Is FLARM helpful?

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.

But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.

John Cochrane BB


Technology can be defined as the application of human ability to affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.

The stealth mode feature of FLARM is such an application of human ability or technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Tim:

You do a great job of summarizing flarm, which accords with my experience.. (Thermal alarms are a PITA.)

You make an interesting case for choosing to turn on stealth.

You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "

First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.

Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?


John Cochrane BB

John Cochrane,
Again you are throwing out this 85% number. Here is the question from the poll:

Do you think gaggling and leeching are serious problems, and the RC should consider other rules changes (not Flarm-related) to reduce their prevalence? Develop rules: 11%, No 85%.

I read this as: Do I think gaggle and leaching are serious problems AND RC should develop other non-flarm rules to deal with gaggle and leaching?

I and most others voted no because whether you think leeching is no issue or if you think non-flarm rules are not the way to go "no" would be your vote. It is a bad question.

You are quite cable of making a legitimate argument for your case. Please don't spin the results of the poll.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Tim:

You do a great job of summarizing flarm, which accords with my experience.. (Thermal alarms are a PITA.)

You make an interesting case for choosing to turn on stealth.

You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "

First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.

Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?


John Cochrane BB

John Cochrane,
Again you are throwing out this 85% number. Here is the question from the poll:

Do you think gaggling and leeching are serious problems, and the RC should consider other rules changes (not Flarm-related) to reduce their prevalence? Develop rules: 11%, No 85%.

I read this as: Do I think gaggle and leaching are serious problems AND RC should develop other non-flarm rules to deal with gaggle and leaching?

I and most others voted no because whether you think leeching is no issue or if you think non-flarm rules are not the way to go, "no" would be your vote. It is a bad question.

You are quite capable of making a legitimate, logical argument for your case. Please don't spin the results of the poll or scare people with the threat of legal action to make your point.

XC

Anyone or clubs using FLARM to help the new XC pilot? Thought I saw a thread awhile back mentioning why are not more pilots venturing into XC and just hanging around the strip. Would FLARM help them keep track of others in the air and give direction and altitude that they could use to feel more confident in venturing further?

Yes. Many pilots flying at OLC and XC events - or even casual XC flying - use Flarm to buddy fly. When used with simple, short radio communications it makes it pretty easy to get together and stay together, though generally the more experienced pilot(s) will need to pay attention to not getting too far out front as knowing where the lead glider is located is quite a different matter from catching up to it.

As Andy says. We've been doing a lot of buddy flying and XC mentoring utilizing Flarm. Works very well for this purpose.

Ramy