Is FLARM helpful?

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:24:19 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:31:47 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Has there been a single documented case of a pilot in us competition putting a tinfoil hat over flarm? Yes this has happened at worlds, where classes, assigned tasks and leeching are big. Let's not pass rules over imaginary problems.

Ps if you're a little worried about legal system mplications of stealth, those of the tinfoil hat are much larger

John cochrane bb

The answer is yes.
I won't out the individual.
It is known that this tactic is becoming more common in europe, including one world champion.
There are also other quite easy ways to kill the out signal while getting the in on antenna 2.
UH

UH,
This pilot has been banded from future sanctioned SSA events under 12.2.5.1 (unsafe operation) or 12.2.5.3(unsportsmanlike conduct) rules. Correct?
Craig

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 8:35:10 PM UTC-5, Casey Cox wrote:
Has anyone been thankful that they have had FLARM?

And do the same people have a transponder?

How many people fly with FLARM or Transponder?

Let's hear about the close calls, or potential close calls, or even the peace of mind of awareness.

I have flown in the European Alps for the last 14 years and in the New Zealand Alps for about the same duration. I am a USA citizen who has flown gliders for 40 years. FLARM has been a definite advantage in alerting me to traffic not seen.

Glider pilots in the USA who negate the positive aspects of FLARM assume that there are few glider pilots and thus not helpful, statistically. However, unlike powered aircraft, glider pilots seek the corridors of best lift, as are other glider pilots, making converging flight paths inevitable. It is dangerous that one can assume that their situational awareness is infallible.

I would feel much safer if more glider pilots and tow pilots in the USA would adopt the FLARM technology.

Just another point. When another glider pilot radios that he has a six knot thermal, I can visualize him on FLARM and determine if indeed he has a genuine six not thermal! :-) I do not consider that "leeching", rather, simply an evolution of our beloved sport!

Is FLARM helpful?

Yes, it significantly enhances situational awareness of conflicting or potentially conflicting Flarm equipped glider traffic.

Yes, it gives you a way to stay connected with your friends, if that is what you want to do.

But, often there is too much traffic information, especially in thermal gaggles.

But, it can enhance leeching in the contest environment, which means more gaggles.

But, interpreting Flarm traffic information requires significant head-in-the-cockpit time.

My Experience:

I was involved in a mid-air at Parowan in 2010. Most certainly, had the two gliders been Flarm equipped, the mid-air would not have happened.

Flarm is extremely helpful in identifying potential traffic conflicts, especially head-on traffic that if difficult to see. It has helped me comfortably avoid head-on traffic a number of times.

In thermals, I find the Flarm alarms to be quite an overload and quite unusable. I revert to my eyeballs for traffic avoidance.

Interpreting Flarm traffic information on in-cockpit devices is very difficult without diverting undue attention inside. The audio alarms on the ClearNav ("Traffic, one o'clock low") help this situation significantly.

Flarm enhances situational awareness; it does not replace visual see and avoid.

Stealth mode is entirely adequate as Flarm threats are not inhibited. Stealth worked fine at Elmira. It seemed to reduce the information overload significantly and de-cluttered the traffic situational awareness picture.. Stealth does not eliminate leeching which will always occur in weak conditions, but I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. I think this is in the best interest of the sport.

My personal conclusion and recommendation:

Make Flarm mandatory in US soaring contests
Make stealth mode mandatory in National contests
If a site has specific reasons where stealth may not be advisable (ridge and convergence lines, for example), deal with that by waiver

Tim Welles W3

Tim:

You do a great job of summarizing flarm, which accords with my experience. (Thermal alarms are a PITA.)

You make an interesting case for choosing to turn on stealth.

You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "

First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.

Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?


John Cochrane BB

Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and
leeching are big problems.

Not being a contest pilot, I have no horse in this race, but - this being
northern winter! - one possible interpretation for the overwhelming 85% of
contest pilots who don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems (were
the two activities lumped in a single poll question?), is maybe 85% of contest
pilots are trying to leech! Just a thought...

Bob - snow on the ground here - W.

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.




You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "

First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.

Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?


John Cochrane BB

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.

But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.

John Cochrane BB

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.

But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.

John Cochrane BB

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may unreasonably think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.

But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.

John Cochrane BB

Technology can be defined as the application of human ability of affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.

The stealth mode feature of stealth is such an application of technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.

But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.

John Cochrane BB


Technology can be defined as the application of human ability of affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.

The stealth mode feature of FLARM is such an application of human ability or technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.

XC