PowerFLARM leeching comments

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.

On 10/17/2012 7:35 PM, 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.

"Moffat-esque philosophy" snipped...


Obviously, I’m setting myself up for major flaming here (GPS, computers,
programming, etc will be brought up).

WARNING: Attempted humor nearby. Read no further if suffering from high blood
pressure and prone to knee-jerk anger.

Craig you sub-human scum. How DARE you bring up in a public forum an aspect of
human nature that at least one multiple world champion/elitist has publicly
previously excoriated over a period of 35+ years (and apparently to little
effect)?!? === :-) ===

But seriously, funnily enough I, too, have been wondering how long before
someone pointed out this aspect of this part of the PFlarm discussion. All
this "sub-par range-angst" over non-collision-worthy distant sailplane
targets...leech targets, if you will.

Realistically, the genie is out of the bottle, and SOMEone will develop
widgetry to improve and make more accessible to Joe Average Pilot the ability
to electronically leech far beyond the contest leeching Moffat so heartily
detests. Kids can you spell: "c-a-n o-f w-o-r-m-s"?

Talk about unintended consequences!

It certainly should be an interesting - unending - discussion.

Bob W.

P.S. For a good time, read Chapter 11, "Leeches" beginning on p. 103 of George
Moffat's "Winning II".

On 10/17/2012 6:35 PM, 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.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 ;-)

Of course, you can fly without the "leeching" and learn to fly farther
and faster than the other pilots that have decided they'll use
PowerFlarm for "the difference between an average day and a very good day."

Or maybe they get that "very good day" AND learn to fly faster and
farther...

Your comments remind me so much of the mindset that was prevalent when I
got my motorglider almost 18 years ago: "it will take the excitement out
of it if you aren't going to land out", "you'll use as it a crutch and
never learn anything", and "it's cheating to have motor". That mindset
is mostly gone, as people now realize a motor is an asset to learning
soaring and to doing more soaring, because it gives you the ability to
explore without risking an early end to the flight.

PowerFlarm leeching/buddy-flying ability will give them a little bit of
what a motor does - not much more than without PowerFlarm, but enough to
allow pilots to extend their soaring, flying a bit farther and a bit
longer. And that's a good thing.

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

At 02:32 18 October 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 10/17/2012 6:35 PM, 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.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 ;-)

If everyone has the technology to "leech" it is not unfair. Consider the
case where a field of gliders launches into the blue. One pilot happens to
bimble into a really good thermal and wins the day, is that not luck?
Should luck have a place in competition? GP drivers slipstream other
drivers, they have technology to make it even more efficient. There is not
that much skill in finding lift, luck plays a big part, the skill is in
using it so perhaps, given that Pandora's box is open, developing
technology that is freely available to anyone that wants it is the only way
to level the playing field

At 02:32 18 October 2012, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 10/17/2012 6:35 PM, 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.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 ;-)

If everyone has the technology to "leech" it is not unfair. Consider the
case where a field of gliders launches into the blue. One pilot happens to
bimble into a really good thermal and wins the day, is that not luck?
Should luck have a place in competition? GP drivers slipstream other
drivers, they have technology to make it even more efficient. There is not
that much skill in finding lift, luck plays a big part, the skill is in
using it so perhaps, given that Pandora's box is open, developing
technology that is freely available to anyone that wants it is the only way
to level the playing field

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

In article ,
Don Johnstone wrote:


technology that is freely available to anyone that wants it is the only way
to level the playing field


Ha! If only it was free!

(I am being semi-facetious, I understand your point about availability)

WB
H301 Libelle
No bucks for the newest toys :-(

In article , BobW
wrote:

On 10/17/2012 7:35 PM, 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 ³leeching². 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.

"Moffat-esque philosophy" snipped...


Obviously, I¹m setting myself up for major flaming here (GPS, computers,
programming, etc will be brought up).

WARNING: Attempted humor nearby. Read no further if suffering from high blood
pressure and prone to knee-jerk anger.

Craig you sub-human scum. How DARE you bring up in a public forum an aspect
of
human nature that at least one multiple world champion/elitist has publicly
previously excoriated over a period of 35+ years (and apparently to little
effect)?!? === :-) ===

But seriously, funnily enough I, too, have been wondering how long before
someone pointed out this aspect of this part of the PFlarm discussion. All
this "sub-par range-angst" over non-collision-worthy distant sailplane
targets...leech targets, if you will.

Realistically, the genie is out of the bottle, and SOMEone will develop
widgetry to improve and make more accessible to Joe Average Pilot the ability
to electronically leech far beyond the contest leeching Moffat so heartily
detests. Kids can you spell: "c-a-n o-f w-o-r-m-s"?

Talk about unintended consequences!

It certainly should be an interesting - unending - discussion.

Bob W.

P.S. For a good time, read Chapter 11, "Leeches" beginning on p. 103 of
George
Moffat's "Winning II".



Thanks to Craig and Bob for finally saying what many are thinking (at
least many of the folks I fly with). IT'S A LEECH BOX! Certainly, there
are those who are promoting Flarm out of genuine concern for safety.
But, it seems to me that there are some who wave the flag of safety but
really want a leech-box. It is too bad Flarm here in the US is so much
more expensive than the original European Flarm.

I am certainly in favor of safety devices. My Libelle is equipped with a
PCAS unit. However, I just cannot afford close to $2k for FLARM.
Especially when it seems that the US version is still apparently an
early "beta test" version. And, no, I don't have a "super vario" or a
purpose built navigation system. So no one should bother with "if you
can afford xyz, then you can afford Flarm".

On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:25:22 AM UTC-7, WB wrote:
In article wrote: On 10/17/2012 7:35 PM, 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. "Moffat-esque philosophy" snipped... Obviously, I�m setting myself up for major flaming here (GPS, computers, programming, etc will be brought up). WARNING: Attempted humor nearby. Read no further if suffering from high blood pressure and prone to knee-jerk anger. Craig you sub-human scum. How DARE you bring up in a public forum an aspect of human nature that at least one multiple world champion/elitist has publicly previously excoriated over a period of 35+ years (and apparently to little effect)?!? === :-) === But seriously, funnily enough I, too, have been wondering how long before someone pointed out this aspect of this part of the PFlarm discussion. All this "sub-par range-angst" over non-collision-worthy distant sailplane targets...leech targets, if you will. Realistically, the genie is out of the bottle, and SOMEone will develop widgetry to improve and make more accessible to Joe Average Pilot the ability to electronically leech far beyond the contest leeching Moffat so heartily detests. Kids can you spell: "c-a-n o-f w-o-r-m-s"? Talk about unintended consequences! It certainly should be an interesting - unending - discussion. Bob W. P.S. For a good time, read Chapter 11, "Leeches" beginning on p. 103 of George Moffat's "Winning II". Thanks to Craig and Bob for finally saying what many are thinking (at least many of the folks I fly with). IT'S A LEECH BOX! Certainly, there are those who are promoting Flarm out of genuine concern for safety. But, it seems to me that there are some who wave the flag of safety but really want a leech-box. It is too bad Flarm here in the US is so much more expensive than the original European Flarm. I am certainly in favor of safety devices. My Libelle is equipped with a PCAS unit. However, I just cannot afford close to $2k for FLARM. Especially when it seems that the US version is still apparently an early "beta test" version. And, no, I don't have a "super vario" or a purpose built navigation system. So no one should bother with "if you can afford xyz, then you can afford Flarm".

This was covered in the recent Contest Pilots opinion Poll. I would suspect that the rules committee will follow the responses and act appropiately. Europe does not mandate stealth in their contest and I don't believe the World Championships did either.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

I do not think that flarm will make that good of a leaching tool. Read Dave Leonard's excellent analysis of flying at the worlds. http://leonardzl.dyndns.org/uvalde/
They were trying to team fly and talking with each other and it was still very difficult to find each other.

ASW27BV