is simply not a game I am interested
in playing.

Evan Ludeman / T8

I recall hearing that Flarm was developed to attempt to address the issue of mid air collisions and collisions with obstacles in the Alps. There is a big issue with coming around the corner of a rock and there is another glider. They also have a huge number of wires and such that you can't see.

Maybe the Flarm folks can clarify this bit of history. I'm sure we all would like to know.

FLARM has been designed and deployed since the beginning for gliders and light aviation.
It has *not* been designed specifically for wave flight, but rather to cover a wide range
of situations where the human eye can fail. (Wave flight accounts only for a very
small percentage of flight time at least here in the Alps, so the benefit would've been minimal).

The FLARM algorithm is general enough to support any type of aircraft and maneuvers,
with the exception perhaps of aerobatics.

Initially, most installations were in gliders, but tow planes and other GA aircraft
soon followed.

The collision algorithm does work in wave, however with the caveat that the relative
bearing may be off because of the wind influence. This is covered in the manual.
(BTW, the relative bearing will also be off if you fly inverted!

I hope this clarifies a few questions!

Best
--Gerhard

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:57:01 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
Yes Mike (and Richard too), There is no question that Flarm is a great tool for soaring. The issue here is should we use full range and information during contests. Are we willing to change the sport so much and at what price? I have flown two nationals with Flarm and it was interesting. But, I personally feel it changes the sport too much in the full mode. It will spark an arms race of additional information and software analysis. It allows easy leaching and changes the tactical flying style. You can see what gliders up to nearly ten miles away are doing. At the nationals level I feel we should have Flarm in stealth mode. This provides the safety it was developed for, but allows pilots to focus on their own decision making and not on what pilots two to three miles away are doing. I look forward to all the information that Flarm and new software will provide in flight, just also want to preserve the essence of competition soaring which is pilot against pilot. Tim

This states the case very well. It will be interesting to see how many will agree with your view. Personally, I do, but know we need to get enough experience to allow the group to guide the long term situation.
UH

On Nov 2, 1:23*am, wrote:

we all know the history we had with poor range beginning of this season.
But I do think we have that under control now.

Gerhard,

Would you please sumarise what, if any, changes have been made since
the beginning of the season that would have resulted in increased
FLARM range for the US portable and core systems.

The only change I am aware of is a recall of portables to fit a band
pass filter but that recall has not yet been made.


thanks

Andy GY