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

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.

On Friday, 4 December 2015 20:30:42 UTC-7, 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.

You will only get folks that flew Elmira in 2015 to respond, the only data point based on your criteria

On Friday, 4 December 2015 20:30:42 UTC-7, 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.

For US based pilots you should only get Elmira 2015 pilots responding, the ONLY data point.

I thought Elmira was the only stealth contest. But I wasn't sure about local contests and, of course, non-U.S. contests. I agree with others that my impression was that pilots flying Elmira overwhelmingly approved of stealth. But it's just that--an impression, not an actual survey.

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

I have flown a number of "stealth" nationals contests in the UK. The leeching side effect of FLARM displays has become such a problem over the last couple of years that stealth mode is nearly unanimously wanted by pilots competing, stealth mode makes a significant difference by returning returning competition to an "individual" sport.

The IGC are working with FLARM to improve "stealth" mode even further. what we need to arrive at is a set of rules that mandate that in cockpit displays can only be used for collision avoidance and situational awarenes, this should cover any data protoclols including ADSB and FLARM.

Interesting question - Flarm is a single code base by a single developer. Glider displays are multiple code bases by multiple developers who don't all support the same contest rules, which vary by country and contest format. Also, position reporting technologies are available on multiple, non-glider platforms (including iOS and Android) made by companies that don't care about gliding at all, and the implementations of ADS-B vary by country (eg UAT and ADS-R providing TIS-B traffic - including transponders - as well as weather radar - a different but similar topic).

This yields two issues: 1) who is going to corral all the developers and make them comply? 2) how do we want to allocate the very limited programmer capacity for developing soaring computers and displays for the coming decades.

9B

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

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

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

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

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

At 17:57 05 December 2015, wrote:
Andy, how different is this from the definition of Standard Class? The
FAI/=
IGC established it in the 1950s, the German glider manufacturers
allegedly
=
colluded in the 1960s to rewrite the rule about terminal velocity dive
brak=
es, and each country's aero club can do whatever they want (as the U.S.
did=
with flap timers around 1980 and again a few years ago to handicap older
g=
liders).

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

???
An Approved Flight Recorder is one currently on the list maintained by IGC
(GFAC). If it's not on the list, it is not an "Approved Flight Recorder".
The specification of an Approved Flight Recorder is published by IGC.
Endof.

Did you mean "Position Recorders"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9B

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

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

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

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

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

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