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

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 9:30:42 PM UTC-6, 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.

I flew at HH nats and i have a power flarm Brick installed in BZ. I dont care one way or the other. I have had far more false positives than is helpful. To me false positives are distracting and confusing in that I cant tell whether the alert is for the one i can see or the one i dont see. I dont use it tactically because 1, I can't read the small numbers well. 2. i dont care to drive 2 or 3 miles off course because some glider has 1/2 knot better climb rate than I do. I have also had some "good positive" alerts but they are the exception. I will come to the contest whether Flarm in any mode is mandatory.

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 11:56:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Since requesting input this morning from pilots who flew at Elmira, I've been misquoted, misinterpreted, and ignored. I feel like I'm married again. Just kidding!

13 of the 24 Elmira pilots who apparently voted in the pilots' poll favored mandatory stealth. That's 54%+ of those who tried it liked it enough to want it mandatory. If I were into playing statistical games, I might say this is a clear majority in favor!

Or how about this: 100% of the pilots responding to my "voting" request today who flew at Elmira favor mandatory stealth.

But I sense that facts aren't really important. Positions are so inflexible that data that support or can be manipulated into supporting a position are gleefully trumpeted. Less convenient data are ignored or dismissed with "yes, but I know better."

I didn't have a position until Elmira. I hadn't even flown with FLARM until then. I tried stealth and liked it. And after I flew another FLARM contest in the fall--without stealth--I confirmed that I liked stealth better, for all the reasons I've already listed.

A few other thoughts: People speak of the "GPS wars" as if it were a dark time in the land when ignorance and superstition ruled. I was quite vocal in opposing GPS when it first appeared, for several reasons.

Cost was the big one. The early Cambridge loggers cost in the neighborhood of $3,000, IIRC. I initially bought a consumer handheld unit for $200. When I finally was forced to buy an approved logger, the price was down to ONLY $1,200. That was still too much, especially for guys who had less than $20,000 in their whole rigs, but at least I'd helped delay things. That was really what I was after all along: just to slow things down.

I'm not a technophobe. My undergraduate degree was in engineering, I did some early coding on mainframes, I've been using PCs since the DOS days, I've been on the Internet since you had to know some Unix to set up a connection, and I've worked as an IT consultant for 16 years. One thing I sometimes have to gently counsel clients is that technology is never a goal; it's always a means to an end. Sometimes young pilots lose sight of that.

As for my passion for the "old ways", I admit that another reason for opposing GPS was that navigation used to be part of the game. There were certain pilots who could be relied upon to get lost at least once per contest. I'm not referring to you, 9B; you didn't have to confess. And BB, you don't have to confess if you don't want to.

Overnight with GPS, their placings shot up. I don't think it's simplistic to say they didn't get better; we just dumbed down the game. At that point, we probably didn't have any choice, though. GPS was widely available and the hue and cry from navigationally challenged pilots was getting pretty shrill.

Finally, I was offended, frankly, by all the talk of how GPS would improve safety by eliminating the "dangerous" high-speed start. In reality, I know of at least one pilot who nearly crashed watching his final glide unreel on the GPS screen until he was too low to find a decent field. And I suspect everyone else did what I did--eliminated the safety cushion I had dialed in to account for uncertainty of my position and just cut it even finer on final glides. I was also offended by all the talk about how GPS would make soaring more accessible and more fun, and how contest participation would surge as a result. Sure.

So, yeah, there are some parallels between FLARM stealth and GPS.

I should also speak to the comment about making soaring as safe as shuffleboard. I'm for safety as much as almost anyone. I've given myriad safety talks. 20+ years ago I paid a premium to get Gerhard Waibel's ASW 24 with its safety cockpit, then added canopy wire deflector bars, an ELT, an onboard water system and a pee system, and a 6-point harness to prevent submarining in a crash. I secured everything that could come loose. I've lost both my father and my best friend to glider crashes, plus other pilots I've known. I think I know my limits and I try to fly within them, recognizing that I sometimes make mistakes. I've eagerly welcomed the added security I believe FLARM provides and I don't believe stealth compromises that.

But...if soaring were 100% risk free, it wouldn't have the same appeal. I like knowing I can push as hard as I want, limited only by fear and my assessment of my skills. I especially like competition flying because it inspires me to push myself to do as well as I can against the best pilots. Playing shuffleboard with them just doesn't do it for me.

So, sorry. I don't have a death wish but I don't think we should try to take every bit of adventure out of competition soaring. BB probably knows where I'm going with this and it's unrelated to FLARM but I'll say it anyway: I like the finish gate and low passes. They're fun. Soaring is appealing in part because it isn't perfectly safe. So yeah, I understand why the sanitized version, dumbed down so anyone with radar can follow the fast guys around, wouldn't have the same appeal to everyone. If that's what you want, go play video games.

For the rest of you, let's see what pilots think after Nephi.

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

Chip,
you can spin this as much as you want, but it is undeniable that stealth mode reduces your ability to avoid mid air collision. You simply can't argue this point.

We put PowerFlarm into our cockpits for safety reasons. I put an ADS-B out for safety reasons as well. I want to be seen by everyone. You can buy dual band ADS-B receivers for $500. A lot of power traffic has them these days. You can buy 1090 receiver today for $25 and it even works.

If you have ADS-B out you can see traffic all around you within 15 nm radius and you see how fast it is climbing. Even if the other glider is equipped only with transponder you can still see all this information because of TIS-B. Gliders without ADS-B out will see part of that traffic as a result of it being transmitted to you (not all of it).

Are you going to outlaw ADS-B out in the cockpit, because of the extra information it provides? You simply can't. I know of more pilots who are in the process of installing ADS-B out.

I hope this stealth mode rule never gets approved and if it does, I will choose to stop going to contests. I bet there will be quite a few others who will do the same. I have a family and I want to be around for my kids.

I would hope that some on the RC and some here supporting the stealth mode would stop being selfish and start thinking about contest pilots as human beings with families who have a duty to their families first.

It is disturbing to me that in the name of "preserving the spirit" one wants to decrease his ability to avoid a mid-air collision. Start thinking about your loved once and what you own them first and then think about the "spirit".

If you have ADS-B out you can see traffic all around you within 15 nm radius and you see how fast it is climbing. Even if the other glider is equipped only with transponder you can still see all this information because of TIS-B. Gliders without ADS-B out will see part of that traffic as a result of it being transmitted to you (not all of it).

Are you going to outlaw ADS-B out in the cockpit, because of the extra information it provides? You simply can't. I know of more pilots who are in the process of installing ADS-B out.

If your aircraft's information is tagged as a glider with ADS-B, a competition mode can still be implemented that would display all the power traffic for you. You can tweak the parameters of this competition or stealth mode to provide plenty of collision avoidance. I think 10-18 seconds warning, knowing that the warnings are not perfect is enough for me. But it could made greater.

The next post will probably argue about enforceability. We spend way too much time worrying about these cheaters who I've never met.

I still don't feel that I am risking my life by flying gliders even without FLARM. FLARM is just another tool we have now. Let's use it appropriately, for collision avoidance, not to redefine the basic skills of our sport.

XC

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 11:56:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Since requesting input this morning from pilots who flew at Elmira, I've been misquoted, misinterpreted, and ignored. I feel like I'm married again. Just kidding!

13 of the 24 Elmira pilots who apparently voted in the pilots' poll favored mandatory stealth. That's 54%+ of those who tried it liked it enough to want it mandatory. If I were into playing statistical games, I might say this is a clear majority in favor!

Or how about this: 100% of the pilots responding to my "voting" request today who flew at Elmira favor mandatory stealth.

But I sense that facts aren't really important. Positions are so inflexible that data that support or can be manipulated into supporting a position are gleefully trumpeted. Less convenient data are ignored or dismissed with "yes, but I know better."

I didn't have a position until Elmira. I hadn't even flown with FLARM until then. I tried stealth and liked it. And after I flew another FLARM contest in the fall--without stealth--I confirmed that I liked stealth better, for all the reasons I've already listed.

A few other thoughts: People speak of the "GPS wars" as if it were a dark time in the land when ignorance and superstition ruled. I was quite vocal in opposing GPS when it first appeared, for several reasons.

Cost was the big one. The early Cambridge loggers cost in the neighborhood of $3,000, IIRC. I initially bought a consumer handheld unit for $200. When I finally was forced to buy an approved logger, the price was down to ONLY $1,200. That was still too much, especially for guys who had less than $20,000 in their whole rigs, but at least I'd helped delay things. That was really what I was after all along: just to slow things down.

I'm not a technophobe. My undergraduate degree was in engineering, I did some early coding on mainframes, I've been using PCs since the DOS days, I've been on the Internet since you had to know some Unix to set up a connection, and I've worked as an IT consultant for 16 years. One thing I sometimes have to gently counsel clients is that technology is never a goal; it's always a means to an end. Sometimes young pilots lose sight of that.

As for my passion for the "old ways", I admit that another reason for opposing GPS was that navigation used to be part of the game. There were certain pilots who could be relied upon to get lost at least once per contest. I'm not referring to you, 9B; you didn't have to confess. And BB, you don't have to confess if you don't want to.

Overnight with GPS, their placings shot up. I don't think it's simplistic to say they didn't get better; we just dumbed down the game. At that point, we probably didn't have any choice, though. GPS was widely available and the hue and cry from navigationally challenged pilots was getting pretty shrill.

Finally, I was offended, frankly, by all the talk of how GPS would improve safety by eliminating the "dangerous" high-speed start. In reality, I know of at least one pilot who nearly crashed watching his final glide unreel on the GPS screen until he was too low to find a decent field. And I suspect everyone else did what I did--eliminated the safety cushion I had dialed in to account for uncertainty of my position and just cut it even finer on final glides. I was also offended by all the talk about how GPS would make soaring more accessible and more fun, and how contest participation would surge as a result. Sure.

So, yeah, there are some parallels between FLARM stealth and GPS.

I should also speak to the comment about making soaring as safe as shuffleboard. I'm for safety as much as almost anyone. I've given myriad safety talks. 20+ years ago I paid a premium to get Gerhard Waibel's ASW 24 with its safety cockpit, then added canopy wire deflector bars, an ELT, an onboard water system and a pee system, and a 6-point harness to prevent submarining in a crash. I secured everything that could come loose. I've lost both my father and my best friend to glider crashes, plus other pilots I've known. I think I know my limits and I try to fly within them, recognizing that I sometimes make mistakes. I've eagerly welcomed the added security I believe FLARM provides and I don't believe stealth compromises that.

But...if soaring were 100% risk free, it wouldn't have the same appeal. I like knowing I can push as hard as I want, limited only by fear and my assessment of my skills. I especially like competition flying because it inspires me to push myself to do as well as I can against the best pilots. Playing shuffleboard with them just doesn't do it for me.

So, sorry. I don't have a death wish but I don't think we should try to take every bit of adventure out of competition soaring. BB probably knows where I'm going with this and it's unrelated to FLARM but I'll say it anyway: I like the finish gate and low passes. They're fun. Soaring is appealing in part because it isn't perfectly safe. So yeah, I understand why the sanitized version, dumbed down so anyone with radar can follow the fast guys around, wouldn't have the same appeal to everyone. If that's what you want, go play video games.

For the rest of you, let's see what pilots think after Nephi.

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

Below is what XG (Jerzy Szemplinski asked me to post. He has issues posting or RAS)

"I'm flying with Flarm in competition since 2008 including 4 Worlds.
Flarm stealth mode was never compulsory, it was pilot decision if he likes to share his info with others or not.

I don't see any reason to force everyone for stealth mode and penalize for wrong set up. It may distort final results as well because of stupid set up error. Why pilot has to land and give up points just because of stupid stealth mode rule, it is very unfair.

It puts extra load on the pilot before take off, in addition, for just failing to set Flarm mode there is penalty (contest could be lost because of this rules, nothing to do with performance of a pilot).
Why are we introducing another layer of rules on pilots and organizers with other set of rules?

No one won contest because of Flarm information, leaders are most of the time at the front or separate from the pack so who is complaining, at the same time we are giving part of safety for non existing problem as we have just 20 pilots flying per class in Nationals, at the same time we have other class flying and stealth mode makes it all more dangerous.

Because may be one pilot had chance to take advantage of Flarm information to dig out of the hole( good for him ,he didn't land out and damaged glider)
For me Flarm is important safety tool when someone follows me I can see him on the Flarm and I can be sure sure that I can turn not cutting in front of him, Because of stealth mode I had twice very close encounter during Worlds.

We don't have enough pilots to fly contests in America and we are trying to implement another layer of rules to discourage pilots from flying in contests.

The most devastating reason for pilot morale is when he/she loses points just because of stupid electronics set up and Stealth mode is another electronic trap.
I strongly oppose stealth mode as it should be left to pilot's decision.

Jerzy"

you can spin this as much as you want, but it is undeniable that stealth mode reduces your ability to avoid mid air collision. You simply can't argue this point.

Nice try. The Donald Trump approach: "I'm right, now shut up."

The fact is that pilots who are smarter and better informed than I am are arguing this point. And at least in Europe, they're exploring an even better solution.

The new world of ADS-B out will be different, I agree. And I agree with 9B and others that we ought to have a strategy, recognizing that things won't go according to plan. But in the meantime, I doubt anyone is going to install ADS-B out in a Standard Class glider and show up at the 2016 Nationals (readers, don't do this just to prove me wrong!). So after that contest, we'll have a lot more facts and experience. I was going to say "and fewer speculative opinions" but that's probably wishful thinking.

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

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:
you can spin this as much as you want, but it is undeniable that stealth mode reduces your ability to avoid mid air collision. You simply can't argue this point.

Nice try. The Donald Trump approach: "I'm right, now shut up."

The fact is that pilots who are smarter and better informed than I am are arguing this point. And at least in Europe, they're exploring an even better solution.

The new world of ADS-B out will be different, I agree. And I agree with 9B and others that we ought to have a strategy, recognizing that things won't go according to plan. But in the meantime, I doubt anyone is going to install ADS-B out in a Standard Class glider and show up at the 2016 Nationals (readers, don't do this just to prove me wrong!). So after that contest, we'll have a lot more facts and experience. I was going to say "and fewer speculative opinions" but that's probably wishful thinking.

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

Chip, just read the post from XG that I just posted.

I flew at Elmira this past summer. I thought the Stealth FLARM mode worked really well. I had no problem finding gliders that were close enough to pose a threat. As the gliders left the start cylinder ahead of me .. they disappeared.

There were some gliders that where not on my display that I knew where still within the start cylinder, so I guess a questions could be 1. if seeing other gliders inside the start is an advantage on a really weak day where just staying up is difficult. 2. a little more range would be nice so everyone doesn't end up in the same gaggle.

Switching from Stealth to Normal is also really easy. Because FLARM config file needs to be in the root of the thumb drive - all you have to do is create 2 folders on the thumb drive to hold the 2 different config files. Then just copy the one you need to the root and delete it after updating. The hard part is remembering to delete the file after you use it once to change the config or FLARM will use the config file every time you download your flights onto the thumb drive and remembering to switch back.... but my memory has never been good, so it is probably just me - I have to put that on my checklist

All in all it was a good experience and I can definitely see that it changed some decisions I have made in the past when I flew in a contest without stealth - it is hard not to go where everyone else is on a iffy day when you can clearly see where they are. Although sometimes following just means everyone lands out in the same field.... you get to have company while waiting for your crew.

WH
Bill Hanson

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:36:21 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 11:56:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Since requesting input this morning from pilots who flew at Elmira, I've been misquoted, misinterpreted, and ignored. I feel like I'm married again. Just kidding!

13 of the 24 Elmira pilots who apparently voted in the pilots' poll favored mandatory stealth. That's 54%+ of those who tried it liked it enough to want it mandatory. If I were into playing statistical games, I might say this is a clear majority in favor!

Or how about this: 100% of the pilots responding to my "voting" request today who flew at Elmira favor mandatory stealth.

But I sense that facts aren't really important. Positions are so inflexible that data that support or can be manipulated into supporting a position are gleefully trumpeted. Less convenient data are ignored or dismissed with "yes, but I know better."

I didn't have a position until Elmira. I hadn't even flown with FLARM until then. I tried stealth and liked it. And after I flew another FLARM contest in the fall--without stealth--I confirmed that I liked stealth better, for all the reasons I've already listed.

A few other thoughts: People speak of the "GPS wars" as if it were a dark time in the land when ignorance and superstition ruled. I was quite vocal in opposing GPS when it first appeared, for several reasons.

Cost was the big one. The early Cambridge loggers cost in the neighborhood of $3,000, IIRC. I initially bought a consumer handheld unit for $200. When I finally was forced to buy an approved logger, the price was down to ONLY $1,200. That was still too much, especially for guys who had less than $20,000 in their whole rigs, but at least I'd helped delay things. That was really what I was after all along: just to slow things down.

I'm not a technophobe. My undergraduate degree was in engineering, I did some early coding on mainframes, I've been using PCs since the DOS days, I've been on the Internet since you had to know some Unix to set up a connection, and I've worked as an IT consultant for 16 years. One thing I sometimes have to gently counsel clients is that technology is never a goal; it's always a means to an end. Sometimes young pilots lose sight of that.

As for my passion for the "old ways", I admit that another reason for opposing GPS was that navigation used to be part of the game. There were certain pilots who could be relied upon to get lost at least once per contest. I'm not referring to you, 9B; you didn't have to confess. And BB, you don't have to confess if you don't want to.

Overnight with GPS, their placings shot up. I don't think it's simplistic to say they didn't get better; we just dumbed down the game. At that point, we probably didn't have any choice, though. GPS was widely available and the hue and cry from navigationally challenged pilots was getting pretty shrill.

Finally, I was offended, frankly, by all the talk of how GPS would improve safety by eliminating the "dangerous" high-speed start. In reality, I know of at least one pilot who nearly crashed watching his final glide unreel on the GPS screen until he was too low to find a decent field. And I suspect everyone else did what I did--eliminated the safety cushion I had dialed in to account for uncertainty of my position and just cut it even finer on final glides. I was also offended by all the talk about how GPS would make soaring more accessible and more fun, and how contest participation would surge as a result. Sure.

So, yeah, there are some parallels between FLARM stealth and GPS.

I should also speak to the comment about making soaring as safe as shuffleboard. I'm for safety as much as almost anyone. I've given myriad safety talks. 20+ years ago I paid a premium to get Gerhard Waibel's ASW 24 with its safety cockpit, then added canopy wire deflector bars, an ELT, an onboard water system and a pee system, and a 6-point harness to prevent submarining in a crash. I secured everything that could come loose. I've lost both my father and my best friend to glider crashes, plus other pilots I've known. I think I know my limits and I try to fly within them, recognizing that I sometimes make mistakes. I've eagerly welcomed the added security I believe FLARM provides and I don't believe stealth compromises that.

But...if soaring were 100% risk free, it wouldn't have the same appeal. I like knowing I can push as hard as I want, limited only by fear and my assessment of my skills. I especially like competition flying because it inspires me to push myself to do as well as I can against the best pilots. Playing shuffleboard with them just doesn't do it for me.

So, sorry. I don't have a death wish but I don't think we should try to take every bit of adventure out of competition soaring. BB probably knows where I'm going with this and it's unrelated to FLARM but I'll say it anyway: I like the finish gate and low passes. They're fun. Soaring is appealing in part because it isn't perfectly safe. So yeah, I understand why the sanitized version, dumbed down so anyone with radar can follow the fast guys around, wouldn't have the same appeal to everyone. If that's what you want, go play video games.

For the rest of you, let's see what pilots think after Nephi.

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

Below is what XG (Jerzy Szemplinski asked me to post. He has issues posting or RAS)

"I'm flying with Flarm in competition since 2008 including 4 Worlds.
Flarm stealth mode was never compulsory, it was pilot decision if he likes to share his info with others or not.

I don't see any reason to force everyone for stealth mode and penalize for wrong set up. It may distort final results as well because of stupid set up error. Why pilot has to land and give up points just because of stupid stealth mode rule, it is very unfair.

It puts extra load on the pilot before take off, in addition, for just failing to set Flarm mode there is penalty (contest could be lost because of this rules, nothing to do with performance of a pilot).
Why are we introducing another layer of rules on pilots and organizers with other set of rules?

No one won contest because of Flarm information, leaders are most of the time at the front or separate from the pack so who is complaining, at the same time we are giving part of safety for non existing problem as we have just 20 pilots flying per class in Nationals, at the same time we have other class flying and stealth mode makes it all more dangerous.

Because may be one pilot had chance to take advantage of Flarm information to dig out of the hole( good for him ,he didn't land out and damaged glider)
For me Flarm is important safety tool when someone follows me I can see him on the Flarm and I can be sure sure that I can turn not cutting in front of him, Because of stealth mode I had twice very close encounter during Worlds.

We don't have enough pilots to fly contests in America and we are trying to implement another layer of rules to discourage pilots from flying in contests.

The most devastating reason for pilot morale is when he/she loses points just because of stupid electronics set up and Stealth mode is another electronic trap.
I strongly oppose stealth mode as it should be left to pilot's decision.

Jerzy"

I really respect Jerzy as he knows. Great soaring skills.

I was the part of the organization at Harris Hill. This is the way FLARM with stealth mode was implemented. It was no great burden on the organizers. Those arguments are again fear of the unknown.

Folks were encouraged to configure their FLARM to stealth at home and take a flight before showing up. This involves going to the FLARM web site and getting a config file using the advanced setting. This takes 5 minutes. Put the usb stick in you FLARM, power it up and go fly.

They could also do this on one of the practice days. Folks then emailed a FLARM log to the scorer. He opened it with a text edit program and saw Priv = 1 in the initial text of the file and checked their name off on a sheet. The scorer said this was no big deal and he did most of it at home before the contest. We also had everyone avow they weren't hiding extra FLARM devices by signing a sheet at the mandatory pilot's meeting. Not sure this was necessary either.

Before and during each launch we then checked for gliders who are not stealth enabled with a non-contest FLARM set up. This can be as easy as having a sniffer with non-stealth FLARM turn his electronics on. Any glider showing a contest ID is not in stealth mode. Stealth is not configurable in the air.

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 8:56:12 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Since requesting input this morning from pilots who flew at Elmira, I've been misquoted, misinterpreted, and ignored. I feel like I'm married again. Just kidding!

13 of the 24 Elmira pilots who apparently voted in the pilots' poll favored mandatory stealth. That's 54%+ of those who tried it liked it enough to want it mandatory. If I were into playing statistical games, I might say this is a clear majority in favor!

Or how about this: 100% of the pilots responding to my "voting" request today who flew at Elmira favor mandatory stealth.

But I sense that facts aren't really important. Positions are so inflexible that data that support or can be manipulated into supporting a position are gleefully trumpeted. Less convenient data are ignored or dismissed with "yes, but I know better."

I didn't have a position until Elmira. I hadn't even flown with FLARM until then. I tried stealth and liked it. And after I flew another FLARM contest in the fall--without stealth--I confirmed that I liked stealth better, for all the reasons I've already listed.

A few other thoughts: People speak of the "GPS wars" as if it were a dark time in the land when ignorance and superstition ruled. I was quite vocal in opposing GPS when it first appeared, for several reasons.

Cost was the big one. The early Cambridge loggers cost in the neighborhood of $3,000, IIRC. I initially bought a consumer handheld unit for $200. When I finally was forced to buy an approved logger, the price was down to ONLY $1,200. That was still too much, especially for guys who had less than $20,000 in their whole rigs, but at least I'd helped delay things. That was really what I was after all along: just to slow things down.

I'm not a technophobe. My undergraduate degree was in engineering, I did some early coding on mainframes, I've been using PCs since the DOS days, I've been on the Internet since you had to know some Unix to set up a connection, and I've worked as an IT consultant for 16 years. One thing I sometimes have to gently counsel clients is that technology is never a goal; it's always a means to an end. Sometimes young pilots lose sight of that.

As for my passion for the "old ways", I admit that another reason for opposing GPS was that navigation used to be part of the game. There were certain pilots who could be relied upon to get lost at least once per contest. I'm not referring to you, 9B; you didn't have to confess. And BB, you don't have to confess if you don't want to.

Overnight with GPS, their placings shot up. I don't think it's simplistic to say they didn't get better; we just dumbed down the game. At that point, we probably didn't have any choice, though. GPS was widely available and the hue and cry from navigationally challenged pilots was getting pretty shrill.

Finally, I was offended, frankly, by all the talk of how GPS would improve safety by eliminating the "dangerous" high-speed start. In reality, I know of at least one pilot who nearly crashed watching his final glide unreel on the GPS screen until he was too low to find a decent field. And I suspect everyone else did what I did--eliminated the safety cushion I had dialed in to account for uncertainty of my position and just cut it even finer on final glides. I was also offended by all the talk about how GPS would make soaring more accessible and more fun, and how contest participation would surge as a result. Sure.

So, yeah, there are some parallels between FLARM stealth and GPS.

I should also speak to the comment about making soaring as safe as shuffleboard. I'm for safety as much as almost anyone. I've given myriad safety talks. 20+ years ago I paid a premium to get Gerhard Waibel's ASW 24 with its safety cockpit, then added canopy wire deflector bars, an ELT, an onboard water system and a pee system, and a 6-point harness to prevent submarining in a crash. I secured everything that could come loose. I've lost both my father and my best friend to glider crashes, plus other pilots I've known. I think I know my limits and I try to fly within them, recognizing that I sometimes make mistakes. I've eagerly welcomed the added security I believe FLARM provides and I don't believe stealth compromises that.

But...if soaring were 100% risk free, it wouldn't have the same appeal. I like knowing I can push as hard as I want, limited only by fear and my assessment of my skills. I especially like competition flying because it inspires me to push myself to do as well as I can against the best pilots. Playing shuffleboard with them just doesn't do it for me.

So, sorry. I don't have a death wish but I don't think we should try to take every bit of adventure out of competition soaring. BB probably knows where I'm going with this and it's unrelated to FLARM but I'll say it anyway: I like the finish gate and low passes. They're fun. Soaring is appealing in part because it isn't perfectly safe. So yeah, I understand why the sanitized version, dumbed down so anyone with radar can follow the fast guys around, wouldn't have the same appeal to everyone. If that's what you want, go play video games.

For the rest of you, let's see what pilots think after Nephi.

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

Opting not to have GPS might endanger your own safety. Opting to degrade Flarm endangers others as well, without their consent. Your narrative helps me to understand the reasoning which leads you to support stealth. I do not believe that position is as widely held. For you, part of the thrill of contest flying is the possibility of breaking a glider or yourself. I do not share that thrill, though I am not at all risk averse. Most of the non contest pilots I talk to don't either. The most common reasons I am given for not flying in contests a a) danger to self and glider, b) time commitment required, c) regimentation of the flying day. Your soaring ideal is frozen at 1975 levels.

Harris Hill was a standard and 15m contest, so you have already preselected the trailing edge of glider technology for your poll. Participation is the only poll that matters.

I suggest that you organize a contest with these rules: No GPS, no Flarm allowed, perhaps no variometers newer than 1975. No parachutes? - why not - they detract from the thrill. Should carbon fiber be allowed? It would be a test of a kind of soaring you dream of: navigation by printed chart, eyeball only collision avoidance, pellet variometers. See how many entrants you get for that. Maybe a few - there were more participants in the 1-26 nationals than there were in the standard class nationals (!).

On the other hand we know from the recent OLC contests in Nephi what happens when you go the other direction. It is oversubscribed with well over twice the participants of the nationals.

The sport has changed from the times of Lilienthal. There will always be those who resist change and those who embrace it, but change is relentless and due to participant turnover almost always wins. I doubt there will be a single new glider registered this year without GPS installed, and very few without Flarm.

But I will say again, I value Flarm first for the situational awareness that it provides (and that stealth specifically targets), and only second for safety. I am opposed to stealth mode because it eliminates a tool valuable to the experience of soaring. I will welcome ADS-B as an even better tool.

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 2:46:16 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
Your soaring ideal is frozen at 1975 levels.
SNIP
The sport has changed from the times of Lilienthal. There will always be those who resist change and those who embrace it, but change is relentless and due to participant turnover almost always wins.

(sigh) So...to my earlier lament about being "misquoted" and "misinterpreted", I can now add "gratuitously insulted." Argh. I'm tempted to ignore Jon's torturous tirade but on the off chance that someone might actually believe it, I'll try again.

Soaring attracts different people for different reasons. That's cool. Though not a top pilot myself, I am inspired by the opportunity to fly with them to do more than I might otherwise do. That's part of the appeal of competition. But safety is paramount, and not just for me. As a task advisor, I've occasionally recommended against tasks that arguably could have been flown by a few pilots because I didn't feel comfortable with them for much of the field.

I like the challenge of mastering a difficult sport, my fears, and the associated risks. If it were easy, anyone could do it. But I don't like scaring myself...or others. Certainly I don't want new contest pilots to be scared; I want them to get excited, the way I have been for so long, when they discover they can manage the risks that worry them with a huge sense of accomplishment.

So I don't take chances with their lives or mine. When I was starting out, my father made me repeat a mantra before every contest flight that I still adhere to: first comes personal safety, then safety of the glider, then contest points. That's why I borrowed and then bought FLARM this year even though it wasn't required. It helped mitigate what I perceive as the most serious risk for me: i.e., midair collision. And it has done that, in both open and stealth modes.

That said, for perfect safety, there's only one solution: not to fly. Everything else represents balancing risk with cost and reward. I don't plan to stop flying yet, Jon, but if you truly have the courage of your convictions about no compromises on safety, feel free. It would be a shame to lose you, though. Soaring needs all kinds.

I'm not living in the past (though 1975 wasn't a bad year). I haven't upgraded gliders from the "trailing edge of glider technology" [did you make that up?] because I don't feel like increasing my already substantial investment. And I don't have to. I can compete in any of three different classes on a straight up basis. And the FAI combined Std./15M class for antideluvian primary gliders is fun, too.

I'm not opposed to change, just change for its own sake--just like I caution clients against technology for its own sake even though technology is my business.

On the subject of pellet varios, I don't know how long ago 1975 seems to you but I assure you they were out of serious competition cockpits well before then! Hahaha. I don't even have fond memories. They typically weren't total energy compensated and they had a tendency to stick when it got humid.

Take a deep breath. Elmira was an experiment and a success. We'll learn more at Nephi. We may decide to return to open FLARM. We may even learn things that will help us deal intelligently and fairly (as opposed to loudly and acrimoniously, not that I'm pointing fingers) with the continuing evolution of ADS-B and other technologies in our sport.

I think it's ironic that, given the past few years of history we've built up with FLARM here in the U.S., I'm being accused of not wanting to change. It strikes me that those who want to freeze FLARM the way it's been here rather than explore another aspect of it are the inflexible ones.

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