PowerFLARM leeching comments

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:35:12 PM UTC-4, Craig R. wrote:
Time to state the obvious. After reading the comments in many of the recent PowerFLARM threads, many folks want to use PowerFLARM for “leeching”.. Many are asking for programs to expand and simplify the use of that data. While that information is a byproduct of the important aspect of PF collision avoidance data, I think it has hidden issues. I understand that many folks just want to say they flew X miles on today’s flight (local bragging rights or OLC standings come to mind). If they get the flight data from someone else, that is just dandy. It certainly is easier. Instead of learning from the mistakes they made and trying to improve their skills, they won’t learn and won’t improve. Unfortunately, this may give them confidence in skills they really don’t have and perhaps put them in situations they shouldn’t be in. They will just grouse that their PF reception is substandard, they couldn’t see that glider 6 nm out and what lift they were in and missed that great thermal that shortened their day.... Personally, I would prefer to look back on my flight and know that I read the terrain and weather conditions properly and made the most of the day. I can analyze my flight and know where I had issues and learn from my mistakes. I can kick myself when necessary and move on. The challenge for me is to see how well I do without any “hand holding”. Hopefully, my skills will improve and I will fly faster and farther the next time. Obviously, I’m setting myself up for major flaming here (GPS, computers, programming, etc will be brought up). However, none of those tell me which specific spot to fly to on course for a 700 fpm thermal and puts that exact location on my moving map. Only a radio call from the person in that thermal approximates that and that data is not as accurate as the PF readout. Generic radio calls happen so infrequently that it isn’t an issue (team flying may or may not give that data, depending on your partner and your relative position - and how many really team fly?). With the PF data, some of that inaccuracy goes away. Certainly, you won’t use this information on every thermal throughout the day, but 3 or 4 spotted thermals can be the difference between an average day and a very good day. Will this data go away or will people stop using it in this format? Of course not. However, I would like to see people consciously use the PF data for collision avoidance and ignore the leeching aspects. Pilots that continue to learn and improve are better and safer. That is good for everyone. I know that “ain’t going to happen” so stealth mode FTW ;-) Craig R.

You raise some good points. The US rules committee has been considering this issue since the time that Flarm became topical in the US. We are hoping pilots will provide us input via the rules poll or directly to help guide us in actions, or no actions, that may be taken in the future.
"Flarm radar" and potentially associated leeching have the potential to make profound changes in the competition segment of our sport.
UH RC Chair

This sounds pretty serious to me. "Profound changes in the competition segment of our sport." Agreed IF the system functions as promised in early marketing. What relevant data has been gathered to support this apparent position?

"You raise some good points. The US rules committee has been considering this issue since the time that Flarm became topical in the US. We are hoping pilots will provide us input via the rules poll or directly to help guide us in actions, or no actions, that may be taken in the future.
"Flarm radar" and potentially associated leeching have the potential to make profound changes in the competition segment of our sport.
UH RC Chair"

Sean
F2

I sometimes wonder if the Rules Committee lives on a different planet from the rest of us!

There is no way in hell that any contest director in the USA would mandate the use of stealth mode on an anti-collision system if this reduces its usefulness even the teeniest bit. In the event of a collision, insurance companies looking to minimize their exposure through subrogation would hold the CD at least partially responsible for the accident - spreading the cost to his or the contest's insurer. This might not be an issue in the rest of the world, but is sure is here in the USA.

No sensible person would ever mandate stealth mode here!

Mike

Ah but the beauty of FLARM Stealth mode is that you can select it youself and make yourself harder to be leeched. Sure you then lose the ability to leech off ofhers, but if you are ahead in points it makes competitive sense to be stealthy, regardless of what the CD says.

So now do we have to have the CD mandate that stealth NOT be used by individual choice (use is noted in the logger file)?

This is going to be almost as fun as the great attitude indicator argument last winter!

Kirk
66

I will be working on fast switching mode. Off when I'm behind and on when I am leading. My vote was for stealth mode for contests.

Non-stealth changes the game too much and too much time with pilots heads down looking at the displays.

I flew two nationals with it this year. It was useful for tactical information but will just lead to an arms race of upgrades in the future. The stealth mode provides plenty of safety without the additional data.

For fun flying I think it is great to keep track of the other pilots in your group.

TT

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:59:35 PM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
I sometimes wonder if the Rules Committee lives on a different planet from the rest of us!



There is no way in hell that any contest director in the USA would mandate the use of stealth mode on an anti-collision system if this reduces its usefulness even the teeniest bit. In the event of a collision, insurance companies looking to minimize their exposure through subrogation would hold the CD at least partially responsible for the accident - spreading the cost to his or the contest's insurer. This might not be an issue in the rest of the world, but is sure is here in the USA.


No sensible person would ever mandate stealth mode here!


Mike

Mike,

I dunno - I consider myself reasonably sensible. Despite that, I recently agreed to CD an SSA Regional contest; okay, so maybe I'm not that sensible :-)

I would certainly consider it... if it were shown to be properly implemented such that the conflict resolution advisories were in no way impacted. By comparison, we used to force people to dive at redline through a gate and encourage people to fly marginal final glides to a 50 foot gate. Yet, "sensible people" routinely did this.

Right now, it's all premature, as others have pointed out. Once the range and reception issues are ironed out and adoption becomes more-or-less universal, then I think there will be added incentive for display manufacturers to invest heavily in "leeching support". I'd be willing to be that one of the unintended consequences would be increased gaggling on weak blue days. But, we'll just have to see, won't we.

And no Dave, I don't believe that European experience tells us much...yet. When someone starts moving from dots and beeps to heat-maps of glider concentrations and otherwise presenting data into a format that's easily consumable by the pilots (not to mention FLARM-next-gen, with greater range and reliability, which someone will surely develop in the coming 10 years), then I think there will be some hard choices to be made.

And FWIW, I overheard one pilot at Region IV mention that he turned off his transponder just to avoid leaching. Now that's not what we want, is it? So, in a competitive environment, one can never predict exactly how people are going to behave... remember gliders loaded to way above max gross with water and lead bars taped to the spars?

P3

On 10/23/2012 10:59 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
I sometimes wonder if the Rules Committee lives on a different planet
from the rest of us!

There is no way in hell that any contest director in the USA would
mandate the use of stealth mode on an anti-collision system if this
reduces its usefulness even the teeniest bit. In the event of a
collision, insurance companies looking to minimize their exposure
through subrogation would hold the CD at least partially responsible
for the accident - spreading the cost to his or the contest's
insurer. This might not be an issue in the rest of the world, but is
sure is here in the USA.

No sensible person would ever mandate stealth mode here!

I get really concerned when people raise legal issues that seem very
tenuous, because may instill a totally unnecessary fear. Are you a
personal liability lawyer, or otherwise experienced in the law of this
sort? If not, perhaps this is just wild guessing, and should be labeled
as such?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On Oct 23, 1:59*pm, Mike the Strike wrote:
I sometimes wonder if the Rules Committee lives on a different planet from the rest of us!

There is no way in hell that any contest director in the USA would mandate the use of stealth mode on an anti-collision system if this reduces its usefulness even the teeniest bit. *In the event of a collision, insurance companies looking to minimize their exposure through subrogation would hold the CD at least partially responsible for the accident - spreading the cost to his or the contest's insurer. *This might not be an issue in the rest of the world, but is sure is here in the USA.

No sensible person would ever mandate stealth mode here!

Mike

Sowing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt based on... nothing at all. Read
the freaking manual, or in this case the dataport spec.

T8

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:35:12 PM UTC-4, Craig R. wrote:
Time to state the obvious.

It sure is.

If you aren't very close to other gliders, you're
not going to be able to leech.

How long does a thermal last ?
Not very long, and likely weak or gone when you arrive.

Will they be at your altitude when you arrive ?
Nope.

Keeping track of where other gliders went ?
Maybe, but only at short range.

Leeching ?
Not particularly helpful.

Try following a good pilot sometime, from an even position.
See how many minutes it takes for him to loose you.
Won't take long, even if you start dead even.
Especially if your head is in the cockpit playing video games.

Consequently, in Europe, "stealth mode" has proven an
irrelevant annoyance and is largely abandoned in practice.
At WGC, nobody bothered with this.

As ever, look out the cockpit for the best clues !

Hope that's helpful,
See ya, Dave

I'm with Dave on this one. Even though we have seen competitors zoom off towards a PowerFlarm target they saw climbing strongly, I am not sure this will turn out to be the advantage many wish for. I can't count the times I have ended up a thousand feet or so below a colleague climbing at ten knots to find nothing there - the thermal bubble had departed upwards!

My opinion is that knowing the location of nearby competitors is useful for both safety and tactics, but will impart no advantage if the information is available to everyone. I strongly oppose the adoption of the "stealth' mode for this reason.

Mike