PowerFLARM leeching comments

Where have you seen a 10 o clock alert in flarm?
Which display have you seen, from Flarm, showing a 10 o clock field?


"folken" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:26:44 PM UTC+2, Chris Nicholas wrote:
Just in case this too is not obvious, bear in mind that if you are in high
speed wave or ridge, and fly into wind slower than the wind speed, you
will go backwards. So Flarm’s “12 o’clock” is behind you, in your visual 6
o’clock. Bearings/azimuth to other contacts will be related to that.

That is true. The effect is also an issue with crosswind. Flarm may show you
a 10 o clock alert for an 11 o clock target.
- Folken

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:53:56 +0200, pcool wrote:

Where have you seen a 10 o clock alert in flarm?
Which display have you seen, from Flarm, showing a 10 o clock field?

I think Folken is referring to what the original small 'ring of LEDs'
FLARM display shows you. Its angular resolution is pretty coarse and the
vertical resolution ('above you' or 'below you) is even coarser. As a
result, I tend to scan a fairly wide sky segment (maybe 45 degrees wide
and high) to pick up the bandit. This is probably a wide enough scan to
allow for the difference between heading and track under most thermal
conditions.

I haven't (yet) used FLARM for ridge or wave soaring, which is when the
difference between heading and track could be much larger.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

At 23:35 21 October 2012, wrote:
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:

I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing pilots to lessen
the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.

Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision. It
gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.
Hope that is clear,


Dave,

it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate,
it
isn't entirely correct. Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational
awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition
does exactly that. The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode
might
not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate

action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. Just my $0.02

Frank (TA)

From the FLARM manual

"Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation
awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the
use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM® off for tactical
reasons."
There is no way that the above can be interpreted in any way other than the
safety benefits are reduced. Do you really want to be seen being
responsible for telling pilots to reduce safety?

http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:45:03 AM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 23:35 21 October 2012, wrote:

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:



I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing pilots to lessen

the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.



Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision. It

gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.

Hope that is clear,





Dave,



it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate,

it

isn't entirely correct. Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational

awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition

does exactly that. The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode

might

not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate



action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. Just my $0.02



Frank (TA)



From the FLARM manual



"Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation

awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend the

use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM® off for tactical

reasons."

There is no way that the above can be interpreted in any way other than the

safety benefits are reduced. Do you really want to be seen being

responsible for telling pilots to reduce safety?



http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

It's a matter of how much warning and of what type is useful and actionable..

You have not actually flown with PowerFlarm "radar", have you?

The amount of head down time required to develop any actionable information from present flarm radar screens is scary large. In fact I would argue that given only flarm/butterfly panel mount displays currently available we'll be safer with everyone in stealth mode simply because there will be less to look at on the panel and eyes may stay outside a little more. 3rd parties will solve the display problem even if Flarm doesn't, but the fact remains that radar in open mode shows you mostly targets that are not and will never become collision threats.

Read (I tire of saying this) the dataport spec. Page 19. It describes in detail what stealth mode actually does. Among other things, you'll find that it still displays all radar targets that might become a collision threat.. I can make the argument that this enhances safety because it does not so clutter the display with non-threats.

Evan Ludeman / T8

At 11:40 28 October 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:45:03 AM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 23:35 21 October 2012, wrote:
=20
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
=20
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
=20
=20
=20
I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing pilots to
lesse=
n
=20
the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.
=20
=20
=20
Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.
It
=20
gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.
=20
Hope that is clear,
=20
=20
=20

=20
Dave,
=20

=20
it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically
accurate,
=20
it
=20
isn't entirely correct. Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational
=20
awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by
definition
=20
does exactly that. The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth
mode
=20
might
=20
not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate
=20
=20
=20
action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. Just my $0.02
=20

=20
Frank (TA)
=20
=20
=20
From the FLARM manual
=20
=20
=20
"Stealth mode inherently reduces some of the benefits of situation
=20
awareness for yourself and surrounding aircraft. We do not recommend
the
=20
use of Stealth mode, but it is better than turning FLARM=AE off for
tacti=
cal
=20
reasons."
=20
There is no way that the above can be interpreted in any way other than
t=
he
=20
safety benefits are reduced. Do you really want to be seen being
=20
responsible for telling pilots to reduce safety?
=20
=20
=20
http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

It's a matter of how much warning and of what type is useful and
actionable=
.. =20

You have not actually flown with PowerFlarm "radar", have you?

The amount of head down time required to develop any actionable
information=
from present flarm radar screens is scary large. In fact I would argue
th=
at given only flarm/butterfly panel mount displays currently available
we'l=
l be safer with everyone in stealth mode simply because there will be
less
=
to look at on the panel and eyes may stay outside a little more. 3rd
parti=
es will solve the display problem even if Flarm doesn't, but the fact
remai=
ns that radar in open mode shows you mostly targets that are not and will
n=
ever become collision threats.

Read (I tire of saying this) the dataport spec. Page 19. It describes
in
=
detail what stealth mode actually does. Among other things, you'll find
th=
at it still displays all radar targets that might become a collision
threat=
.. I can make the argument that this enhances safety because it does not
so=
clutter the display with non-threats.

Evan Ludeman / T8

No, but I have flown with an LX800, not that this has anything to do with
it at all. I would rather take the advice of the makers of the instrument
and those who have been using FLARM for some time. Stealth mode is no
longer required here for competitions, the full mode can be used. FLARM are
very clear, "We do NOT recommend the use of stealth mode", which part of
that do you not understand. You ignore it at your peril or perhaps more
likely to the peril of others.

On Oct 28, 4:00*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
[snip]

No, but I have flown with an LX800, not that this has anything to do with
it at all. I would rather take the advice of the makers of the instrument
and those who have been using FLARM for some time. Stealth mode is no
longer required here for competitions, the full mode can be used. FLARM are
very clear, "We do NOT recommend the use of stealth mode", which part of
that do you not understand. You ignore it at your peril or perhaps more
likely to the peril of others.

Just to be clear on this: I do have competition experience with the
equipment we're discussing.

Where I disagree with Flarm -- based on my experience -- is on the
utility of the "radar" display for collision avoidance. It's a net
negative based on the amount of head down time required to develop any
useful situational awareness from the display. Try it. You'll see.

Stealth mode affects *only* information displayed in "radar" mode --
information straight from Flarm. No effect at all in the anti-
collision warning mode. There seems to be a lot of nearly willful
misunderstanding on this issue.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

The butterfly display has 2 types of displays:
1 - radar display for situational awareness
2- led like display for collision alert. It automatically switch to this mode when it detects collision risk.
Which one are you referring to?

Ramy

On Monday, October 29, 2012 12:36:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
The butterfly display has 2 types of displays:

1 - radar display for situational awareness

2- led like display for collision alert. It automatically switch to this mode when it detects collision risk.

Which one are you referring to?



Ramy

There is actually a 3rd display which is totally useless and on most of the time (the one with the HUGE red butterfly). Why don't Butterfly use this real estate for something useful? Almost anything else is more useful (battery voltage, Lat/Lon, "friendly" traffic nearby, altitude, you-name-it, etc.)

-Jim

On Monday, October 29, 2012 9:46:58 AM UTC-7, Jim wrote:
On Monday, October 29, 2012 12:36:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:

There is actually a 3rd display which is totally useless and on most of the time (the one with the HUGE red butterfly). Why don't Butterfly use this real estate for something useful? Almost anything else is more useful (battery voltage, Lat/Lon, "friendly" traffic nearby, altitude, you-name-it, etc.)



-Jim

+1, I'm with you on that. Also give us the option to display local time instead of UTC please.

bumper

On Oct 29, 12:36*pm, Ramy wrote:
The butterfly display has 2 types of displays:
1 - radar display for situational awareness
2- led like display for collision alert. It automatically switch to this mode when it detects collision risk.
Which one are you referring to?

Ramy

I'm disparaging the #1 radar display, of course. The one where a) you
have to squint in order to read the scale, the relative altitude and
climb rate, b) you have to scroll through the targets in order to
decide which target you want relative alt and climb rate info for. We
are doing a somewhat better job of displaying the same raw data with
ClearNav (2.2.0.38 should be available for public beta testing very
shortly) but I think your eyeballs are better employed looking out the
window.

Pretty much everyone likes the #2 collision warning display, which is
fast, effective and intuitive.

Evan Ludeman / T8