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

At 15:02 15 August 2015, Sean Fidler wrote:
Next step is hacking your competitors FLARM and making
their screens
display Dilbert cartoons.

No, no, no, far too obvious! What you need is an electronic
"box" that garbles the Flarm data to show the opposition that
you are climbing at only 1 knot when in fact you are climbing
at 6 knots.

On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 8:02:44 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
Next step is hacking your competitors FLARM and making their screens display Dilbert cartoons.

Is there a "Like" button on r.a.s.?

On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 1:42:01 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 8:02:44 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
Next step is hacking your competitors FLARM and making their screens display Dilbert cartoons.

Is there a "Like" button on r.a.s.?

On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 1:42:01 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 8:02:44 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
Next step is hacking your competitors FLARM and making their screens display Dilbert cartoons.

Is there a "Like" button on r.a.s.?

I "liked" the idea of broadcasting misinformation about climb rates, myself.. We're clearly not thinking imaginatively enough. How about drones to spoof a prominent competitor's ID and climb rate in the middle of a sinkhole? Or "transponder chaff" that is deployed in a thermal to persist an ID/climb rate long after the pilot departs?

Tinfoil hats over FLARM antennas is SO crude.

JB

JB,

Thank you for your posting. I truly appreciate your taking the time to do so.

It seems clear that we're taking past one another. Maybe that's because we've never met and don't know each other's personality or background, or maybe because we can't get important clues from intonation or body language on what is actually meant, since text doesn't convey such clues. For example, you say I was argumentative when I was simply asking for a clarification about what I saw as an important inconsistency in your honest answer on leeching, which you posted in a discussion group.

Perhaps one day we'll actually meet and, if you're willing, talk about this important issue face to face. For now, let's agree to disagree and just drop it.

-John, Q3


On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 11:14:22 AM UTC-4, wrote:
John/Q3, I gave you an honest (if lengthy) answer about leeching and you chose to be argumentative in your response. Fine. But your intentional misrepresentation of Erik's comment goes further. He said he was done (I know the feeling) so I'll jump in again on this point because a few people might actually believe your distortion of his position.

Erik didn't say he would reject help from FLARM. He said this was the last situation in which he would want to RELY on it: i.e., low, no place to land, few options. And I agree. Without getting into how you would allow yourself to get into that situation in the first place, a "FLARM radar" image of a few gliders circling up ahead is no guarantee of a workable thermal. It's the same way that savvy motorglider pilots talk about never relying on their engine to get them out of trouble. If it works, great. If it doesn't, though, they always have an alternative.

Not having a psychology degree or paranormal powers, I don't have any idea what you're referring to when you say his "strong dislike of FLARM stems from something much deeper than pride." Are you talking some kind of childhood trauma?

I can say that Erik, like me, thinks that FLARM is a very good addition to safety. But he's also said, and I agree, that we should limit its use to safety, not to providing a look ahead that invites certain people (not mentioning names) to blindly follow other pilots without making their own decisions OR to trust technology to bail them out of making bad decisions, as both FLARM and GPS have the potential to do. And yes, before you counter, I know of at least one nearly disastrous outlanding caused by a pilot blindly following his early GPS-enabled flight computer down to pattern height on final glide before, in sudden sink, bothering to look out to see what the landing prospects were (nearly nonexistent).

Misuse of FLARM also begs for another technical arms race of better antennas, ground station repeaters, FLARM cloaking devices, etc. It's soaring, not video games. We've consistently rejected remote thermal finding devices in our rules for a combination of reasons. To me, FLARM in non-stealth mode is on the borderline. I'll go further and say that if we continue to allow the use of FLARM for remote sensing, we're hypocritical if we don't allow the use of IR imaging, cloud-based aggregation of FLARM and SPOT data, and other ways of displaying distant thermals, updrafts, and flight tracks on a screen. And that will make the cost of a FLARM device seem like small change indeed.

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

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 11:56:54 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
JB,

Thank you for your posting. I truly appreciate your taking the time to do so.

It seems clear that we're taking past one another. Maybe that's because we've never met and don't know each other's personality or background, or maybe because we can't get important clues from intonation or body language on what is actually meant, since text doesn't convey such clues. For example, you say I was argumentative when I was simply asking for a clarification about what I saw as an important inconsistency in your honest answer on leeching, which you posted in a discussion group.

Perhaps one day we'll actually meet and, if you're willing, talk about this important issue face to face. For now, let's agree to disagree and just drop it.

-John, Q3

John,

Upon rereading my post, I see that I came across rather harshly. My apologies to you and anyone else I might have offended with my somewhat enthusiastic reply.

I agree your response to my "leeching" riff wasn't argumentative. I guess I reacted that way after the fact because of your subsequent response to Erik Mann's posting where you misunderstood his position and questioned his motives. He's a close friend and is rather busy with some non-soaring stuff right now so I leaped into the fray because I know what that kind of thing does when it happens to me.

Perhaps a better way would have been for you to inquire what other factors he might have considered rather than to just state boldly that his strong dislike of FLARM (which he doesn't have) was motivated by "something much deeper than pride" (a statement I'm still mulling over, wondering what you had in mind). I think Erik stated his position pretty well so I won't repeat it again.

He and I do share an opinion that isn't universal, and that may be at the root of the confusion. Neither one of us warmly welcomes the arrival of technology that reduces the traditional skills that good soaring pilots have. We're very comfortable with technology--both of us work in that field--but there's something about making one's own decisions (beyond whom to follow for the day) that makes soaring attractive. It also makes it more uncertain and frustrating at times, which is why I suspect not everyone takes the same position.

There's lots of room in soaring for all types of enthusiasts. Where we sometimes encounter friction is in the area of contest rules, which is what we're discussing now. I look forward to meeting you so we can improve on the imperfect level of communication offered by USENET discussion groups.

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

As a glider pilot who flies XC for fun, whether or not in a competition, I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If tactical use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it - and am pretty convinced by this discussion that I need to upgrade my LX9000 Flarm with an external Powerflarm. My tactical use is never going to make me a National Champion - is it really going to change who is Champion?

I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions (with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and judgement.

P3


EXACTLY! that's what i was trying to say. i just couldn't word it properly.

I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If tactical use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it -

I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions (with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and judgement.. EXACTLY!

The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring competition.

We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.

Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest levels? Unquestionably yes; navigation ceased to be a relevant skill and excellence at reading/guessing the weather for AAT and MAT tasks came to the fore.

Did it change the nature of competition? Yes, even to the extent of changing the starting/finishing process; opening up the types of tasks we fly--a plus; and for the first time allowing--through the use of SeeYou--each pilot to study in exquisite detail exactly how he/she and every other pilot flew each day's tasks. It's amusing to think back now to a time when the only clues we often had about how someone smoked the field were the few carefully chosen (and sometimes obfuscating) comments he/she made in the next morning's pilots' meeting.

Did it increase the ease and enjoyment of competition flying? Certainly it's easier to get around the course now and I think most would agree it's less frustrating.

Did it increase the cost and technical complexity of the sport? Arguably yes; early adopters spent thousands of dollars to make the transition from cheaper handheld commercial GPS units (which themselves were startlingly expensive compared with today's consumer-grade prices) to soaring-specific loggers. It's worth remembering that the technology race had already begun, however, with vario/flight director systems that imputed the wind from pilot-updated position locations and remote compass sensors.

Finally, did it change who wins contests? Probably not, although certain more navigationally challenged pilots benefited disproportionately.

I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.

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

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 09:56:06 UTC-6, wrote:
I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If tactical use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it -

I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions (with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and judgement. EXACTLY!

The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring competition.

We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.

Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest levels? Unquestionably yes; navigation ceased to be a relevant skill and excellence at reading/guessing the weather for AAT and MAT tasks came to the fore.

Did it change the nature of competition? Yes, even to the extent of changing the starting/finishing process; opening up the types of tasks we fly--a plus; and for the first time allowing--through the use of SeeYou--each pilot to study in exquisite detail exactly how he/she and every other pilot flew each day's tasks. It's amusing to think back now to a time when the only clues we often had about how someone smoked the field were the few carefully chosen (and sometimes obfuscating) comments he/she made in the next morning's pilots' meeting.

Did it increase the ease and enjoyment of competition flying? Certainly it's easier to get around the course now and I think most would agree it's less frustrating.

Did it increase the cost and technical complexity of the sport? Arguably yes; early adopters spent thousands of dollars to make the transition from cheaper handheld commercial GPS units (which themselves were startlingly expensive compared with today's consumer-grade prices) to soaring-specific loggers. It's worth remembering that the technology race had already begun, however, with vario/flight director systems that imputed the wind from pilot-updated position locations and remote compass sensors.

Finally, did it change who wins contests? Probably not, although certain more navigationally challenged pilots benefited disproportionately.

I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.

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


Chip you state 'I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).'

I agree that the Rules Committee has a tough time here but they *MUST* lead the way provide specific guidance for organizers regarding stealth mode. IMO there is no way an organizer should be forced to make this decision, just look at the varied opinions here. I see where PF mandatory is an easy decision, stealth mode decision is till an unknown.

Ron Gleason

FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition Mode), there will still be leeches. They will just have to leech more tightly (visually). I am still completely unconvinced that a pilot can take advantage of a supposed strong thermal (or gaggle) identified solely by FLARM and outside of visual range. I would love to see some SEEYOU evidence of that (I would be impressed with even ONE example). So far, astonishingly after the dramatic statements up and down this thread, I have seen nothing in terms of a replay example. I honestly do not believe that one can leech effectively outside of visual range. This is simply overhyped.

This debate really comes down to people who don't like/want change and people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation) into the mix. I don't mind Flarm or competitors seeing me on their screen. Its fun to see how other pilots are doing around me to be honest or to notice them being there when I probably would have missed them visually. This experience is much like Condor (highly competitive) with the visual range setting.. We turn it off in the big races (see FLARM v10.0 with perfect information), but leave it on for the easier going nightly events (last I checked). This definitely is to help beginners stay in touch and it is just fun to see how the race is progressing in real time (racing) rather than being alone and "sneaking around" all day only to see what happens in the evening (after calculating scoring for AAT, HAT's...you know the drill).

My ONLY problem with FLARM is that an arms race will (has) develop(ed) with special antennas, amplifiers, tin foil hats (antenna covers), etc. The game will be to gain an unfair advantage with the "tool." As with all games, there will be prodigies at this new variable (skill). No other technology really allows that large of a variance in the usability of the information.. A GPS logger works or it does not. Varios are, for the most part, all the same. There is really not much difference between a smart phone with XC Soar (free) and an LX 9000 ($5000). I am still unconvinced that the information FLARM provides is highly actionable but you CAN modify level of value to you to your competitors. This is unique.

With FLARM, I have done some research and there are some clear methods to stacking the deck in ones favor. in other words, CHEATING! That is a big red flag. If necessary, I would simply have to master these "techniques." No big deal, but unfortunate to people who don't want to manage another variable. For these reasons, I am supporting Stealth Competition Mode. But, if assurances could be made that the potential of each Flarm was the same (impossible), I would be fine with leaving it alone and accepting the new technology.

In general, I think it is dangerous to let the RC ban or limit anything more than they already have.......BUT...this one makes good sense for the 3-4 years before ADSB. Then it will be weapons free again and we will not be able to "ban" it.

This is a another very difficult decision for the RC. I will vote for COMPETITION MODE.

Sean



On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If tactical use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it -

I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions (with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and judgement. EXACTLY!

The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring competition.

We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.

Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest levels? Unquestionably yes; navigation ceased to be a relevant skill and excellence at reading/guessing the weather for AAT and MAT tasks came to the fore.

Did it change the nature of competition? Yes, even to the extent of changing the starting/finishing process; opening up the types of tasks we fly--a plus; and for the first time allowing--through the use of SeeYou--each pilot to study in exquisite detail exactly how he/she and every other pilot flew each day's tasks. It's amusing to think back now to a time when the only clues we often had about how someone smoked the field were the few carefully chosen (and sometimes obfuscating) comments he/she made in the next morning's pilots' meeting.

Did it increase the ease and enjoyment of competition flying? Certainly it's easier to get around the course now and I think most would agree it's less frustrating.

Did it increase the cost and technical complexity of the sport? Arguably yes; early adopters spent thousands of dollars to make the transition from cheaper handheld commercial GPS units (which themselves were startlingly expensive compared with today's consumer-grade prices) to soaring-specific loggers. It's worth remembering that the technology race had already begun, however, with vario/flight director systems that imputed the wind from pilot-updated position locations and remote compass sensors.

Finally, did it change who wins contests? Probably not, although certain more navigationally challenged pilots benefited disproportionately.

I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.

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