If You've Flown a FLARM Stealth Contest, Vote Here

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:19:13 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:15:16 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
At 07:22 15 December 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
For the avoidance of any doubt, I have e-mails from Urban Mäder,
Chief Technical Officer at FLARM who confirms that if one unit has
STEALTH mode selected then all other units, in any mode, receive a
downgraded data set from that unit.

No one is going to take your word for that Don. Publish the emails - or are
they secret?

I read the FLARM published information differently and I quote from the
FTD14 document:

'Stealth mode. Instructs all receiving FLARM devices that the received data
must not be made accessible (...to display devices) in real-time full
precision, except for the purpose of collision warning.'

This does NOT say that the transmitted data is degraded. You would appear
to be promulgating a myth.

Whether the information is not transmitted, not received, or simply not provided for display is of identical consequence, operationally.

I think this is not true, based upon the above.
If my information is sent, it is available, with limitations to my competitors using Stealth, and is available to all others in range without such limitations.
UH

Data "pre flarm warning" (i.e. situational awareness, one of the key benefits of flarm, i.e. knowing a glider is nearby that you otherwise may not have, up to the point a normal flarm mode collision alarm would normally sound) sure sounds like downgraded flarm "data" data to me... Perhaps obfuscated is a better term. But what would I know. I just ran a good chunk of a company that spent a good deal of time consulting F500 companies and including many innovative product companies (even some military) on all kinds of UI design....

Again, I think the concept of "stealth mode" needs some significant engineering and integrated strategy cycles if this is going to become common in crowded glider competition enviornments. Personally, I do not believe stealth mode is ready for prime time. It's true that flarm itself does not strongly recommend "stealth" (terrible name by the way), I think more study and a more mature (and public) program to better train pilots on flarm installation and usage are prudent before making any major US (or IGC) rule changes (sigh).

Can anyone show me the YouTube video that shows clear examples of head on warnings in normal and stealth mode and trains us on what to expect? No? That's what I though. Again, sigh...

I look forward to some videos to ease concern and help the community understand what the flarm will do. Of course we would do this before changing the rule, right? Or are we jumping into the lion pit all together, again? ;-)

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 8:38:35 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:19:13 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:15:16 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
At 07:22 15 December 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
For the avoidance of any doubt, I have e-mails from Urban Mäder,
Chief Technical Officer at FLARM who confirms that if one unit has
STEALTH mode selected then all other units, in any mode, receive a
downgraded data set from that unit.

No one is going to take your word for that Don. Publish the emails - or are
they secret?

I read the FLARM published information differently and I quote from the
FTD14 document:

'Stealth mode. Instructs all receiving FLARM devices that the received data
must not be made accessible (...to display devices) in real-time full
precision, except for the purpose of collision warning.'

This does NOT say that the transmitted data is degraded. You would appear
to be promulgating a myth.

Whether the information is not transmitted, not received, or simply not provided for display is of identical consequence, operationally.

I think this is not true, based upon the above.
If my information is sent, it is available, with limitations to my competitors using Stealth, and is available to all others in range without such limitations.
UH

All,

Stealth information masking is implemented on the receive end, but AFAIK it works like this: If you configure stealth no one, regardless of their setting will see anything but the information designated in the stealth spec (2km range except for active alarms, no climb or ID, etc). In addition your display will only receive information on ALL other gliders (regardless of their configuration stealth) as specified in the stealth spec.

It is possible, based on the recent UK experience with jets carrying Flarm to see glider traffic - and their dislike of stealth limitations, that stealth will be redesigned (at some point in the future) so that this reciprocity feature will be eliminated, making stealth apply only to the display of information on the display of the glider configuring for stealth mode. Any glider not in stealth mode will see fully unfiltered Flarm data, including gliders that are operating in stealth mode. This is not currently how it works, and the future spec could easily change.

This obviously has implications for how you would implement stealth at contests, making inspection and verification much more important since one rogue pilot (who previously would not have benefitted at all) now sees everything and everyone else sees only stealth-filtered information.

9B

At 16:58 15 December 2015, Andy Blackburn wrote:

This obviously has implications for how you would implement stealth at
cont=
ests, making inspection and verification much more important since one
rogu=
e pilot (who previously would not have benefitted at all) now sees
everythi=
ng and everyone else sees only stealth-filtered information.

9B


There is no reason that scrutiny cannot be electronic. Flarm writes its
stealth mode into its own IGC file. It must transmit an indicator too for
the stealth to work but I do not know whether the receiver records this
status in its IGC file.

Then simple software would be able to scan the IGC files and see who is
operating with and without stealth turned on.

Jim

At 12:06 15 December 2015, Jim White wrote:
At 07:22 15 December 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
For the avoidance of any doubt, I have e-mails from Urban
Mäder,
Chief Technical Officer at FLARM who confirms that if one unit
has
STEALTH mode selected then all other units, in any mode,
receive a
downgraded data set from that unit.

No one is going to take your word for that Don. Publish the emails
- or ar
they secret?

I read the FLARM published information differently and I quote
from th
FTD14 document:

'Stealth mode. Instructs all receiving FLARM devices that the
received dat
must not be made accessible (...to display devices) in real-time ful
precision, except for the purpose of collision warning.'

This does NOT say that the transmitted data is degraded. You
would appea
to be promulgating a myth.

On Monday, 29 June 2015, 22:23, Urban Mäder
wrote:

Dear Don

Stealth mode is symmetric. If at least either of the two (sending and
receiving) aircraft have stealth mode enabled, the dataset is
reduced in both units, as defined in the release notes.

We are in close contact with Brian Spreckley and Russel Cheetham.
While we at FLARM still think it is better not to use stealth mode, we
do acknowledge the issue of unfair advantage during comps may
exist.

We are currently trying to optimize stealth mode such that it does
not impact safety in any way. Also note that since the 6.0 release,
the amount of information output in stealth mode has been vastly
increased, exactly due to these concerns. As of now, all gliders in a
2km radius are fully visible (track information is still missing, but
will be added in the next release).

I hope this answers your questions.

Best
Urban


--
Dr. Urban Mäder, CTO
Flarm Technology Ltd.

Lindenstrasse 4, CH-6340 Baar, Switzerland
Office: +41 41 760 85 63
Mobile: +41 79 433 83 24
Fax: +41 41 760 85 65

www.flarm.com

At 17:20 15 December 2015, Jim White wrote:
At 16:58 15 December 2015, Andy Blackburn wrote:

This obviously has implications for how you would implement
stealth at
cont=
ests, making inspection and verification much more important
since one
rogu=
e pilot (who previously would not have benefitted at all) now
sees
everythi=
ng and everyone else sees only stealth-filtered information.

9B


There is no reason that scrutiny cannot be electronic. Flarm
writes it
stealth mode into its own IGC file. It must transmit an indicator
too fo
the stealth to work but I do not know whether the receiver
records thi
status in its IGC file.

Then simple software would be able to scan the IGC files and see
who i
operating with and without stealth turned on.

Jim

But if you do not use FLARM as your official logger the the contest
organisation will never see your FLARM file. The same thing applies
if you use a second, third party unit which is not in stealth mode
and sees everything.
To be an effective restriction the STEALTH mode has to operate on
the "sending" unit, which it is at present but as I have pointed out
this effects all other FLARM units, whether they are set to STEALTH
or not. It has the potential of reducing the information available to
non-competitors and that is not acceptable.

At 17:20 15 December 2015, Jim White wrote:
At 16:58 15 December 2015, Andy Blackburn wrote:

This obviously has implications for how you would implement stealth at
cont=
ests, making inspection and verification much more important since one
rogu=
e pilot (who previously would not have benefitted at all) now sees
everythi=
ng and everyone else sees only stealth-filtered information.

9B


There is no reason that scrutiny cannot be electronic. Flarm writes it
stealth mode into its own IGC file. It must transmit an indicator too fo
the stealth to work but I do not know whether the receiver records thi
status in its IGC file.

Then simple software would be able to scan the IGC files and see who i
operating with and without stealth turned on.

Jim

Unfortunately potential changes could also make cheating easy !!
If a non stealthed Flarm can see everyone, its then very easy to cheat the
system by buying another Flarm and configuring it to be in non stealth mode
and disabling the transmit by cutting a single pin on the pcb.
Then you have a secret extra Flarm that can see everybody and there is no
way to detect it ?

At 17:20 15 December 2015, Jim White wrote:
At 16:58 15 December 2015, Andy Blackburn wrote:

This obviously has implications for how you would implement stealth at
cont=
ests, making inspection and verification much more important since one
rogu=
e pilot (who previously would not have benefitted at all) now sees
everythi=
ng and everyone else sees only stealth-filtered information.

9B


There is no reason that scrutiny cannot be electronic. Flarm writes it
stealth mode into its own IGC file. It must transmit an indicator too fo
the stealth to work but I do not know whether the receiver records thi
status in its IGC file.

Then simple software would be able to scan the IGC files and see who i
operating with and without stealth turned on.

Jim

Unfortunately potential changes could also make cheating easy !!
If a non stealthed Flarm can see everyone, its then very easy to cheat the
system by buying another Flarm and configuring it to be in non stealth mode
and disabling the transmit by cutting a single pin on the pcb.
Then you have a secret extra Flarm that can see everybody and there is no
way to detect it ?

In Elmira we were required to submit the FLARM file - even if we did not use the Flarm file for the contest.

If the real worry is about having several Flarms configured differently in the same glider... just to cheat - then you have a problem you can NEVER solve.

Without much imagination a pilot who is willing to break the rules can easily cheat (and I know they could be out there) - it is unstoppable (but also a little hard to hide eventually). If found out ban the pilot... period.

I do not post much here ... but the real question seems to be - open the cockpit to all technology or make restrictions/rules to technology to make the sport reflect the flavor the participants would like to see.

I felt safe in Elmira - I like rules to restrict some technology use in competition, as I would hate to have Soaring get so high tech no one could afford to compete or need a IT PHD.

Seems to me the RC sets the rules and revisits them often... some pilots try to stretch them... which all good - in the end we all agree to follow those rules - cheating is the thing that has the potential to undermine the sport. and I chose to believe Sailplane pilots are made of better stuff.

gotta love democracy, even when you lose the argument

WH1

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48:33 AM UTC-8, wrote:
In Elmira we were required to submit the FLARM file - even if we did not use the Flarm file for the contest.

If the real worry is about having several Flarms configured differently in the same glider... just to cheat - then you have a problem you can NEVER solve.

Without much imagination a pilot who is willing to break the rules can easily cheat (and I know they could be out there) - it is unstoppable (but also a little hard to hide eventually). If found out ban the pilot... period..

I do not post much here ... but the real question seems to be - open the cockpit to all technology or make restrictions/rules to technology to make the sport reflect the flavor the participants would like to see.

I felt safe in Elmira - I like rules to restrict some technology use in competition, as I would hate to have Soaring get so high tech no one could afford to compete or need a IT PHD.

Seems to me the RC sets the rules and revisits them often... some pilots try to stretch them... which all good - in the end we all agree to follow those rules - cheating is the thing that has the potential to undermine the sport. and I chose to believe Sailplane pilots are made of better stuff.

gotta love democracy, even when you lose the argument

WH1

I agree that cheating is easy (and there are far more effective ways than anything to do with Flarm). However I think the cost argument is specious: electronics are cheap and always get cheaper. On the other hand you are without doubt going to be more competitive in an ASG 29 than an ASW20, an upgrade that costs north of US$100K. To have spent that sum, and then complain about $2000 spent on electronics by another, is irrational.

Against that background the whole Flarm controversy could be solved in an instant by simply making a rule against leeching - except no one knows what that actually is well enough to define it.