Confessions of a Flarm Follower

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 10:31:15 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:

When I race, I want to RACE (see definition in another excellent post).
And IMO, in the perfect race, everyone would use the same thermals, on the same task, and finish within seconds of each other. That would be a test of soaring skill, not of luck, weather guessing, and local knowledge.


From my perspective, this is a fairly narrow view of what racing means. As presented above, it would be primarily a contest of stick skills. Same start, same thermals, same course... He/she who flies better, wins. sort of like the recent contest in Dubai.

I prefer the concept of racing to include tactical and strategic decision making, the pilots understanding of weather; picking optimal turn points; knowing when to "go deep"; selecting the best start time for the day; using knowledge of the competitors ships, habits, strengths and weaknesses; when to lead, when to follow, when to leave the pack. And yes, using FLARM info to my best advantage (as well as glide computers, moving maps, and polarized sun glasses, etc.)

Both perspectives are valid of course. I just prefer the latter

Matt Herron

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 11:37:16 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:29:22 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:


Andy,
I am really not going after you personally, but I have to point out some of what I see as flaws in your argument.

I know - you debate respectfully. Thanks for that.


1) The FLARM folks are in the business of FLARM not soaring. We need to talk about what is best for soaring not what is best for the FLARM company. I suppose if you were to ask any individual at the company they would have to take the CYA approach. The IGC, BGA and now the SSA are looking at practical solutions that preserve the competitiveness of racing and offer increased collision avoidance through the use of FLARM.

I am sure they are extra careful because they are wary of tort laywers - particularly in the US. So should any organization. See your point 5 - the evidence is that you shouldn't run unnecessary risks if you can be a target for lawsuits. This is a quite different thing from taking personal risks. If people want to take some small incremental risk that only affects them and their estate that is their business. When organizations inflict incremental risks on others (however insignificant you might think they are) it can be fodder for lawsuits. To my knowledge, a significant number of glider fatalities have resulted in lawsuits, and I have personally been witness to several aviation liability suits. It's not like no one ever gets killed flying gliders unfortunately, so let's not pretend. I'd prefer not to type list of names - too many were friends of mine. For the record, I have never said that lots more people are going to die - I know the numbers are small. But when I see the benefits as zero to negative then any cost is too high a price to pay.

2) Folks keep discounting the tactical use of FLARM like it a nebulous, undefined thing. BB describes how he can now take a risk on a bad line and instead of paying the price for bad decision making with a slow climb out, he now can play a wild card and wiggle over to gliders he's been tracking electronically (and win the day). That's John. He's good. Most folks will use in more mundane ways. Using FLARM this way changes the risk management part of the race. Another real example happened in Finland when one of the pilots from another team overtook one of our guys. When asked how he did it he said, "It was easy I saw you climbing at 1.5 m/s and I could see another guy climbing at 3 m/s. I went to his thermal and passed you up." No better skill involved just a better FLARM installation. There are plenty of real world examples.

You can do that with your eyeballs - I don't see anyone saying we should fly contests under the hood and I see zero difference between using 20/10 vision to pick a climbing glider and using a display. Yeah, it's a bit more range and a bit more reliable - so? It is a distinction without a difference. Oh, and it happens pretty rarely that you get that clear a benefit. But it wouldn't matter to me if it happened all the time. If we want to be really fair about it we should require people with superior distance vision to ware contacts to degrade their vision.


3) The data analysis and your quoted experience hints at a bias toward western conditions. A 3 mile gap is not much NY/PA where we deviate much more on a typical course line.

I would think it would be worse in the east where cruise speeds are lower so you give up more points to deviate. The landout risk are higher in the West, but they are never zero and I don't especially see risk of property damage or personal injury as things I want to figure prominently in the calculus of glider racing - sure it's there, but it shouldn't be how races are decided - the scoring problems alone should convince us of that. If you want to fly with a big risk of landout is part of the psychic benefit, OLC and record flying are much more appropriate forms of flying.


There is also a bias in your reasoning toward this "ism" that soaring has to be about unlimited technology. That all technology is good for the sport and this is some sort of unstoppable force.

Cheap consumer technologies are an unstoppable force. The argument that we should stop them because they are too expensive for the masses doesn't hold water. The argument that we should stop them because some people don't want to learn how to use them is too backward-looking for me to even get my head around. Pellet variometers and sectional charts.


4) This idea that land outs are due primarily due to luck is not true at all. It has been my experience that when I land out I can sit against a tree and enumerate the errors that led me there. The same is true about the other land outs I have seen in the contests I have flown. Avoiding land outs is all in setting yourself up for success before hand by proper risk management this is the essence of the sport of racing. As stated previously, land outs are and should be part of the game. If you are going to fly aircraft across the countryside without a motor it follows logically that there is a risk of not making it home. This is the big whammy that makes the sport interesting.

Avoiding land outs is not about scary, risky last minute maneuvers you have used to make your point. I think it is becoming apparent that proponents of open FLARM ready do plan to use it to cover mistakes and avoid the inconvenience of landing away. In this way the scores will not reflect pilots ability to manage risk.


It's not that there is no skill in soaring. Sure, better pilots land out less frequently than newbies, but if you look at the really marginal days (like Elmira), you see very good pilots landed out for arguably having missed a saving thermal almost entirely unrelated to skill. Having a few less landouts will not make newbie pilots competitive, but it might reduce some of the random scrambling of the scoresheet on truly luck-filled days. I remember the last day at the Standard Class Nationals at Hutchinson, Kansas. We all launched into ominous skies. By the time the gate opened it was raining and we all headed out on long glides with an occasional weak thermal. Rudy Mozer found one thermal that got him to the sun and around the course. Most of the rest of us ended up in fields. If we'd seen Rudy climbing it would have been a real race. It was Kansas - finding a thermal was substantially luck that day. Of course if you're the guy who found the thermal you think it was all skill.

5) You and BB have both tried to scare us with lawyers and death now several times to make your point. Like name calling this is a sign of deficient argument.

See your point 2). The lawyers aren't going to sue you, they are going to sue the organizations that allow or require these rules. The fact that the incremental risk was small is irrelevant and the causal link between the rule and the fatality doesn't matter very much. So unless you think the number of off-filed landing accidents and injuries in contests will go to zero from here on out (even if they the number doesn't go up at all), you can expect you are handing lawyers a hammer to hit the SSA and contest organizers. Individual pilots needn't be scared of being sued - but organizations should take note of what they are asking pilots to do and whether it exposes them.


Sorry to be so blunt but you an BB have a preconceived idea/agenda on this FLARM thing and are going to great lengths to push it on us.


I'm not trying to push anything. I want us do do exactly nothing - leave it all alone. I'm against pushing artificial constraints - at cost and inconvenience to developers, organizers and pilots. If there were no trying to push an agenda we wouldn't be having this discussion - people would just get to fly unrestricted, unmolested, un-inspected and unpenalized.


The competition mode with an expanded radius of 5 km plus the other enhancements for head to head conflicts seems to be plenty for collision avoidance. Beyond that we are talking about tactical use of FLARM.

5km would be better for sure. Here's hoping there is at lease some moderating of the hard line on this.

Happy New Year!

9B

Okay, here we go. I'll be brief...

Ultimate goal of proponents of open FLARM is to use this anti collision device tactically, as some new way to improve their soaring performance. The safety/SA argument is used as cover. Most people using this argument have never tried stealth. The competition mode with 5 km display of proximate target really negates this argument.

The lawyer thing again. Whether talking about persons being sued or organizations folks are still using this to scare us. Do the right thing for the sport.

Being able to track all gliders, 360 degrees, with climb rates and contest numbers is hugely different than what one can do visually.

Yep, land outs are part of the game. Saying that using a competition mode for FLARM amounts to more property damage and injury is another scare tactic..

The folks who want to win by technological advantage alway bring out these "damn cheaters." Consumer technologies are unstoppable because people will grab these items and use them anyway. I'd like to meet these cheaters and tell them what I think about them - they've cost me a lot of time and money. Oh, that's right they don't really exist in quantity.

You try to incite folks by calling any effort to use FLARM in competition mode an artificial constraint, an unnecessary restriction, and a molestation (really a bit much).

I think it is high time that we framework to make decisions on these new technologies as they come out. There needs to be clear guidance for all as to what the sport is about. I have my own take on it. Some will call it a bit hokey but so be it. It is way better than the anything goes, we are the new NASA/technological frontier approach.

I think man from the beginning of his time on earth has dreamed of soaring like a bird. I think this idea of man flying like a soaring bird is the spirit of our sport. We didn't have wings so used our brains and built some. Birds have a way to navigate and have variometers (tip feathers). We didn't have these things we made them and installed them in our gliders. In some ways we surpassed the abilities of the birds with our technologies. For example in some ways our glide computers do more that a hawk's brain. But they do have a glide computer.

Then we get into adding technologies that birds do not possess. Hawks and eagles don't have the ability to talk to every other bird in the sky or to upload unlimited date via the internet. Soaring birds don't have sensors that can detect thermals from far away.

We could use this framework to evaluate what is beneficial our sport and make that clear to everybody. Other sports have done this and are enjoying great success. But hey, this is one way of looking at things that keep us from drifting away from what our sport started out as. You can move forward without forgetting who you are. Am I the only one who thinks about this sport we love in these terms? I would be seriously disappointed if that were true.

Does anyone else in this techie crowd have a better sense of framework or spirit?

So much for brief...

XC

Sean (XC),

I'm not debating that information is available via Flarm. That said, there is simply no truth (in my view) to the fantasy that Flarm alone allows individual competitors to regularly contests they otherwise would not! That statement, whoever made it, is utter fantasy. If I'm wrong, show me. Prove it. Show examples. Tell the stories. Make the case with facts and objective data.

I'm debating PowerFlarms actual safety value (to this point) vs. the philosophical tactical value (imaginary, entirely theoretical, zero examples of its existence). I'm debating what PowerFlarms true value is. In my opinion, PowerFlarm is a safety device first, and by far. It provides warnings and increased situational awareness. It has the potential to prevent a surprise collision from developing and breaking the chain of follies which will lead up to the accident. The question here is, how much of the potential chain (which Flarm has the potential to break) do we hide from view? The debate here is A) "what, when, where, why" is the situational awareness US PowerFlarm provides pilots "too much," and B) is the long-range information is extremely useful for tactical purposes resulting in US contest results that are..."out of order!" Zero proof. Zero examples. Zero evidence. Theoretical at best.

PowerFlarm has indeed saved me from at least 2 seriously close calls. But it has also scared the crap out of me (well more than it has saved me) by failing to warn me of many conflicts until the very last moment. That event goes against the fundamental goal of PowerFlarm...a last second warning that I was unable to ID where the threat was in time and react. A surprise! Flarm is far from perfect, and now we are already intentionally being forced to scale its capability down. That's damn scary.

I'm debating if the US contest community needs to spend time discussing the intentional handicapping of one of PoweFlarms core values, situational awareness. I feel that it is impossible to know the impact of this change for sure in US contests, this coming summer, or at all (before any new code has been written, let alone tested or studied in any professional way). Also, why is the RC taking the lead in this decision and discussion when WE are PowerFlarms customers. They should be communicating with us directly, openly and continuously about this important potential change. Crickets. I do not need the RC to be my only line of communication on this.

Mandatory ADSB is 3-5 years away, max. In two years other new technologies will likely be rampant and more affordable. I care about getting hit by aircraft other than gliders! The genie is out. WAY OUT. Safety is far bigger than the views SSA anti-technology oligarchy. This latest effort, once again, only buys them relief from their technology insecurities for a year, maybe two. This may explain the desperate rush to enact the comp mode mandate, but is it sensible or logical in respect to what is just ahead of us? I love defiance and fight, but this one is ridiculous on many practical levels.

The PowerFlarm system is, currently, open and equally beneficial to all. When leading other gliders out or well ahead, the carbon fuselage of my glider, for example, blocks my signal to those in a chase. Same for most of the 18m class (lots of carbon). So the leaders of my chosen class are already shielded a bit as few have a rear antenna installed. But in general, the same tactical information is available to all pilots who use Flarm.

On the other hand, some glide computers (CNi, LX, etc) offer large displays with custom UIs designed to better present Flarm data to the pilot, so I'm told. But so what. Outspending your competition as a means of competitive advantage has always been a option in most classed of competitive soaring! There are little to no restrictions on those technologies.

My FlarmView is set on 2-3 miles range (appx.) because that's all I reliably get. Most of the time it's set on 1 or .5 miles, so I can get a picture of what gliders may be setting off upcoming warnings. I can almost always see gliders at that range and usually see them visually well before noticing them via Flarm. Flarm is the confirmation, not the primary focus (eyes out the window is almost always the primary). But it's still the few gliders that get in close, undetected by eyes or Flarm and surprise me that concern me in terms of narrowing already imperfect situational awareness.

I'm very concerned (along with many other smart people, exclude me entirely from that group if you wish) that a significant change to the governing dynamics of Flarm warnings, range and any corresponding situational awareness is not well enough understood, and, therefore, dangerous to change on a dime without careful testing and study. Furthermore, I see no reason to make this change if one can simply not carry a Flarm onboard (not mandatory) in the contest. If one was worried about being leeched by a "Flarm genius," simply don't have one. Problem solved. You're now invisible again and happy as a clam!

If you are blaming Flarm for finding competitors (XG) in a start area, I have a lesson for you in the school of unintended consequences. The moment you describe was a rare Flarm confirmation of a visual sighting. I remember it well. I think I have video of it. Not a visual confirmation of a lonely Flarm blip 10 miles away. I do not have a ClearNav! Also, if I saw XG, he also see's 7T. He was probably well within 2, probably 1 mile. So what? I believe that pilots (if they so choose) will only move about the start area more actively in order to ID of key pilots if range or data shared by PowerFlarm is limited. Competition mode will do nothing to change this standard behavior. If a sophisticated Flarm usage "problem" exists now, the complex and unpredictable traffic in the start area will get even more intense, not less with competition mode. "Offending" pilots will simply be busier, more stressed, and forced to get into visual range of the contest letters of more gliders, as fast as possible, until they get their man! Danger will rise! I don't think this is a good strategy, but this is the way the game is played for many. The amount of head on and searching around the start area for key pilots may actually increase! I believe that competition mode will not improve safety in the start area. It will create some more aggressive behaviors, not less. Especially at the World Championship level but significant in the USA. Unintended consequences are a bitch in any complex human system. This one does not take a lot of careful thought to see coming.

On the last day of the PAGC, I attempted to stay away from Jerzy, and start first as he was struggling low. I hoped to get away and finish the nearly impossible task and that he would stay stuck for awhile longer and run out of time. It was an opportunity. That plan didn't work out but it was fun trying.

On other days, it was prudent to try and keep track of Jerzy (Team Canada really). If they appeared (visually or on Flarm), great. If not, great. Jerzy was doing the same with me (and others) I'm sure. Jerzy was/is the best pilot and was the likely winner of that event. He was clearly the pilot to beat in 15m! If one wanted to beat him, it was smart to try and understand what was happening with him when possible. Is this not true of all contests? Or are we trying to eliminate this too?

That said, the funny thing was if you look at the SeeYou traces (hard data, not emotionally driven fantasy, and disputing your statement about me), Jerzy and I were only flying together (loose term) for about 45 minutes of the entire PAGC contest! This was out of 3 or 4 contest days not including the day he and I were the only finishers. That day was thrown out, but it is worth noting that we never saw each other, ever on that day that we were still the only 2 finishers. Most of that 45 minutes of flying near each other resulted from him chasing me down from behind. I'll post the video of the SeeYou traces of every flight, if you wish, just to clarify these facts to our audience as necessary. I just do not see how Flarm is this threatening to people as to go this crazy about it. Perhaps I am wrong. But the bar needs to be very high concerning tangible "fairness" degradation to risk compromising Flarm safety. We are not even close now. With zero evidence.

So, Jerzy and I, to the best of my knowledge, flew 90%+ of the contest entirely out of visual or any Flarm range. Perhaps Jerzy was wisely eluding me, but I also had a great team mate (Pete) and we were honestly more focused on just learning how to team fly than following Flarm blips. Again, I don't believe Flarm leeching is a real thing. I think its fantasy. It's a very rare thing to find a lucky thermal because of Flarm in fact. So what. I thought we wanted fewer land outs in the USA! Maybe this is just because I have a tiny Flarm view. Im not sure. PAGC was as much about practice as anything for us. Sure we wanted to know what was happening, and all information available to us was fair game, but that contest was about survival. Hell, we even struggled to stay together as a paired team! We were probably together only 25% of the contest. I suppose this would have been a great contest to use Flarm for advantage. Perhaps you and Erik did a better job of utilizing Flarm and this is why you are in that camp. But at PAGC, I personally saw ZERO real tactical advantage from Flarm. Perhaps I am in need of coaching or something, but overall I do not see a need to worry about Flarm at this point.

So, again, the anti Flarm camps argument and unexplainable urgency to jam competition mode (stealth 2.0, even though stealth mode is almost entirely new and untested in competition) into the rules for 2016, is not very strong in my opinion. I have safety concerns and will not accept the dismissal of legitimate safety concerns while the philosophical debate of "is technology good for the sport" is treated with deathly seriousness by the majority of the RC.

I'm fine with a level playing field. I love one design in sailing which governs every aspect of the boats, sails and electronics. All are identical and virtually the same. But I honestly believe that a level playing field already exists with Flarm in soaring, unlike the added sophistication of state of the art flight computers (LX, CNi) which are openly accepted to provide their owners with a tactical advantage in commonly run US rules tasks (for example).

I have kept my Flarm in my glider, despite its imperfection and the fact that not all competitors are willing to invest in the safety of their fellow pilots. I honestly think the right answer for me is to remove the Flarm and just use my eyes. I'm tired of having to stay on guard for flarmless pilots who are, ironically, often some of the most aggressive in terms of close flying. This next year, if comp mode makes it into our 2016 rules, is going to be utter chaos.

For me Flarm is 99% safety, 1% fun info. I'm sure this explains my concern about this rash, sudden, new, major, extreme rule change for US soaring. The same US soaring that is struggling to keep itself going and grow. Many of us have all made big investments in PowerFlarm and it has taken years to get the a high enough percentage of working Flarms in contests to make them somewhat useful for collision avoidance. Just as we get there, the oligarchy decides to change the system dramatically with zero testing and against the wishes of a large number of pilots (including 2 of the RC itself!). I'm very surprised by all of this. Shocked in fact.

I hope posting this does not cuase a stroke for some....

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/homebuilt-aircraft-and-homebuilt-aircraft-kits/resources-for-while-youre-building/building-articles/instruments-and-avionics/live-weather-and-traffic-for-less-than-$120

I wonder if the iPhone 7 will have an ADSB reciever on board? ;-)

Sean

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 8:43:19 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
Okay, here we go. I'll be brief...

Ultimate goal of proponents of open FLARM is to use this anti collision device tactically, as some new way to improve their soaring performance. The safety/SA argument is used as cover. Most people using this argument have never tried stealth. The competition mode with 5 km display of proximate target really negates this argument.


Sean (XC), the competition mode with 5km display of proximate target does not exist. When it does I will have no problem using it, provided it is tested well.

The issue is that this new proposal was rushed without adequate technology support. The current Stealth mode impacts safety and as far as I am concerned there is no tested alternative. So why a rule proposal for 2016? Why not wait until an appropriate solution exists and is fully tested, why not 2017?

Give me 5 km display around my glider and I will be fine with it. I don't need to see climb rates. I would like to know there is someone out there.

Yes, contrary to what Hank says this is a major change as current Stealth mode impacts safety.

Regards,
Andrzej

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 9:50:22 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 8:43:19 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
Okay, here we go. I'll be brief...

Ultimate goal of proponents of open FLARM is to use this anti collision device tactically, as some new way to improve their soaring performance. The safety/SA argument is used as cover. Most people using this argument have never tried stealth. The competition mode with 5 km display of proximate target really negates this argument.


Sean (XC), the competition mode with 5km display of proximate target does not exist. When it does I will have no problem using it, provided it is tested well.

The issue is that this new proposal was rushed without adequate technology support. The current Stealth mode impacts safety and as far as I am concerned there is no tested alternative. So why a rule proposal for 2016? Why not wait until an appropriate solution exists and is fully tested, why not 2017?

Give me 5 km display around my glider and I will be fine with it. I don't need to see climb rates. I would like to know there is someone out there.

Yes, contrary to what Hank says this is a major change as current Stealth mode impacts safety.

Regards,
Andrzej

5 km does sound like a good compromise. The current 2 km does work quite well and we could run the 2016 season with that but the alarmists are shouting down that option. Too bad they aren't willing to try it.

I looked at the link supplied by Sean regarding the the do it yourself ADS-B box. Here are a couple of thoughts that I don't think have been mentioned so far.

1) FLARM has a proprietary algorithm that determines which nearby gliders will trigger an alarm. In an ADS-B world, don't we still need that? Don't we need a glider specific ADB-S set up? If so can't the competition mode be transferred to ADS-B?

2) Looks like building a cheap ADS-B specific for sailplane racing should be a breeze. At $120 there should be few complaints about adoption.

Go ahead and complain now if you wish.

XC

1) FLARM has a proprietary algorithm that determines which nearby gliders will trigger an alarm. In an ADS-B world, don't we still need that? Don't we need a glider specific ADB-S set up? If so can't the competition mode be transferred to ADS-B?

2) Looks like building a cheap ADS-B specific for sailplane racing should be a breeze. At $120 there should be few complaints about adoption.


Easier said than done to mash Flarm collision algorithms onto ADS-B position reporting. The two systems have some fundamental architectural difference - previously discussed here - that make it hard to use ADS-B to both do good collision warning and not go totally nuts in thermals and other close proximity flying.

You could certainly in theory write software for a home brew ADS-B In receiver that did whatever you like in terms of filtering traffic. I think the challenge will be getting agreement to require pilots to carry that device and only that device for receiving ADS-B. You also get into the cost and complexities of supporting the code and the customers and....wait for it...product liability if it has a problem.

The other problem is Flarm will use ICAO addresses to de-duplicate targets carrying both ADS-B and Flarm, reverting to the more sophisticated Flarm algorithm and transmission when it has a good Flarm signal. Trying to do that across two separate devices would be very complicated.

The reason you'd want it would be to layer in UAT and ADS-R traffic that Flarm doesn't pick up...and in the process to circumvent stealth, I suppose.

9B

Something occurred to me as I was reading this thread. I left competitive soaring for 14 years, and was amazed at the phenomenal, gorgeous technology at our fingertips when I returned. FLARM was one of the most impressive. But, of course, its safety benefits are contingent upon a majority of gliders having one onboard.

Now we're talking about a rule that makes that FLARM less useful in competitions. This has the side effect of making some pilots, particularly in sports class, question the value of buying and installing one. That relatively small change in incentives to the individual may have the unintended consequence of reducing the usefulness of the technology to the group, perhaps even leading to the death of someone with a FLARM that hits someone without, because the latter just didn't think it was worth it.

I say, let's leave the technology completely available in contests. Do that, and installing a FLARM is utterly worth it, And the end result of that will be a higher take up of the technology, benefiting every single one of us.. And not only in contests, since that same pilot will have it on during every weekend flight thereafter.

Safety should come first. Let it be a tactical tool, because the wonderful side effect will be increased take up, and thereafter increased safety for all of us.

Andy,
So we'll really need a power FLARM and an ADS-B device. Wow I've already got 4 gps antennae floating around under my glare shield.

Serious question: What can the FLARM folks do to integrate the desirsed features of ads-b and Flarm into a single box? Isn't it quite possible that an enhanced Flarm will do all these things including a competition mode?

XC