RC madness

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 4:03:02 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 1:26:07 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 8:40:49 AM UTC-8, ND wrote:
SNIP that still gives you 12 seconds to SEE AND AVOID the traffic. count out 12 seconds and think about how long that is.

Ok now think about the glider going your direction you think might be just above to your left, and the one you think might be just below to your right (they are not threats and are invisible on your tactical display due to stealth). Then get two alarms indicating closing traffic ahead at 12 and 11 seconds to impact. Start counting. You cannot make a sudden turn or swoop, you do not know where the gliders beside you are. You cannot call them, you don't know who they are. Now at 5 seconds spot the third glider also closing from ahead with the other two (warning was buried under the others). You have 5 gliders to miss and 5 seconds to sort it out. Two of them are somewhere alongside, but you don't know where. The three going the other direction are beginning to visually pick up you three and are scattering in random directions as are your two companions. Now you are getting alarms from every direction. Three people have the radio keyed and all you hear is howling. Five, four, three, two one, BANG. Still plenty of time?

With (non-stealth) Flarm, this scenario doesn't even raise your heart rate, you knew where everyone was 7 miles out, made a leisurely 3 deg course change, and don't even see them visually when they pass safely on your left. Believe me, this happens out west.


We routinely have dozens of gliders operating in the Appalachians on good ridge days. We've done this for 30 years without gliders bumping into each other left and right. It's not at all uncommon to have the scenario you describe, only instead of 1 oncoming glider it's 4 or 5. And, we've got two fewer degrees of freedom, since there's rocks and trees to one side and below.

Not making light of it, but sort of wondering how it's possible we survived at all before FLARM with no warning at all?

P3


AMEN


────────────────┠€â”€â”€â”€â–‘███░
────────────────┠€â”€â”€â–‘█░░░█░
────────────────┠€â”€â–‘█░░░░░█░
────────────────┠€â–‘█░░░░░█░
──────────░░░───■‘█░░░░░░█░
─────────░███░──■‘█░░░░░█░
───────░██░░░██░■ˆâ–‘░░░░█░
──────░█░░█░░░░█■ˆâ–‘░░░░█░
────░██░░█░░░░░░■ˆâ–‘░░░█░
───░█░░░█░░░░░░░■ˆâ–ˆâ–‘░░█░
──░█░░░░█░░░░░░░■‘█░░░█░
──░█░░░░░█░░░░░░■‘░█░░░█░
──░█░░█░░░█░░░░░■‘░░█░░█░
─░█░░░█░░░░██░░░■‘░░█░░█░
─░█░░░░█░░░░░██░■‘░█░░░█░
─░█░█░░░█░░░░░░█■ˆâ–ˆâ–‘░░░█░
░█░░░█░░░██░░░░░■ˆâ–‘░░░░█░
░█░░░░█░░░░█████■‘░░░░█░
░█░░░░░█░░░░░░░█■‘░░░░█░
░█░█░░░░██░░░░█░■‘░░░█░
─░█░█░░░░░████░░■‘░██░
─░█░░█░░░░░░░█░░■ˆâ–ˆâ–‘█░
──░█░░██░░░██░░█■‘░░█░
───░██░░███░░██░■ˆâ–‘░█░
────░██░░░███░░░■ˆâ–‘░░█░
──────░███░░░░░░■ˆâ–‘░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░■ˆâ–‘░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░■‘░░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░■‘░░░░█░
──────░█░░░░░░░░■‘░░░░█░

you know what i'm gonna do in that scenario? i'm gonna open my eyes, and look up. then i'm going to pull up and to my right while making sure i'm not going to hit someone above me as i'm doing so. that's gonna reduce the closing speed and give me more time to spot the traffic. if it's really desperate, i'll pull my water (if i happen to be carrying any) to increase my visibility to others until i think the danger has passed. use every resource you can and get creative. no amount of anything besides a forcefield can eliminate two aircraft from rubbing. i accept that every time i get in. I also accept that flarm reduces the risk significantly.

Consider when programming your brain Andy- Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.
Matching the other guys bank is best obviously. In the real world you will never think about water dumping. The emergency will be over before your brain gets to that.
FWIW
UH

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 1:26:07 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

Ok now think about the glider going your direction you think might be just above to your left, and the one you think might be just below to your right (they are not threats and are invisible on your tactical display due to stealth).
SNIP
With (non-stealth) Flarm, this scenario doesn't even raise your heart rate, you knew where everyone was 7 miles out,

Not trying to be difficult but I must be missing something. If they're that close to you (i.e., within 2 km), they're visible even with Stealth.

That's for the standard (Portable) FLARM display I use, of course. I can't say how the glide computer tactical displays might present the information in an "improved" fashion.

If, on the other hand, they don't have FLARM at all, then you don't know where everyone is 7 miles out.

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

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 4:45:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
The answer is that many glider pilots did not survive; read
Bruno Gatenbrink's article.
Installing Flarm is a no brainer.
Seat belts, crash helmets, air bags, NCAP ratings.. modern
nonsense eh?

Nobody's arguing against using Flarm.

UH,

Its ALL RC aircraft between .5 lbs and 55lbs. A different catagory of rules apply for 55lbs.

The AMA has negotiated drones only, and expected that. This came as a huge shock to many. The FAA, in their wisdom, changed to scope to included ALL RC aircraft between .5 and 55 lbs at the last moments. All limited to below 400 ft. which is comical for RC sailplanes and most high performance jets and electric aircraft.

Sean

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:

Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.

Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.

Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.

I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.

Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.

9B

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 7:15:05 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:

Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.

Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.

Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.

I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.

Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.

9B

I'm starting to wonder if Andy will be able to resist disagreeing with every thing I say.
Quite some time ago I was part of a group discussion on the very topic. The pilots were asked what they would do in just this situation without knowing what the others would say. Virtually every one answered that they would pull and turn.
The fighter pilot in the group said he would push because almost everybody will pull out of instinct.
It ain't 50-50 odds.
Matching bank is basic collision avoidance.
Obviously not something any one of us wants to do.
UH

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
SNIP Not trying to be difficult but I must be missing something. If they're that close to you (i.e., within 2 km), they're visible even with Stealth..


From the Flarm documents, V6.0 page 19 (maybe this has changed?):

"Targets with enabled “Stealth Mode� are only displayed.... if they meet at least one of the following requirements:

- target is a threat

- target is within 100m horizontal and 50m vertical
- target is within 2000m horizontal and 300m vertical and within ±45° of own flight track."

So the guys going your way - the ones ND is going to pull up sharply into - you don't even know are there. They aren't a threat because they are paralleling your course. Even if they are close enough to appear, their relative altitude is intentionally wrong.

Now I am going to repeat for the 20th time or so, I don't believe Flarm is a huge increase in safety. It is a big sky and most accidents are spin/stall, not head on. I don't even call my Flarm an anti-collision device, I call it an in-flight entertainment system. But certainly beyond a doubt, it improves situational awareness always, and particularly in the scenario described. On The White Mountains and the Sierra convergence lines, I don't think there have been any head-ons than I can recall. Its a big sky. But plenty of people have had to change their underwear at the end of the day, I can assure you. It was enough of a concern that a rather elaborate procedure was devised in the area, reserving a radio frequency and involving reporting points etc., all of which seemed pretty ineffective, while non-stealth FLARM pretty much solves the problem completely and with no distraction.

Twice, flying the Whites and running under street, I came upon an opposing glider and just had the time to flinch. And I always kept a very close eye out for traffic while flying the Whites.


On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 4:15:05 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:

Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.

Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.

Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.

I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.

Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.

9B

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:47:27 PM UTC-5, JS wrote:
Thought the "RC madness" thread would have a link to a crazy Radio Controlled glider contest or DS video.
Jim

Yeppers, and now we all have to register our RC drones with the FAA...... Well... maybe not.... until we crash it and we get found out... :-(.....

Wait, what is this thread about???