RC madness

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 1:19:41 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:

Now I will pre-empt the responses about head down time. I consider the Butterfly and other dedicated Flarm displays to be quite deficient for tactical, situational, and collision avoidance use. I don't have one. Flarm targets appear on the moving map tactical display at all times, and are emphasized on that display if the get close. A one second glance is more than enough to evaluate the whole fleet. The vario has voice warnings for collision threats of both gliders and GA aircraft. It does not add to heads down time.


I'll add to that point.

The modern moving-map displays like Oudie, LX Nav and I'm sure many, many others put down very easy to scan "snail trails" of traffic that give a ton of information at a glance - position, track and, with a little extra focus, relative altitude (sometimes it's a numerical label, sometimes it's color coding). I put this information in a clearly contrasting color so I can scan easily. That is a nearly sure-fire way to avoid conflicts - especially now that almost everyone in contests is carrying Flarm. The longer range the target information is made available, the less frequently my gaze has to return to the display.

It is a fallacy in this new world that you are going to pick up more targets looking out the window - especially the conflicting ones you really care about (no I'm not arguing for 100% heads down - a good scan is part of aviating). Just try flying around looking for targets with your Mark I eyeballs on a reasonably busy day, then look at your Flarm display. I bet you find surprises - particularly if they are on a course without angular movement - like collision courses are by definition.

9B

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 1:32:09 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 1:19:41 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:


Now I will pre-empt the responses about head down time. I consider the Butterfly and other dedicated Flarm displays to be quite deficient for tactical, situational, and collision avoidance use. I don't have one. Flarm targets appear on the moving map tactical display at all times, and are emphasized on that display if the get close. A one second glance is more than enough to evaluate the whole fleet. The vario has voice warnings for collision threats of both gliders and GA aircraft. It does not add to heads down time.

What map display and vario are you using?

I am using an Air Avionics (Butterfly) vario which does very nice, clear voice warnings for Flarm (also gear, spoilers, and other warnings). I have used Winpilot and XCSoar (which also show targets) but for the last year or two I have been using iGlide. It shows Flarm targets with on-screen emphasis when they turn into warnings. It has some other nice features which will no doubt add to the paranoia: any target can be marked with a color, it retains that color throughout the flight whenever contacted. So my primary leach target can be red, secondary yellow, third blue, etc. Nearly zero head down time IDing them. One target can be set up so all of his/her data shows up in nav boxes (these are very easily navigated in iGlide) so constant large display of altitude, heading, climb rate, etc. Further, you can display the tracks of all Flarm targets, for example to match your thermalling circle with a leeching target.

Despite all that - at least here in the west - this will not allow you to stick to a better pilot. The climb rate reported for your target is wildly off. If you match his circle from below you will not be in the best lift. If you deviate more than a few hundred yards to a perceived better climb more likely than not you will not find it. It is just as Andy says. Don't know east coast flying so maybe it would work better there.

The main speed advantage I get from it is that you can see pilots pass you and get further and further ahead. This reminds me to push a little harder - but do my own thing.

On 12/23/2015 2:24 PM, jfitch wrote:

Snip...
...If we are arguing technology we ought to also argue about the EXTREMELY
antiquated technology of this discussion board. Very last century. Often
can't tell who is responding to whom.

Dern (and drifting still farther from this thread's subject...) - it *must* be
winter in this hemisphere, judging from posts like these two. Ha ha ha!

I can't help wondering if the fundamental problem alluded to in the above
observation is the "antiquated technology of this discussion board" or merely
human nature. Why bother to expend a modicum of contextually clarifying,
technology-aided, editing when it's easier simply to excise ruthlessly in the
Great Rush to express some thought temporarily atop one's mental stack?

Many of the casually-edited replies seen on RAS remind me of a spot-on
(considering the wearer!) T-shirt I saw: Who says I have ADHD? Hey - there
goes a chicken!!!

My Round File works great for lazily-edited RAS replies...if someone is too
lazy to properly edit, I'm too lazy to pay them any attention. It's not as if
posting on RAS is an emergency...

Bob W.

On 12/23/2015 2:24 PM, jfitch wrote:
Not a response to you, but to Dan who said the FARs say turn right. Sometimes that is the right thing to do. Sometimes not. If we are arguing technology we ought to also argue about the EXTREMELY antiquated technology of his discussion board. Very last century. Often can't tell who is responding to whom.
Well, it would help a lot to trim down the thread to make it apparent to
whom one is responding.

Turning right to avoid a collision is what the FARs direct. If there's
truly an imminent collision and both aircraft turn right, there's no
problem. If only one aircraft turns right while the other continues his
course, there's no problem. But if one turns right and the other turns
left, then you might have a problem. So why make up so many scenarios
where something can go wrong if you make up the rules as you go? Just
follow the rules and keep your head out of the cockpit. And be prepared
to respond when things don't go as they should.

While my postings on this thread lead most to believe that I'm a Flarm
hater, that's not the case. I have simply analyzed the capabilities of
Flarm as described on this forum and as applied to my type and area of
flying and determined that it's not for me. I flew the Whites during
the past summer's fire and smoke season (severely restricted visibility)
and my PCAS alerted me to aircraft within 5 miles and 2,000 feet of my
position. Since I'm not flying for badges, records, contest points,
chicks, or money, it's no problem for me to move slightly away from the
line of best lift (to the right) to allow another glider to pass without
conflict. I also flew out of Minden in a friend's Flarm-equipped
2-seater and was entertained by the display of airliners 20+ thousand
feet above. I never saw an alert.

I'm also in the camp of those who don't want to see stealth mode
implemented. Not because I'm a user, just because I think it's
ridiculous to install a system designed to improve situational awareness
and then to hobble it by reducing its capabilities. I also believe that
leeching is not a threat to the top contest pilots and that being in
15th instead of 18th position in a contest has little, if any, meaning.

Finally I will always argue with the notion of making something
mandatory, to participate in a sport which is entirely voluntary, and I
will always take exception to those who rely on bullying (it's a no
brainer) to try to prove their agendas. I vote to state the facts and
let everyone decide for himself. If an event manager mandates Flarm
(Nephi) I won't attend the event. I can always fly there when there's
not an event taking place.

BTW, I will likely install ADS-B in my next glider but probably not
Flarm because I don't do a lot of gaggling.

Dan