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

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 9:57:27 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Andy, how different is this from the definition of Standard Class? The FAI/IGC established it in the 1950s, the German glider manufacturers allegedly colluded in the 1960s to rewrite the rule about terminal velocity dive brakes, and each country's aero club can do whatever they want (as the U.S. did with flap timers around 1980 and again a few years ago to handicap older gliders).

Or "approved flight recorders", the definition of which varies widely from country to country.

Within the U.S., is it standards? Or enforcement?

I'll grant you a dispensation from the "don't post if you haven't flown" mandate to respond.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

It is different in that setting standards for glider manufacturers, which by the way, also serve the interests of technological evolution, rather than retarding it - think 18-meter class, 2-seat, 20-meter class, 13.5-meter class (okay, not so much). More classes, more glider sales. If you are setting standards for gliders that are primarily designed and built to serve the buyers who race - and that's mostly what happens - you will get compliance from the manufacturers or they will sell far, far fewer gliders.

In this case the technology is significantly designed and built to serve much, much bigger markets than gliders. Transponders and ADS-B server general and commercial aviation, cellphones serve a market of well over a billion people. I think it will be hard to get Garmin or Apple, or Google to put in technology to restrict what information glider pilots can use. You could ban these things, but banning a device that can pick up transponder-equipped aircraft without ADS-B via TIS-B traffic services is a safety benefit near many airports, so requiring glider pilots to rip said equipment out to race seems problematic, as does restricting the acceptable range of manufacturers only to more high-priced bespoke soaring devices.

There are other examples, but that one is most prominent in my mind. I won't even get in to the cheating opportunities this opens up, but they are manifold. (Now I am sure to get the body-cavity search at Nephi).

9B

It would be hypocritical of me, indeed, to criticize others for lengthy posts! But it will take me a few days to assimilate Andy's latest contributions.

So let me respond to a few factual issues, as opposed to the sometimes-well-reasoned-but-speculative opinions being posted here now that apparently some have lost interest in the previous post and migrated to my "stealth veterans vote here" thread.

For the record, I just wanted to poll people who've actually tried a stealth contest, not solicit more editorial content from those who threaten to quit soaring--if it even survives--if stealth is mandated in Nationals. The results aren't necessarily definitive regarding our future direction.

Tim, I was referring to whatever each country allows for national contests. The U.S. has generally required approved flight recorders but I understand each country makes the call.

Jonathon, I suggest you re-read my posting about parachutes, which refers to the PIA recommendation of 20 years. My experience is that riggers often adhere to that rec although many admit that it's much more a liability/insurance issue than a practical one. Others, having more confidence or fewer assets, run some tests and make the determination on a case-by-case basis. Everything I discussed is, to the the best of my knowledge, both ethical and legal. I'm sure, in your eagerness to express your opinion, you didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

Yeah, 9B, they should definitely inspect you and your glider very carefully next summer. You're a troublemaker.

Hope to see you there.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

Yeah, 9B, they should definitely inspect you and your glider very carefully next summer. You're a troublemaker.

Hope to see you there.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 5:20:56 AM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:30:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Lots of earnest opinions, some more strident than others. Lots of confident statements about what works, doesn't work, is possible, is futile, is inevitable.

So let's keep it simple: if you have flown in a contest at any level where stealth was mandated (not necessarily mandatory FLARM, but if FLARM was used, it had to be in stealth mode), what was your experience?

If you HAVEN'T flown in a stealth-mandatory contest, DON'T POST. You had your chance to speculate and make your opinions heard (some of you many, many times) over in "Is FLARM Helpful?" We could run this over on Survey Monkey, et al., but I think it's useful to track the responses on this forum.

My view based on the Elmira nats in 2015: FLARM under stealth provided the collision avoidance and situational awareness intended without changing the tactics or strategy of the competitive flying significantly.

My vote: "yes" for mandatory stealth mode.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

Here is the data from the pilot poll limited to pilots who reported at Harris Hill Participants

Flarm in Nationals
FlarmMandatory 11
OrgnzrChoice 5
PilotChoice 7

Stealth In Nationals
StealthMandatory 13
OrgnzrChoice 4
PilotChoice 6
StealthProhibited 1

John Godfrey (QT)
RC Chair

The vote from Elmira was 13 for stealth mandatory out of a field of 41 entrants. That is a less than ringing endorsement.

Going way off subject here but is there a mission or objective statement for the SSA sanctioning of contests? What are the goals?


On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 1:48:42 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

The US Rules Committee is participating with the BGA, IGC and FLARM to consider changes to Stealth mode to address concerns related to providing robust collision avoidance without turning FLARM data into a tactical tool. While the final result is whatever FLARM decides, we are awaiting the changes and will evaluate their suitability in US contests when the information is available.

Yes, there is an E/W split on FLARM issues. Western high altitude, high speed flight can be quite different from the East.

John Godfrey (QT)
RC Chair

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 5:05:14 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 5:20:56 AM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:30:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Lots of earnest opinions, some more strident than others. Lots of confident statements about what works, doesn't work, is possible, is futile, is inevitable.

So let's keep it simple: if you have flown in a contest at any level where stealth was mandated (not necessarily mandatory FLARM, but if FLARM was used, it had to be in stealth mode), what was your experience?

If you HAVEN'T flown in a stealth-mandatory contest, DON'T POST. You had your chance to speculate and make your opinions heard (some of you many, many times) over in "Is FLARM Helpful?" We could run this over on Survey Monkey, et al., but I think it's useful to track the responses on this forum.

My view based on the Elmira nats in 2015: FLARM under stealth provided the collision avoidance and situational awareness intended without changing the tactics or strategy of the competitive flying significantly.

My vote: "yes" for mandatory stealth mode.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

Here is the data from the pilot poll limited to pilots who reported at Harris Hill Participants

Flarm in Nationals
FlarmMandatory 11
OrgnzrChoice 5
PilotChoice 7

Stealth In Nationals
StealthMandatory 13
OrgnzrChoice 4
PilotChoice 6
StealthProhibited 1

John Godfrey (QT)
RC Chair

The vote from Elmira was 13 for stealth mandatory out of a field of 41 entrants. That is a less than ringing endorsement.

32 contestants at that contest which includes 1 guest pilot. I estimate 5 flew with portable classic FLARM and at least 7 had no FLARM at all. Total respondents to the poll question 24 from the contest.

XC

Stealth In Nationals
StealthMandatory 13
OrgnzrChoice 4
PilotChoice 6
StealthProhibited 1

Looking at the both question you can see a similar number of folks don't think FLARM should be required at all.

I guess you can read the results however you want.

XC

The vote from Elmira was 13 for stealth mandatory out of a field of 41 entrants. That is a less than ringing endorsement.


Looking at the both questions you can see a similar number of folks don't think FLARM should be mandatory.

I guess you can read the results however you desire.

XC

The US Rules Committee is participating with the BGA, IGC and FLARM to consider changes to Stealth mode to address concerns related to providing robust collision avoidance without turning FLARM data into a tactical tool. While the final result is whatever FLARM decides, we are awaiting the changes and will evaluate their suitability in US contests when the information is available.

Then we can start an interesting debate on the wisdom of forcibly implementing degradation of a collision avoidance system for 2016, based on a spec that is not yet written, software not coded, not debugged, not tried in real world conditions, and all the "oh, I didn't think of thats" discovered.

For example, suppose we can see further head on. Joe sees Larry, shifts left.. whoops, there was Bob, blanked out because he wasn't a collision threat.. Oh yeah... Or Joe zooms up, but we handn't thought that at 15,000' you can gain 1,000' in a zoomie. Oh yeah... Or someone translated meters to feet wrong.

Just about the whole RC has extensive experience with software development. Really guys, would you ever do this in the real world?

John Cochrane BB