The truth about Flarm Stealth and Competition definition...

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:18:22 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
Wow man! Just Wow!

Safety concerns equal "weak-assed!" Yeah baby! Yes! Here we go. That's it Sean!

http://e.lvme.me/743pv7l.jpg

Are any of the people who want to limit the usefulness of Flarm the same people who have developed the sophisticated use of team flying tactics in international competition?

Are any of the people who want to limit the usefulness of Flarm the same people who have developed the sophisticated use of team flying tactics in international competition?

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 12:38:20 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
The point is simple. Situational awareness. Say it slowly, sound it out ;-).

4 minutes of knowledge knowing a glider is out there, or 60 seconds, or 10?

Cant get much simpler than that. This is not a difficult concept.

The more SA, the safer it is for all, period. This is enitirely independent of any insecurity some feel about potentially giving out actionable BVR leeching info to dozens of gin and tonic siping, sinatra listening leeches who have been stealing medals from you for the past 5 years. ;-) You know, the ones who pass you inverted on final glide, giving your the bird. ;-)

"Fly me to the moon....and let me dance among the stars....!"

Sean (7T)

Is there really a benefit of tracking a glider on your FLARM display for 4 minutes? Take a situation where there are 4 other gliders in your proximity.. Keeping track of them all continuously with FLARM is a lot of heads down time. A lot of the gliders are more than 1000 feet difference in altitude and are no collision threat. Having all that displayed clutters the important info so is really only of tactical benefit.

Now that I think of it - a good competition mode may be unlimited range and just not show targets greater that 1500 differential altitude. Just a thought.

Anyway, the concept is more complex than you are stating. (Is sarcasm-ing a word? Any noun can be verbed I suppose.)

Since you used my name in the post about tasking, want to state that I agree with you that more AT's are a good thing. I like them. When AAT's are called due to possible CB's or the like, I prefer smaller radius turns like 5 nm for the FAI classes.

XC

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 12:00:53 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
No dice - if you think there's a possible conflict it's incumbent
upon you to alter your course, not to tell someone else to get out
of your way.



I can see it now...* There's the leader up ahead and it looks like
he's climbing.* I'll transmit, "9B, turn right immediately for
collision avoidance!"* There now...* I'll just move into the thermal
he's just vacated.* Gee, look how quickly I can overtake him.

The second paragraph is obviously for comic relief to this
interminable squabble.

Dan, 5J

Or the alternative debate....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvRYd8U7qGY

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 9:26:02 AM UTC-8, smfidler wrote:
Some good points Andy. I disagree with much of it, but I'm sure that you are not surprised by this. ;-).

I have to call US tasking "philosophy" out again. This will be a nice intermission from the Flarm fantasy discussion.

In a word, US tasking SUCKS! And, it's getting worse all the time. First, the idea that an assigned task does not "test" weather skill (but a HAT, MAT or TAT does) is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard within the sport of soaring.

The more variability or "vagueness" in a given tasks requirement to "consolidate" and get back to a defined point along a set race course, via your skills (weather knowledge, pilot skill, tactical efficiency, puzzle solving skills) while flying down a "leg" of a task, the EASIER the task is. This ranges from timed, area tasks of up to 60 miles in diameter (2800+ sq. miles) to 1 mile assiged turns. The more tightly defined the task is, the better it is. It's that simple. PERIOD.

We (SSA/US) fly almost exclusively "easy tasks" (75% TAT last I checked), and have created whole new types of even easier tasks in the USA (see one or even zero "turn" MAT, i.e. OLC, i.e. HAT). Easy, vague and by definition very prone to being lucky in the broad randomness that results in an individual score via the formulas of our US scoring program, WinScore.. Some call the ability to wander around only flying the best weather, skill. Sure, but it requires LESS SKILL when you don't have to bring it back to an assigned turn, several times throughout the task. Sadly, many seem to love this randomness. They somehow see an objective measurement in it. We do area tasks roughly 75% of the time in the USA, so someone must be happy. I for one am continuously disgusted by it. Less variables, less luck (racing tasks). More variables, more luck (go wherever the hell you wish, tasks). 2000 words describing what elements you wish to "TEST?" is a waste of time, but you do write very well Andy!

I want to test how fast a pilot can get around a race course. Pure, simple, no bull ****. Right now, we do this only a few times a year within the USA, that's it. At World Championships, they do it 50% of the time. I say that's not enough!

Example. You're flying down an 80-mile leg of a real racing, assigned task. All the while, you must carefully adjust your strategy and tactics to find the most efficient means of getting yourself back to the assigned turn point. This is an entirely more difficult game than managing an area task.. First of all, you have the same exact race track (not really in the USA, but for the sake of time) for every pilot. Imagine that! If you choose to waiver way off course during an assigned task, for a good weather reason of course (you know, the superior weather knowledge) that deviation must always be tempered by the need to pay it back and get back to the turn point at some point. A far more complex puzzle. In area tasks, you only have the find the fastest way to keep going "that a way" and towards the easiest weather available in that huge range. You are never "boxed in" and forced to suffer from a poor weather decision on that leg (having to pay back the extra distance), or to cross difficult spots more efficiently than your competitors.

Going down a "leg?" (one can't really define any leg of an Area task, can they?) of an Area "task?" which can be 30 miles or 90 miles in length (for example), or vary up to 60 miles laterally depending on said pilots superior weather knowledge (ROTFL). This sure sounds like racing to me! Seriously, should the word "racing" even be used in SSA descriptions of contests any more? Its almost fraud to call our tasks, "races." In fact, it IS fraud! See definition of "race."

We should instead start call our tasks...

"Mileage/time=speed calculations of flight traces over a series of (up to) 2800 square mile weather variability assessment tests, aided by our clearNav that basically does all the time/distance stuff for us (Frank Sinatra music optional)." How is this really different from OLC already? Anyone?

Boy, ESPN must be kicking down our doors to get the rights to cover this "sport!" Sailplane racing! Im sure they will have color commentary of the scoring process as well. Multiple camera angles, mood lighting, elevator music, commercial free, etc.

Anyway, these area "tasks" are, by definition, designed to allow our pilots to choose what weather is "easiest" to fly so they do not land out! Area tasks allow the pilot to pick and choose the best clouds to follow into a huge general area of THEIR OWN choosing. You can turn back anytime you wish if you get into trouble. For example, I'm low now on an upwind Area task "leg", NO PROBLEM! You can just choose to turn at this HIGHLY CONVIENENT point and go downwind. Hell, it doesn't matter. It's all based on the concept of a minimum time! Get out of jail free! You might even time to change to a new Sinatra CD!

Now, compare that to the developed skills of an assigned task pilot. Getting low on an upwind leg is a real problem. You have to figure it out and complete the race course, and lose real time around a REAL RACE TRACK vs. your smarter competitors. Oh, the humanity of that. How terrible! How uncivilized. I won't have time to make a new gin and tonic!

Area tasks are, quite literally, infant tasks in comparison to assigned (real racing). They are the favorite task type of tourists who also want OLC to be considered a real form of meaningful "competition?" Some clowns want "no" racing tasks in the USA. None! 3% racing is too much! Hey, I've got a new word to describe area tasks! Let's call them weak-assed tasks! Thanks Sean! WATs!

Assigned tasks are "grown up" tasks. For true racing sailplane pilots. The task real glider pilots WANT to fly each day. Nobody really wakes up in the morning and wants to fly an area task at a contest. Do they? If so, I mourn for you! Assigned tasks force real consequences for strategy and tactical mistakes and require resilient, brilliant pilots to win consistently. I, for one, have more respect for the winner of an assigned task, then I do for a huge area task. Assigned tasks are tasks of complete racing champions. Champions who are, IMO, better sailplane pilots in literally every form of measure. Stick and rudder skills, WHAT A BUNCH OF ABSOLUTE CRAP. Anyone who says this is what makes a good assigned task competitor has zero understanding of the sport of sailplane competition.

Look at Sailplane Grand Prix. Let's see how pilots who only fly WATs, you know, with their superior weather skills, do in Grand Prix for example. They will get destroyed. On the other hand, how will the top SGP pilots do when they must fly area tasks. Answer, they still win. They are complete pilots. Tougher mentally. Precision matters. Decision making and puzzle solution skills matter.

Furthermore, the reason everyone runs out and buys the fancy computers (I passed by the way) is to allow the computer to help MAKE THE TURN AREA DECISION for them! Those decisions are critical to being successful in the very vague, very obtuse Area tasks. These computers are designed to much better tell you if you (for example) can turn now or if you need to try make a few more miles is less than perfect clouds (oh the humanity...). I'll call the fancy computers that are great at making decisions for their pilots in US tasks, weak-assed technology! ;-) You know, unlike PowerFlarm (where all pilots have the same data), when you buy a fancy flight computer, you have SUPERIOR technology than your competitors! This ADVANTAGE helps you make better decisions while flying complex tasks (every single timed task type in fact). What a horrible, HORRIBLE, unfair, awful thing.......right? RC that just voted to limit FLARM (perhaps risking safety)? Right?

You know, I have just realized something. I need to accept it. We really are going to only run OLC "tasks" in the SSA 10 years. OLC tasks will be formally introduced as an actual task by the SSA this year (next year at the latest), and without specific guidance and an overlying policy that prevents it, most regionals will immediately begin calling OLC as tasks 80% of the time. I can see it now! In 5 years, nearly 100% of our regional tasking will be OLC (many will still argue that OLC is racing) and 50% of our nationals tasks will be OLC "racing." And so on... An area task will be voodoo then! LOL!

I'll be running a US Grand Prix racing league and will not even bother with SSA contests by this point. 3% (or less) is not going to keep my attention.

For me, the only form of competition that I am truly interested in involves one simple measured element, speed around a set RACING track. The other stuff is a compromise when the weather is bad, except in the USA of course.. Times tasks are the main course here, but I digress. Assigned tasks require only stopwatch. They do not even require an elaborate scoring program (or an experienced, scorer!) and its highly subjective formulas (see Andys post) trying to "best assess" what elements of "racing" sailplanes are most important to you as a person. For example, leeching penalties. WOW. Like little economist attempting to plan economies, our RC tries to plan what soaring competition "should be" for us. And it is becoming ANYTHING but racing. What a complete disaster this has become.

Remember, in assigned tasks, pilots are free to go anywhere they want in between the set turn points. That alone provides nearly infinite variables by itself, by itself. The difference is, they have to always bring it back to a specific turn point that may not be at the end of a magical line of puffy white clouds. Simple.

The only reason to run a TAT is when the weather is in question or the class that must account for broad handicap range (sports). Times, area task are, by definition, "compromise tasks!" HATs and MATs are, in comparison, huge compromise tasks. I'm honestly amazed we still make our pilots come back to a 2 mile finish cylinder. Why not a 60 mile finish "area?" Sometimes it's hard to come back to that small point in space. Its too hard! Right?

Sean

I take your points and don't disagree that we should be calling more constrained tasks on average and more ATs where practical. I don't think we will do participation in the sport any favors driving up the landout percentages significantly in the process. I do think there is some skill in picking the macro lines of strongest weather that you wouldn't normally get in an AT, but also that there is skill in being required to get to a specific point. We all did it for years back before GPS and took pictures of the turnpoints to prove it. Also, we will have to tolerate more gaggling and leeching. I'm okay with that too.

You sure get excited about it. How's your CAPS LOCK holding up?

9B

Aww crap, this was going so well, then everyone had to get all rational and stuff.

Many good points made by all. However, the assumption being made is that "open Flarm" will be just that: Flarm with all it's excellent capabilities intact to maximize situational awareness and safety. That would be optimal. No argument from me. However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:01:47 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
SNIP Is there really a benefit of tracking a glider on your FLARM display for 4 minutes? Take a situation where there are 4 other gliders in your proximity. Keeping track of them all continuously with FLARM is a lot of heads down time. A lot of the gliders are more than 1000 feet difference in altitude and are no collision threat. Having all that displayed clutters the important info so is really only of tactical benefit.

You need a better tactical display. No one I know tracks gliders for 4 minutes. You take a one second glance at the display and notice that there are 4 gliders the direction you are headed. A minute later another one second glance shows that one has headed off so there are still three. 2 minutes later another 1 second glance confirms that the 3 gliders are now pretty close, headed the opposite direction, and you should be looking for them that direction. You opt to alter course slightly right. A minute later a one second glance shows that your course alteration put the 3 other gliders safely to your left with no possibility of a conflict or Flarm alert. Situational awareness is only useful if you use it. You now have 4 seconds total heads down time spent over 4 minutes to completely eliminate any conflict with 4 other gliders with no other tactical benefit.

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:01:47 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:

Is there really a benefit of tracking a glider on your FLARM display for 4 minutes? Take a situation where there are 4 other gliders in your proximity. Keeping track of them all continuously with FLARM is a lot of heads down time. A lot of the gliders are more than 1000 feet difference in altitude and are no collision threat. Having all that displayed clutters the important info so is really only of tactical benefit.


I think 4 minutes was meant as part of a general visual scan rather than continuously fixating on the display. A scan that returns to the display within about 1/2 the lead time you'd expect to have for a target seems reasonable. If you only scan at the maximum lead-time a target can sneak in pretty close before you pick it up.

Four minutes of situational awareness lead time means scanning every minute or two. One minute of lead time means scanning every 30 seconds and 10 seconds of lead time would require you to have your head down pretty much continuously if you were concerned about nasty surprises. If you want to just wait for a target to become a collision threat and react to the collision alarm then by definition maintaining situational awareness to prevent conflicts is not part of your approach.

Because the "wait for the alarm to go off" makes some of us uncomfortable - the OODA loop is just too long with Flarm alarms in some cases - we prefer to keep track of aircraft in a bigger envelope before they get to alarm mode. Doing that is easier if you don't have to keep going back to the display to see what's new. For instance, I scan more frequently running cloud streets and convergence lines - particularly if I know there is traffic likely ahead because of an out and back course configuration, etc. I know that converging traffic can come up in a hurry and I want to be ahead of it if I can.

9B

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
SNIP
Because the "wait for the alarm to go off" makes some of us uncomfortable -

I'll go further than that. In my experience a Flarm warning means someone is really close. In my opinion an unexpected flarm warning means you screwed the pooch. Luck or Flarm saved your ass and his. You should really consider changing how you fly. One part of that might be turning off stealth mode and taking a glance at a good tactical display once in awhile.