RC madness

From Rules Committee:

"This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):

1. For National Contests:
* Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
* Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"


I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.

You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.

Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.

Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

I just bought a new PowerFlarm and already someone is going to make me neuter it.
The ClearNav display shows all of the GA traffic around me via the Flarm. It is fantastic.
The Dynon Skyview in my Phoenix motorglider has ADSB traffic and now that I have it, I feel naked in any aircraft without a traffic display. There is nothing like seeing traffic on the screen too far away to see, and tracking it into visual range without ever having a surprise visitor scare me.
This new rule came about after one contest trial? You have to be kidding me.
Tactical advantage? If you are not looking out the window you are not going to win.
When the first midair occurs with one or both gliders using stealth mode (or worse - with a multi passenger airplane) because it is mandated do you think there will not be lawsuits against the SSA? Good luck with that one.

I agree with Andrzej that these proposed Flarm-related rules are premature. And I agree with Jim that these rules could put pilots, contest organizers, the RC and the SSA BoD under increased liability (Flarm has put in writing that the use of Stealth mode is not recommended).

But also such rules are in my view reactionary (there has been no public evidence presented that Flarm-leeching has occurred), they are inefficient (we should attack the problem, eg, leeching, not an anti-collision device); and they are short sighted (ADS-B will provide the same display that PowerFlarm does, and gliders with ADS-B will not be able to turn it off).

I think we need to discuss these proposed rules much, much more before they are presented to the SSA BoD!

-John, Q3

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 1:22:32 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
From Rules Committee:

"This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):

1. For National Contests:
* Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
* Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"


I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.

You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.

Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.

Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 1:22:32 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
From Rules Committee:

"This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):

1. For National Contests:
* Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
* Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"


I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.

You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.

Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.

Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

Merry Christmas

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 2:45:37 PM UTC-5, John Carlyle wrote:
SNIP
I think we need to discuss these proposed rules much, much more before they are presented to the SSA BoD!

Yeah, that's what we need. More discussion.

That said, I offer a few thoughts:

1. There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it. Others have reported on it in this forum and many of us can confirm it. The REAL question is whether this is antithetical to the objectives of U.S. competitive events. Elderly pilots such as myself who have to be helped into our gliders from our walkers and who couldn't conjure up a weather forecast on our flip phones if our Social Security checks depended on it agree it is. Technophiles who babble on about how unenlightened it is to oppose change--and who are unapologetic about the $4,000 they dropped on their 3D televisions last year when they slavishly embraced THAT stillborn change--give a cautious nod (barely) to soaring over fiddling with their Playstations/Xboxes but would like to see all "platforms" reflect their belief that whomever masters the latest technology should win. The rest are somewhere in the middle.

2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK, it may, but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is that it's a very small amount but who really knows? More worrisome are recent comments that raise questions about whether some pilots are already relying too heavily on graphically displayed FLARM data to maintain situational awareness at the cost of looking out the window. Regardless, anyone who truly opposes mandatory Stealth for safety reasons should also be just as vocal in opposing ANY use of Stealth by ANY pilot. Additionally, they should be campaigning loudly for mandatory FLARM at all contests and perhaps even across the U.S. glider fleet at large, followed closely by mandatory ADS-B out. Not that open FLARM insures against midair collisions; I've read at least one reference on this forum that a midair involving FLARM-equipped aircraft has already occurred.

3. Lastly, those who are truly committed to staying at the leading edge of technology and maximizing safety no matter the cost should be lobbying vociferously for mandatory FES gliders, 1,500' AGL "hard decks", and a no-landout policy for all competitive events. After all, we have the technology to eliminate off-airport landings, still one of the greatest risks of cross-country soaring. Who cares what that would cost? Quit yammering about the liability associated with mandated Stealth and imagine how a jury would react to learning that contest organizers tasked an entire field of pilots of varying abilities with flying 300 miles over populated areas WITHOUT AN ENGINE!!!! Horrors! How irresponsible is that!!!

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

Another point is that the more flarm becomes a tactical device, the more people are tempted to use it sporadically, when it is in their advantage. There were certainly reports of pilots flying with small sheets of aluminium in Europe and the PAGC to "disappear" if they hit a thermal. This is certainly contrary to the safety objectives of the device...

Best Regards,
Daniel

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:01:20 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 2:45:37 PM UTC-5, John Carlyle wrote:
SNIP
I think we need to discuss these proposed rules much, much more before they are presented to the SSA BoD!

Yeah, that's what we need. More discussion.

That said, I offer a few thoughts:

1. There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it. Others have reported on it in this forum and many of us can confirm it. The REAL question is whether this is antithetical to the objectives of U.S. competitive events. Elderly pilots such as myself who have to be helped into our gliders from our walkers and who couldn't conjure up a weather forecast on our flip phones if our Social Security checks depended on it agree it is. Technophiles who babble on about how unenlightened it is to oppose change--and who are unapologetic about the $4,000 they dropped on their 3D televisions last year when they slavishly embraced THAT stillborn change--give a cautious nod (barely) to soaring over fiddling with their Playstations/Xboxes but would like to see all "platforms" reflect their belief that whomever masters the latest technology should win. The rest are somewhere in the middle.

2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK, it may, but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is that it's a very small amount but who really knows? More worrisome are recent comments that raise questions about whether some pilots are already relying too heavily on graphically displayed FLARM data to maintain situational awareness at the cost of looking out the window. Regardless, anyone who truly opposes mandatory Stealth for safety reasons should also be just as vocal in opposing ANY use of Stealth by ANY pilot. Additionally, they should be campaigning loudly for mandatory FLARM at all contests and perhaps even across the U.S. glider fleet at large, followed closely by mandatory ADS-B out. Not that open FLARM insures against midair collisions; I've read at least one reference on this forum that a midair involving FLARM-equipped aircraft has already occurred.

3. Lastly, those who are truly committed to staying at the leading edge of technology and maximizing safety no matter the cost should be lobbying vociferously for mandatory FES gliders, 1,500' AGL "hard decks", and a no-landout policy for all competitive events. After all, we have the technology to eliminate off-airport landings, still one of the greatest risks of cross-country soaring. Who cares what that would cost? Quit yammering about the liability associated with mandated Stealth and imagine how a jury would react to learning that contest organizers tasked an entire field of pilots of varying abilities with flying 300 miles over populated areas WITHOUT AN ENGINE!!!! Horrors! How irresponsible is that!!!

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

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 9:01:20 PM UTC-8, wrote:

1. There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it. Others have reported on it in this forum and many of us can confirm it. The REAL question is whether this is antithetical to the objectives of U.S. competitive events. Elderly pilots such as myself who have to be helped into our gliders from our walkers and who couldn't conjure up a weather forecast on our flip phones if our Social Security checks depended on it agree it is. Technophiles who babble on about how unenlightened it is to oppose change--and who are unapologetic about the $4,000 they dropped on their 3D televisions last year when they slavishly embraced THAT stillborn change--give a cautious nod (barely) to soaring over fiddling with their Playstations/Xboxes but would like to see all "platforms" reflect their belief that whomever masters the latest technology should win. The rest are somewhere in the middle.

Hyperbole about AI robots becoming US National Soaring Champion notwithstanding, the question on the table is whether attempting to use Flarm to leech helps enough to make any meaningful difference in a contest, and even if it did, does that fact somehow make contests unfair or invalid. The answer, based on the only facts introduced into this discussion so far: nope - leeching at a distance results in poorer, rather than better performance - poorer climbs, poorer daily speeds, poorer placement in contests overall. Even if it did help occasionally - like finding the local pilot who knows where the house thermal or convergence line is - or locating the one pilot who hits the lucky climb that gets him home across a blue hole when the rest of the field faces landouts, I'd argue that it more frequently cancels out luck than skill. In any event, these things happen today where the lucky eagle-eyed pilot sees the wing flash three miles out. Now the geriatric pilot with bifocals won't get occasionally cheated out of getting home by his failing vision.

Again, these sorts of things happen once in a great while - and it's not typically a bad thing when they do. It's certainly not important enough to redirect the time and energies of developers, contest organizers and pilots to fiddle with degraded instrument settings. It's certainly not a reason to freeze the technological advancement of the sport in 1989.

The cost argument in favor of stealth is upside-down - arguably it is slightly more expensive in time and effort to make stealth mandatory. No one is suggesting we get rid of Flarm to save money and no one is suggesting we ban moving-map displays - 2D or 3D.


2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK, it may, but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is that it's a very small amount but who really knows? More worrisome are recent comments that raise questions about whether some pilots are already relying too heavily on graphically displayed FLARM data to maintain situational awareness at the cost of looking out the window. Regardless, anyone who truly opposes mandatory Stealth for safety reasons should also be just as vocal in opposing ANY use of Stealth by ANY pilot. Additionally, they should be campaigning loudly for mandatory FLARM at all contests and perhaps even across the U.S. glider fleet at large, followed closely by mandatory ADS-B out. Not that open FLARM insures against midair collisions; I've read at least one reference on this forum that a midair involving FLARM-equipped aircraft has already occurred.

One reason for the introduction of ADS-B is because studies have consistently showed that human vision is not up to the task of reliably finding collision threats (the success rate is about 50%). I am not convinced that in a contest where the vast majority of gliders are carrying Flarm and much of the other traffic is carrying ADS-B that looking at a display of traffic isn't better for finding potential collision threats than looking out the window (obviously doing both would be best an no one would suggest that head in the cockpit is a good idea in a crowded thermal - but that's not the situation we are talking about anyway). My own experience tells me that restricting Flarm range to 2 km instead of 6-8km translates to a pilot looking down 3-4 times as much in an effort to maintain situational awareness (whether that be for safety reasons to avoid unpleasant surprises or in a leeching effort). Do you really want guys steaming into your thermal heads down because they only had a few seconds to sort traffic on their display? We all know the display in the cockpit is far more reliable at finding gliders than looking out the window - shortening the range means less time to translate from screen to out the window and on thermal entry that could lead to bad habits getting a bit worse.


3. Lastly, those who are truly committed to staying at the leading edge of technology and maximizing safety no matter the cost should be lobbying vociferously for mandatory FES gliders, 1,500' AGL "hard decks", and a no-landout policy for all competitive events. After all, we have the technology to eliminate off-airport landings, still one of the greatest risks of cross-country soaring. Who cares what that would cost? Quit yammering about the liability associated with mandated Stealth and imagine how a jury would react to learning that contest organizers tasked an entire field of pilots of varying abilities with flying 300 miles over populated areas WITHOUT AN ENGINE!!!! Horrors! How irresponsible is that!!!

I make a distinction between mandating expensive technology options that increase safety and mandating expensive (in time, effort and development dollars) technology options that (to some as yet unknown extent) decrease safety. Flarm stealth mode is the second category, FES and the other things are in the first. I'm generally not in favor of mandating things that require time, effort and expense unless the requirements are modest and the benefits are clear. Even making Flarm (in any mode) mandatory has not gotten into the rules yet, but we are jumping into a stealth mandatory discussion.

9B

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 7:55:23 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 9:01:20 PM UTC-8, wrote:

Hyperbole about AI robots becoming US National Soaring Champion notwithstanding, the question on the table is whether attempting to use Flarm to leech helps enough to make any meaningful difference in a contest, and even if it did, does that fact somehow make contests unfair or invalid. The answer, based on the only facts introduced into this discussion so far: nope - leeching at a distance results in poorer, rather than better performance - poorer climbs, poorer daily speeds, poorer placement in contests overall. Even if it did help occasionally - like finding the local pilot who knows where the house thermal or convergence line is - or locating the one pilot who hits the lucky climb that gets him home across a blue hole when the rest of the field faces landouts, I'd argue that it more frequently cancels out luck than skill. In any event, these things happen today where the lucky eagle-eyed pilot sees the wing flash three miles out. Now the geriatric pilot with bifocals won't get occasionally cheated out of getting home by his failing vision.

Again, these sorts of things happen once in a great while - and it's not typically a bad thing when they do. It's certainly not important enough to redirect the time and energies of developers, contest organizers and pilots to fiddle with degraded instrument settings. It's certainly not a reason to freeze the technological advancement of the sport in 1989.



Andy,

I'd argue that you simply don't have enough data points to make factual statements like the above. The majority of racing pilots in the US have between 1 and 2 years of experience using FLARM and are "hamstrung" by current user-interfaces that are optimized for the original purpose of FLARM - collision avoidance.

It's absolutely foreseeable that one or more of the instrument manufacturers (or more likely the Open Source crew) will put some real thought into "Tactical Information Pages" (TIPS) for 2016. As discussed many times, the main purpose of those pages will be to apply "smart filters" for the raw data which is hard (though not impossible) to interpret on today's screens. Whether it's competitor location data, historical track data, location of the "lead gaggle", whatever, that information WILL be used, and the pilots will be able to configure that information to their liking. So, instead of a single "blip" or two from a target, the screen will show the average top-to-bottom climb rates, number of samples, etc. Another might show you only selected "targets" that you want to keep track of in the start cylinder. Will it drastically alter outcomes at the top? Not likely. Will it further compress the middle? Probably.

If you want an interesting read, have a look at the post from Tom Arscott winner of the Junior Worlds Club Class. In a competition where the start was absolutely paramount, the ability to find (and hide from) competitors was make or break.

Point being: The argument that FLARM is of little use for tactics just doesn't (or won't) hold water. And with ADS-B right around the corner, that line of reasoning may become moot anyway. Let's debate straight up whether we do or don't want "external information" to drive competition. Maybe we allow it in Open Class (traditionally "no holds barred") while limiting it for a couple of seasons in Club/Sports. But whatever we do, wouldn't it be best to focus on the root issue?

Now back to sanding primer...

Erik Mann (P3)
Flarm fan
Stealth fan

At 05:01 21 December 2015, wrote:

SNIP
2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK,
it may,but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is
that it's a very small amount but who really knows?

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

If you have read my other posts on other threads you will realise
that it is by no means a "small" amount but that is not the main
issue.

As part of my enquiry into a mandate stealth mode for competitions
in the UK I communicated with Dr Urban Mäder. Below is what I
learned

"I have been in touch with Dr Urban Mäder, CTO at Flarm. He has
informed me that if Stealth mode is set on any Flarm unit there is a
degredation of the data which that unit transmits to all other FLARM
units. Specifically:

1. The range at which the Stealth mode set unit is detected is
significantly reduced
2. Important information useful for situational awareness is not
transmitted by a unit in Stealth Mode
3. If a Flarm unit is set to stealth mode it effects all other FLARM
units irrespective of their setting."

This is from FLARM itself, and they should know just how much.
They very sensibly DO NOT recommended the use of stealth mode.

You might say why should I care if competition pilots in the USA
bang into each other? I do care but that is not the issue. Setting
stealth mode effects all other units, whether they are set to stealth
mode or not. Competition pilots do not operate in protected
airspace, they share it with all sorts of other users in GA and the
military, who may use FLARM and who may not be aware that their
situational awareness is reduced. They expect the service they get
from FLARM to be normal.
Can you really justify degrading the safety for pilots who may not
have any involvement or knowledge of gliding competition rules, for
any reason, or by any amount? I would be very surprised if you
could.
We cannot uninvent FLARM, we are stuck with what it is. The only
logical move is to accept that it will provide information that it was
not intended to. If everyone has FLARM it is still a level playing field,
the only people who miss out are those who do not.

Note: In the UK GA and the Royal Air Force are fitting FLARM to their
aircraft for the specific purpose of avoiding gliders. I accept that
our airspace may be more "crowded"

Other significant info snipped...

We cannot uninvent FLARM, we are stuck with what it is. The only
logical move is to accept that it will provide information that it was
not intended to. If everyone has FLARM it is still a level playing field,
the only people who miss out are those who do not.

Recognizing that (arguably) *every* (not merely U.S./contest/etc.) glider
pilot is (potentially) affected by the appearance of (P-)FLARM on the stage
(e.g. by the presence of choice, peer pressure, contest rules,
potential/actual legal fallout, etc.), factual anality compels me to take
issue with the statement "...the only people who miss out are those who do not
[have FLARM]." Consider...

Let's say I choose to go the no-FLARM route. Where do I get my legally binding
affidavit protecting me from outside human pressure, said pressure
fundamentally based on the implied additional risk my choice "forces" on the
FLARM-carrying crowd.

I have little doubt that some lawyer, somewhere (probably in the U.S., sad to
non-cynically admit), will eventually - after some sort of crunch - argue in
court that some unfortunate glider pilot's failure to have/use a FLARM unit
constituted (willful negligence, assault, etc.). (I also hope this sort of
sweeping, overreaching rationale will quickly be swept into the dustbin of
legal trash reserved for "laughable nuisance suits," just in case anyone wonders.)

Human nature - boy it can be messy to have to deal with.

For the record, in my ideal world, use (or not) of FLARM would be simply
another life-risk-choice we get/have to make without the specter of
doomsayers/lawyers trying to ram it down our throats, just as (for one
example) motorcycle helmets. Life itself is a risk, and attempts to try and
force it to be otherwise are - at minimum - wishful thinking.

Bob W.

P.S. Merry Christmas (to all who choose to participate!)