PowerFLARM leeching comments

Perhaps this is a good summary of the various opinions skeptical of stealth mode:

Collision avoidance is enhanced by situational awareness, of gliders that you are not actually on a collision path towards. This is especially true of "carbon gliders with spotty contact." If you know there are 5 gliders in the gaggle, and where the ones you can't see are, you're less likely to miss one, or no know what to do when an alert goes off, than if they are all blanked from the screen. This does seem like a "real world" difficulty of stealth mode.

(And Dave, sorry for "gratuitous obnoxious comments." You are doing heroic work with Flarm, and hearing only the complaints when things aren't already perfect.)

John Cochrane

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:26:38 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
Diving or pulling my not work since both pilots may do the same thing, but both banking right will do the trick.


Don't forget that FLARM traffic orientation is relative to your TRACK not your HEADING. In other words traffic at 12 O'clock on your FLARM display will not be at your nose if you are flying with a crosswind.

The correct direction to turn in a head on situation was discussed at length and heatedly in UK RAS a couple of years ago. If after years of usage they couldn't agree, how can you be so sure?

I asked years ago if US PowerFLARM would be integrated with other available sensors to provide a useful heading referenced display but the question fell on stony ground.

Andy

It sounds as if some of our leaders may have already come to some significant conclusions about PowerFlarm data and a new rule effort.

My experience is that PowerFlarm is not NEARLY reliable enough at range outside of 1 mile to leech effectively. The data is simply not reliable vs using your eyes. Perhaps we should consider banning eyes with vision better than say, 20/40 or new glasses before wasting time on this. :-) Occasionally I get a hit on a glider at longer range, which is nice. But leeching off the climb rate data at a significant distance. Not a chance.

PowerFlarm is a fantastic close proximity AUDIBLE collision alert system for me when flying in an environment full of other gliders. It has effectively alerted me to MANY gliders which I was not aware of and were in close proximity. That said, I rarely ever look at the actual screen unless it beeps a loud audible warning. I have have far better things to look at. If necessary to "leech", I can see and follow the heard visually with far better acuity and effectiveness.

Is there anything better to do in regards to rules than discussion on banning PowerFlarm and potentially hindering badly needed (my opinion of course) adoption? PowerFlarm is basically useless until A) everyone has one and B) everyone has one installed properly. I believe placing hurdles in between us and that goal is unnecessary. We desperately want to save the next pilot from a horrible, unnecessary collision. We need greater adoption to ensure that accident does not happen.

Perhaps someone should study and proves (at least confirms its possible) that PowerFlarm and the full data stream is consistently reliable enough to leech more effectively than without before considering bans? How about some testing of that "hypothesis" before prescribing the costly fix and sending the soaring suppliers scrambling? Ill admit I have not tried leeching with my PowerFlarm but from what I have seen with reliable range, I just cant believe it is being seriously discussed. Or perhaps this has already been proven? Has it?

I believe the tracking features PowerFlarm has marketed are basically fantasy outside of 1 (maybe 2 at times) miles. I just don't see FLARM targets outside of that range in my glider. My PowerFlarm antenna is in the perfect location and installed well. ADSB on the other hand I see easily at 20 miles +. But is the PowerFlarm range far enough out to "leech" other sailplanes from several miles out....I do not think so.

Are we defending against reality or the PowerFlarm/LX/"whatever" marketing hype?

Best,

Sean
F2

On Monday, October 22, 2012 1:04:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Perhaps this is a good summary of the various opinions skeptical of stealth mode:



Collision avoidance is enhanced by situational awareness, of gliders that you are not actually on a collision path towards. This is especially true of "carbon gliders with spotty contact." If you know there are 5 gliders in the gaggle, and where the ones you can't see are, you're less likely to miss one, or no know what to do when an alert goes off, than if they are all blanked from the screen. This does seem like a "real world" difficulty of stealth mode.



(And Dave, sorry for "gratuitous obnoxious comments." You are doing heroic work with Flarm, and hearing only the complaints when things aren't already perfect.)



John Cochrane

This is an important point which should have been emphasized in the manual, or I missed it. I bet not many are aware that the bearing to the target is based on track not heading. The error is relatively small at lower wind speed, but can be significant in strong cross wind especially at slow flight.
Thanks for pointing this out.
I am interested to hear what other methods of evasion (between gliders when there is no visual contact) are suggested. Perhaps diving or pulling are better since they are instantaneous and assuming that both gliders don't start at the same time and the same rate will result in much faster separation than turning.
This is an important topic worth discussing.


Ramy

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:11:08 AM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
It sounds as if some of our leaders may have already come to some significant conclusions about PowerFlarm data and a new rule effort. My experience is that PowerFlarm is not NEARLY reliable enough at range outside of 1 mile to leech effectively. The data is simply not reliable vs using your eyes. Perhaps we should consider banning eyes with vision better than say, 20/40 or new glasses before wasting time on this. :-) Occasionally I get a hit on a glider at longer range, which is nice. But leeching off the climb rate data at a significant distance. Not a chance. PowerFlarm is a fantastic close proximity AUDIBLE collision alert system for me when flying in an environment full of other gliders. It has effectively alerted me to MANY gliders which I was not aware of and were in close proximity. That said, I rarely ever look at the actual screen unless it beeps a loud audible warning. I have have far better things to look at. If necessary to "leech", I can see and follow the heard visually with far better acuity and effectiveness. Is there anything better to do in regards to rules than discussion on banning PowerFlarm and potentially hindering badly needed (my opinion of course) adoption? PowerFlarm is basically useless until A) everyone has one and B) everyone has one installed properly. I believe placing hurdles in between us and that goal is unnecessary. We desperately want to save the next pilot from a horrible, unnecessary collision. We need greater adoption to ensure that accident does not happen. Perhaps someone should study and proves (at least confirms its possible) that PowerFlarm and the full data stream is consistently reliable enough to leech more effectively than without before considering bans? How about some testing of that "hypothesis" before prescribing the costly fix and sending the soaring suppliers scrambling? Ill admit I have not tried leeching with my PowerFlarm but from what I have seen with reliable range, I just cant believe it is being seriously discussed. Or perhaps this has already been proven? Has it? I believe the tracking features PowerFlarm has marketed are basically fantasy outside of 1 (maybe 2 at times) miles. I just don't see FLARM targets outside of that range in my glider. My PowerFlarm antenna is in the perfect location and installed well. ADSB on the other hand I see easily at 20 miles +. But is the PowerFlarm range far enough out to "leech" other sailplanes from several miles out....I do not think so. Are we defending against reality or the PowerFlarm/LX/"whatever" marketing hype? Best, Sean F2 On Monday, October 22, 2012 1:04:53 PM UTC-4, wrote: Perhaps this is a good summary of the various opinions skeptical of stealth mode: Collision avoidance is enhanced by situational awareness, of gliders that you are not actually on a collision path towards. This is especially true of "carbon gliders with spotty contact." If you know there are 5 gliders in the gaggle, and where the ones you can't see are, you're less likely to miss one, or no know what to do when an alert goes off, than if they are all blanked from the screen. This does seem like a "real world" difficulty of stealth mode. (And Dave, sorry for "gratuitous obnoxious comments." You are doing heroic work with Flarm, and hearing only the complaints when things aren't already perfect.) John Cochrane

I have no idea where you have gotten the idea that there is any consideration of banning Flarm. The Rules Committee has supported and encouraged adoption of this technology from the start. We have been asked to make a statement of support. The RC strongly encourages the adoption of Flarm technology in US competition sailplanes.
There are a variety of opinions about the issue of Flarm being a useful leech tool. My personal experience, while limited, shows it has the strong potential to be very useful in this regard.
The possibility of implementation of some sort of Stealth mode is a real consideration for the future as more experience becomes available. The potential affect on the sport is profound. The pilot poll asks for pilot input associated with this issue. Certainly no limitations will be imposed without testing and evaluation at the regional level.
Any pilots that have not participated in the poll are strongly encoraged to provide their input. The poll closes on 10/26.
UH
US RC Chair

On Monday, October 22, 2012 10:34:23 PM UTC-5, Andy wrote:
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:26:38 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:

Diving or pulling my not work since both pilots may do the same thing, but both banking right will do the trick.





Don't forget that FLARM traffic orientation is relative to your TRACK not your HEADING. In other words traffic at 12 O'clock on your FLARM display will not be at your nose if you are flying with a crosswind.



The correct direction to turn in a head on situation was discussed at length and heatedly in UK RAS a couple of years ago. If after years of usage they couldn't agree, how can you be so sure?



I asked years ago if US PowerFLARM would be integrated with other available sensors to provide a useful heading referenced display but the question fell on stony ground.



Andy

But regardelss of your HEADING, your TRACK will turn right when you bank right. To avoid collision your TRACK needs to change. You may not be looking at the correct portion of sky but the goal of avoiding collision by having both pilots bank to the right will still be achieved. The only difference is in the windy scenario you'll be in a crab orientation when you see the other glider pass to your left rather than in a straight on orientation.

I meant restriction on telemetry data (stealth mode), not a complete ban.

The Flarm people still don't have the damn logger function working. They have struggled a bit out of the blocks to say the least. The last thing they need is to have their attention drawn into perfecting stealth mode. That may cause more problems, etc.

Lets focus on PowerFlarm adoption 100%. Lets establish the reality of the systems performance and measure average useful range (and its practical usefulness) before installing limits, restrictions, etc aimed at preventing supposed "Flarm leeching".

The marketing slick is far different than reality even in my glider which has exceptional antenna position (max height and central).

Sean
F2

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