FLARM in Stealth Mode at US 15M/Standard Nationals - Loved It!

Have we totally given up and agreed that ADS-B will be required in gliders, too?

Also, isn't it possible to have the same stealth technology in glider ADS-B boxes? It seems as though all the logic has been worked out. As this thread started out saying the stealth mode really works well for collision avoidance.

I am not buying the arguments about enhancing situational awareness. These seem to be coming from folks who haven't tried stealth mode or are wanting to use FLARM to enhance/extend their vision and improve their soaring performance by using thermals others have found and cored. Do we want unlimited use of this to be part of contest soaring where we are trying to determine who are our champions?

As FLARM becomes meshed, that is each FLARM unit transmits all the data it receives to all other units in range and so on, each pilot will have the ability to see what is going on in the whole task area. Again, this quickly takes us to a point where contests are about who can gather the most information from others rather than who can best read the sky.

XC

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 11:58:09 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
It's the PRIV command spec for Stealth Mode

I was promised a copy of the dataport spec that I still haven't received.

I hope this is a documentation screw up. There's no earthly reason to do it this way.

best,
Evan

Unfortunately, there is no single device you can look to to enforce stealth logic on ADS-B traffic (Garmin will not likely devote a lot of time to algorithms that make traffic invisible) plus even if there were you'd have to figure out how not to blank out fast jets where 2km is probably not appropriate.

Then there is the issue of monkeying with the FAA's traffic system.

It may or may not be required for gliders, but it certainly will be available and given its usefulness for power traffic avoidance, do we really want to ban it?

It's tough to be King Canute - lots of things to worry about.

9B

I have an Oudie 2 that does the "talking." If you look at some of my soaring videos on YouTube you can hear the Oudie2 "talking" fairly often. I'll try and find some and post links here.

Thanks for th correction Dave N. I thought it was native to the Flarm Brick/Core. It really should be. Perhaps a speaker option (or standard). Without the audio cues, I think it is a bit dicey trying to cross check location visually on the display. Again, I almost never look at the display anymore.

I am shocked if the LX(xxxx)and ClearNAV do not give audio cues. They don't?

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:30:39 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 11:58:09 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
It's the PRIV command spec for Stealth Mode

I was promised a copy of the dataport spec that I still haven't received.

I hope this is a documentation screw up. There's no earthly reason to do it this way.

best,
Evan

Data Spec is on this page

FTD-14 bottom of page.

http://flarm.com/support/manuals-documents/


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

At the very beginning of this video there are some audio calls from the Oudie via FLARM. If you watch the other videos in the series you will hear numerous others.

http://youtu.be/tW-YF-mePXk

A question:

Another request we are hearing a lot of is the request to make US contests more like worlds, and in particular to support team flying where possible. (Along with simplification)

Flarm is enormously valuable to team flying. Ask anyone who has tried it. The ability to see where your "team mate" is without endless radio chatter, especially if he's behind you, makes the whole thing work better.

While flarm is allowed in worlds (which, granted, may not be forever), is this an important consideration? Similarly, if all the dark arts that UH described are going on at worlds, is getting good at this sort of thing important to US pilots? Or is it better to go our own way?

John Cochrane

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 10:32:19 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 5:51:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 1:27:50 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Hmmm...

Not according to the Flarm Dataport Specification 7.03 released on July 30, 2015 that says no target data is put onto the serial port for targets above 2 km in distance. At 17,000' and 110 kts IAS for two head-to-head targets that's a hair over 10 seconds.

9B

Without the target data on the serial port, you will not get a voice enunciation of that target from your third party device.

Not correct in all cases.
My Clearnav, with PF in Stealth, calls conflicts with audible "traffic 12 o'clock high". Some other combinations may not do this.
With this setup, as I used in Elmira, there is zero reason to look in the cockpit for any info from Flarm.
For ME, this is the perfect combination of adding additional safety to my scan, and having no tactical affect on the flight.
UH

This is entirely correct in all cases. Your ClearNav sees and warns only of those things the Flarm puts on its serial port. If it isn't on the serial port, it isn't there for ClearNav (or any other device). The question is, does the Flarm put a traffic warning on the serial port for a collision threat more than 2 km away in stealth mode? As was pointed out, traffic more than 2 km away is not a threat, except in certain circumstances such as fast closing speeds head on under a strong street.

It looks like the spec allows traffic information for targets that generate a collision warning. The tricky part is that this presumes that aircraft changes heading to become a threat. You'd need to understand a bit about how the algorithm sorts head-to-head targets and how close they have to be expected to come to generate an alarm. Based on what I understand about the algorithm it is possible that a target that changes course can go from hidden under Stealth to a threat at a distance between the maximum alarm range and the 2 km Stealth traffic limit and therefore become a bit of a nasty surprise. Most pilots fly pretty straight under cloud streets and in convergence.

Note to users - minimize the snaking around under cloud streets in stealth mode.

9B

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 4:01:35 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 10:32:19 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 5:51:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 1:27:50 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 7:41:24 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Hmmm...

Not according to the Flarm Dataport Specification 7.03 released on July 30, 2015 that says no target data is put onto the serial port for targets above 2 km in distance. At 17,000' and 110 kts IAS for two head-to-head targets that's a hair over 10 seconds.

9B

Without the target data on the serial port, you will not get a voice enunciation of that target from your third party device.

Not correct in all cases.
My Clearnav, with PF in Stealth, calls conflicts with audible "traffic 12 o'clock high". Some other combinations may not do this.
With this setup, as I used in Elmira, there is zero reason to look in the cockpit for any info from Flarm.
For ME, this is the perfect combination of adding additional safety to my scan, and having no tactical affect on the flight.
UH

This is entirely correct in all cases. Your ClearNav sees and warns only of those things the Flarm puts on its serial port. If it isn't on the serial port, it isn't there for ClearNav (or any other device). The question is, does the Flarm put a traffic warning on the serial port for a collision threat more than 2 km away in stealth mode? As was pointed out, traffic more than 2 km away is not a threat, except in certain circumstances such as fast closing speeds head on under a strong street.

Typo corrected.

It looks like the spec allows traffic information for targets that generate a collision warning. The tricky part is that this presumes that NEITHER aircraft changes heading to become a threat. You'd need to understand a bit about how the algorithm sorts head-to-head targets and how close they have to be expected to come to generate an alarm. Based on what I understand about the algorithm it is possible that a target that changes course can go from hidden under Stealth to a threat at a distance between the maximum alarm range and the 2 km Stealth traffic limit and therefore become a bit of a nasty surprise. Most pilots fly pretty straight under cloud streets and in convergence.

Note to users - minimize the snaking around under cloud streets in stealth mode.

9B

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:58:25 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
A question:

Another request we are hearing a lot of is the request to make US contests more like worlds, and in particular to support team flying where possible.. (Along with simplification)

Flarm is enormously valuable to team flying. Ask anyone who has tried it. The ability to see where your "team mate" is without endless radio chatter, especially if he's behind you, makes the whole thing work better.

While flarm is allowed in worlds (which, granted, may not be forever), is this an important consideration? Similarly, if all the dark arts that UH described are going on at worlds, is getting good at this sort of thing important to US pilots? Or is it better to go our own way?

John Cochrane

Clarification- UH did not describe those dark arts in the paper. That was a very high standing UK comp pilot who knows of what he speaks, I believe.
I'm hoping to get an OK for attribution.

UH