PowerFlarm and ADS-B solution, can we find one?

This discussion tells me that we are, at best, still defining requirements. We should absolutely have not adopted (or run a test) contest in stealth. This is reckless and irresponsible. We have absolutely no idea what we are doing. We have absolutely no idea what Flarms average performance is.

We need to stop this child's play.

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 8:39:11 AM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
This discussion tells me that we are, at best, still defining requirements. We should absolutely have not adopted (or run a test) contest in stealth. This is reckless and irresponsible. We have absolutely no idea what we are doing. We have absolutely no idea what Flarms average performance is.

We need to stop this child's play.

Based upon the express request of the originator above,you are on the wrong thread.
UH

OK I'll stop it here. ;-)

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 1:10:30 PM UTC-8, smfidler wrote:
OK I'll stop it here. ;-)

Oh thank goodness, finally. So just to recap... we all decided to forgo this silliness of a nonexistent "stealth mode, the RC is going to mandate Flarm for all contests and we can polish up the tech vs No tech debate, next time something fun and useful comes along.

Some decided it, I didn't......

Again, while it may become a moot point down the road (due to FAA rules changes/exemptions), I feel we should limit "some new tech" until we find a "happy meeting ground" between tech and what we are trying to measure during a "soaring contest".

If the SSA rules we should do "team flying with ground crew info so we can compete on the worlds level", then most of this discussion is dead... "Que the dead horse beating".

Until then, we in the US follow the US rules, "full open Flarm" seems to go beyond this.
That's my take, waiting to see what happens next.

I've already cast my vote in this thread.

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:31:44 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 1:10:30 PM UTC-8, smfidler wrote:
OK I'll stop it here. ;-)

Oh thank goodness, finally. So just to recap... we all decided to forgo this silliness of a nonexistent "stealth mode, the RC is going to mandate Flarm for all contests and we can polish up the tech vs No tech debate, next time something fun and useful comes along.

Jonathan, was this really necessary?

At minimum, I think we got some good test cases to work with and some scenarios to consider. I hope this dialog continuous into the future and whatever comes out of it can be acceptable to us all.

Complexity of this topic is high and different players (e.g. IGC, UK guys, and us) might have different requirements. It would be interesting to hear what folks at Flarm, who created the algorithms, wrote and tested the code, are comfortable implementing considering it is their product.

One thing is certain, we all want PowerFlarm to succeed as anti-collision avoidance system.

I have to admit, despite the fact that I was fairly critical of Flarm while we were going through PF growing pains in USA I would not imagine flying without it.

We have snow on the ground in NH. I miss the collision alerts

Andrzej

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:27:26 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:31:44 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 1:10:30 PM UTC-8, smfidler wrote:
OK I'll stop it here. ;-)

Oh thank goodness, finally. So just to recap... we all decided to forgo this silliness of a nonexistent "stealth mode, the RC is going to mandate Flarm for all contests and we can polish up the tech vs No tech debate, next time something fun and useful comes along.

Jonathan, was this really necessary?

At minimum, I think we got some good test cases to work with and some scenarios to consider. I hope this dialog continuous into the future and whatever comes out of it can be acceptable to us all.

Complexity of this topic is high and different players (e.g. IGC, UK guys, and us) might have different requirements. It would be interesting to hear what folks at Flarm, who created the algorithms, wrote and tested the code, are comfortable implementing considering it is their product.

One thing is certain, we all want PowerFlarm to succeed as anti-collision avoidance system.

I have to admit, despite the fact that I was fairly critical of Flarm while we were going through PF growing pains in USA I would not imagine flying without it.

We have snow on the ground in NH. I miss the collision alerts

Andrzej

I give you "Two thumbs up" for risking yourself and making this thread. It has "flame war" written all over it.
As I stated before, I put in my "basic vote" which aligns with what you're proposing.

Since I'm not a "current US comp pilot", I have no say in what the US RC does/recommends.
I will still state my views as I feel they merit.

Yes, I like the added visibility that Flarm gives us (says the guy that could tell what brand gear door tape was on the glider that just passed over his head in a contest because the other pilot was fixated to others and not me going into a thermal....).
I don't want to give an advantage "outside of eyeballs & reading the local weather" to those that can afford the money & time to stack the deck in their favor.

Yes (yet again), FAA mandates down the road and ADS-x equipment currently installed may make this a moot point, but please, let's not just, "Go blindly down the road because it's easier" mentality.

Nuff said.

I was joking...sheesh

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:27:26 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:31:44 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 1:10:30 PM UTC-8, smfidler wrote:
OK I'll stop it here. ;-)

Oh thank goodness, finally. So just to recap... we all decided to forgo this silliness of a nonexistent "stealth mode, the RC is going to mandate Flarm for all contests and we can polish up the tech vs No tech debate, next time something fun and useful comes along.

Jonathan, was this really necessary?

At minimum, I think we got some good test cases to work with and some scenarios to consider. I hope this dialog continuous into the future and whatever comes out of it can be acceptable to us all.

Complexity of this topic is high and different players (e.g. IGC, UK guys, and us) might have different requirements. It would be interesting to hear what folks at Flarm, who created the algorithms, wrote and tested the code, are comfortable implementing considering it is their product.

One thing is certain, we all want PowerFlarm to succeed as anti-collision avoidance system.

I have to admit, despite the fact that I was fairly critical of Flarm while we were going through PF growing pains in USA I would not imagine flying without it.

We have snow on the ground in NH. I miss the collision alerts

Andrzej