Confessions of a Flarm Follower

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 4:56:01 PM UTC-6, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:

From my perspective, this is a fairly narrow view of what racing means. As presented above, it would be primarily a contest of stick skills. Same start, same thermals, same course... He/she who flies better, wins. sort of like the recent contest in Dubai.


Exactly; that's what a RACE is, by definition. If Dubai had thermals, it would have been interesting, as it was, it was a final-glide-off ;^). RACING should be about minimizing variables and luck, and maximizing stick skills..


I prefer the concept of racing to include tactical and strategic decision making, the pilots understanding of weather; picking optimal turn points; knowing when to "go deep"; selecting the best start time for the day; using knowledge of the competitors ships, habits, strengths and weaknesses; when to lead, when to follow, when to leave the pack. And yes, using FLARM info to my best advantage (as well as glide computers, moving maps, and polarized sun glasses, etc.)


What you describe is a CONTEST, not a RACE. Set a task or goal or objective, then do your best to accomplish it better than anyone else. That's fine, and fun, just like golf or chess or OLC - but it's not RACING!


Both perspectives are valid of course. I just prefer the latter

Matt Herron

I enjoy both also - but it is increasingly hard to find glider RACING in the US anymore, with the virtual demise of speed tasks and the banishment of start lines, one-fix-in-the-circle turnpoints, and line finishes.

Kirk
66

What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

The situational awareness (SA) value of PowerFlarm (or chance to break the long "chain" of sensory "non-events" required for two pilots to close into each other and collide undetected) or of these inexpensive ADSB systems is, IMHO, very high. I don't think they should be banned as they are now going to be! Its a very good thing to see unknown traffic targets in a 5-10km range from a safety perspective, even if (and I am not saying it does) it has tactical value as well. Some of these targets might by airliners or military aircraft moving at high speed.

I think taking ID, climb rates, altitude, etc away from gliders outside 5km is fine. Most of that data is useless anyway, although altitude might aid in certain strategy assumptions. Again, as long as all safety value is maintained with the highest priority, philosophical compromises are acceptable to me.

Its the ability of pilots with Flarm/ADSB/other "radar" to keep "filling in" a mental picture of traffic around them and how they are approaching via an occasional quick scan of that radar that I believe results in 80% of Flarms true safety value. Most warnings are annoying, but that is usually because you already know they are coming. This SA helps pilots focus their external traffic scan and pick out relevant traffic earlier by giving them some intelligence on where to concentrate attention. This is extremely valuable for safety and has not been mentioned much by its opponents.

If you cut that radar picture down too much (say less than 3 miles, for example) the chances of pilots not noticing the other traffic increases. Pure fact. Indisputable. 1 mile (2km) is highly dangerous in my opinion and makes Flarm essentially useless.

Sean

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.

FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct

Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.

But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?

But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.

FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct

Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.

But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?

But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....

This is why I have become apathetic about arguing against stealth mode. The RC's decision will be irrelevant in just a couple of years, and I will have all the situational awareness I want, stealth or no stealth. No one from that camp has responded to this issue, other than a desperate hope that the FAA will grant some sort of waiver for gliders in competition, allowing them to impose stealth mode on ADS-B. I am not the slightest bit concerned that such a thing would happen.

I fully agree with Sean's statement that situational awareness is 80% of the value of Flarm. I have stated several times that with situational awareness, if you are getting an unexpected collision alarm you were not paying attention and ought to review your procedures. ADS-B will provide this even absent Flarm. You won't get accurate rate of climb, but you don't get that from Flarm, either.

Given that much long range Flarm type data will be available to all without restriction shortly, the only rational decision the RC could make is to allow open Flarm now, so that it will be less of a shock to the racing community when it happens.

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.

FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct

Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.

But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?

But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....


Um - yup.

We had a discussion on another thread (or was it this one?) about implementing traffic filtering based on registered competitor ICAO addresses at the glide computer - which would require all glide software being used in contests to implement it (including the open source stuff where an enterprising pilot could "adjust" it himself). It would also likely require daily inspections that each pilot had a full and correct ICAO database. Those of us who have multiple glide computers/situational displays would have to submit some sort of file for each one for each day and failure to submit a file that shows the correct database for each display in the cockpit - my cockpit has 5 such devices - would be DQ'd for the day. Display can't produce a file because it lost power or was reset in flight or just had some sort of error - DQ for the day. Each display in the cockpit for each pilot would need to be verified each day by the scorer.

You'd have trouble eliminating tiny home-brew ADS-B receivers and you'd never eliminate the smartphone stuff. Makes my head spin - and gives me nightmares of nasty emails from Ron Gleason. ;-)

If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).

Bottle ----- ...Genie

Might be good to find Andrzej in the start cylinder and go when he goes. It'll be like a having lantern on a moonless night. I am presuming any glider in range will be able to see the TIS-B traffic transmitted for Andrzej's benefit.

Good times.

9B

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:37:29 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.

FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct

Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.

But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?

But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....


Um - yup.

We had a discussion on another thread (or was it this one?) about implementing traffic filtering based on registered competitor ICAO addresses at the glide computer - which would require all glide software being used in contests to implement it (including the open source stuff where an enterprising pilot could "adjust" it himself). It would also likely require daily inspections that each pilot had a full and correct ICAO database. Those of us who have multiple glide computers/situational displays would have to submit some sort of file for each one for each day and failure to submit a file that shows the correct database for each display in the cockpit - my cockpit has 5 such devices - would be DQ'd for the day. Display can't produce a file because it lost power or was reset in flight or just had some sort of error - DQ for the day. Each display in the cockpit for each pilot would need to be verified each day by the scorer.

You'd have trouble eliminating tiny home-brew ADS-B receivers and you'd never eliminate the smartphone stuff. Makes my head spin - and gives me nightmares of nasty emails from Ron Gleason. ;-)

If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).

Bottle ----- ...Genie

Might be good to find Andrzej in the start cylinder and go when he goes. It'll be like a having lantern on a moonless night. I am presuming any glider in range will be able to see the TIS-B traffic transmitted for Andrzej's benefit.

Good times.

9B

Andy, I was planning on attending one National contest this year, but since the RC vote, I am delaying registration. I may make other plans for this year as a result of this uncertainty.

If the Stealth mode were to be approved I am done flying contests.

There has been a lot of talk about tactical use of PowerFlarm. Proponents of Stealth mode imply that tactical advantage is the reason why people buy PowerFlarm.

If the proponents of Stealth mode are right then once you eliminate that reason adoption of PowerFlarm is going to stall completely.

Is that what we want?

You can't have it both ways.

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:29:40 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
There has been a lot of talk about tactical use of PowerFlarm. Proponents of Stealth mode imply that tactical advantage is the reason why people buy PowerFlarm.

If the proponents of Stealth mode are right then once you eliminate that reason adoption of PowerFlarm is going to stall completely.

Is that what we want?

You can't have it both ways.

There may be a few who make the case that the big benefit of Flarm is for tactical advantage. Most certainly it is an added benefit, and admittedly, an additional selling point.
I tell anyone that asks my advice on the topic that they should use Flarm because it can improve their safety margin, most especially in contests with a larger group of gliders near them. That is why I bought it and I believe that is a good enough reason on it's own.
I do not know of many, if any, that are anti Flarm given the safety benefit.. There are more than a few that are strongly questioning the effect of Flarm radar on our sport. That does not make us anti safety.
What do I personally want? I would like Flarm in every glider in the contest and to have it have absolutely no affect on the competition beyond the absence of collisions and close scary misses.
There is no reason to now shout me down in rebuttal. The positions of others are quite well known.
UH

Hank, you'll never get away with that! Not only is your post a reprised rebuttal in itself making your comment that no one need reply sorta funny, but your contention that reducing FLARM range is not anti safety is pretty dubious! That's exactly why this is being so hotly debated.