Flarm Competiton Mode, US Rule

Read the US RC email on this. The ruling makes sense although I'm not sure how they (IGC, BGA, SSA) are going to test competition mode adequately in time for this coming season. I would love to hear what new requirements "they" have gone with for this new Flarm Competiton Mode configuration and how they differ from the old Stealth Mode configuration that was used at recent 2015 15 meter nationals.

I like the idea of less complexity. Clearly some competitors and teams are more advanced than others at leveraging tactical advantage from Flarm. This has the potential to affect results although I'm not convinced it has yet. In general, less critical variables to manage is a policy that seems reasonable. The varying functional range (tactical usefulness) that pilots realize becomes far less important to perfect. I was getting 2-3 miles max. Others where getting 5+. Now 1-2 is probably more than enough (portables, etc).

It is interesting that Nephi is pushing hard for a waiver on the requirement. Clearly they do not want Competiton mode. I wonder why that is. This will be a huge US contest next year with many of the best US competition pilots. Here is an idea. How about alternating modes every other day to look at patterns in the tactics? ;-). It would be very, very interesting to analyze those flights...and probably very eye opening it there is a pattern.

Anyway, I thought it would be interested to start a thread on this controversial ruling...

Sean

Email: Info from the RC Chair on FLARM, Stealth and Nephi

This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):

1. For National Contests:
* Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
* Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)

2. For Regional Contests
* Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
* Unless specified by the contest organizer, there are no restrictions wrt FLARM mode
..
3. Nephi National Contest
Note that the Rules Committee makes recommendations on waivers to the Contest Committee Chair (John Good). The final decision on waivers rests with the Contest Committee Chair.
* Nephi requested and was granted a waiver to require FLARM, consistent with the RC recommendation
* Nephi also requested that Stealth mode for FLARMS be left as a individual pilot selecton - this request was denied, also consistent with the RC recommendation
* Nephi has indicated that they plan to renew their request for Stealth to be a pilot option


Background:

* There is currently significant resistance to non-Stealth FLARM in contests at the international level, spearheaded by the BGA and IGC. The short (and not comprehensive) summary is that experience to date and concerns about the tactical use of FLARM data for competitive advantage are viewed as negatives by the various groups.

* The current implementation of Stealth has a number of aspects that also give rise to safety concerns, including:
* Negative safety Impact of its use wrt stakeholders not part of a contest
* Perceived limitations on threat detection / annunciation especially in high speed closure situations

* The USA has joined with the BGA et al. to work with FLARM to address these issues

* It is hoped that in time for the 2016 season, FLARM will announce, develop, test and release a derivative of Stealth mode (i.e. "Competition" mode) that will sufficiently address the above concerns in all material ways

* In late January, the Rules Committee plans to review the situation and make a final recommendation to the SSA BOD.

Why does the RC support the use of Competition ("son of Stealth") mode, mandatory at National contests?

1. First, FLARM represents a significant improvement in the ability to detect and avoid traffic conflicts. Even though mid-air collisions are not even close to the top of the list of what causes injury/death in competitive soaring that does not mean we should ignore the benefits FLARM provides. The RC is on record as strongly encouraging the voluntary adoption of FLARM..

2. The introduction into competition and use (at least availability) of electronic tactical data for competitive purposes is a major change. As with virtually all major rules changes, they are tried first at the regional level before being deployed at the national level. Coupled with similar concerns expressed by other national organizations (e.g. BGA) and the possible restriction at the WGC level restriction on use of FLARM data for tactical purposes is a conservative approach.

3. Anecdotal reports are surfacing that there is significant "heads-down" time being spent by pilots analyzing tactical data. This is seen as a negative safety influence. Additional anecdotal reports of FLARMS being disabled in flight to avoid tracking is also a negative safety influence.

no comment...

This is a very curious email. Three big reasons for imposing stealth:

* There is currently significant resistance to non-Stealth FLARM in contests at the international level, spearheaded by the BGA and IGC. The short (and not comprehensive) summary is that experience to date and concerns about the tactical use of FLARM data for competitive advantage are viewed as negatives by the various groups.

.... Coupled with similar concerns expressed by other national organizations (e.g. BGA) and the possible restriction at the WGC level restriction on use of FLARM data for tactical purposes is a conservative approach.

3. Anecdotal reports are surfacing that there is significant "heads-down" time being spent by pilots analyzing tactical data. This is seen as a negative safety influence. ..

Historically, the US has not followed IGC rules, long ago enacted: We do our own thing on starts, turnpoints (credit for distance in all cases), units, task types, finishes, a ban on team flying etc etc. All (well, most) for good reasons. Now, it is argued, we should put in a stealth mandate not because of actual IGC rules, but because there is "significant resistance" abroad, "concerns" which "various groups" view as negative (and other groups do not!) because there may at some point in the future be a "possible restriction at the WGC level?"

Then, we are told of a new, heretofore undiscussed safety concern -- the old heads down in the cockpit staring at instruments bugaboo from the GPS wars. Did we not put this to bed then? The whole reason flarm radar is opposed is because it is easier to follow using flarm -- you don't have to stick half a mile from the glider you want to follow and stare intently at it! Just as GPS frees you from staring at maps and slide rule computers, flarm radar frees you from the intense focus that regular following requires.

Were it even true, this is the first time I've heard of any of these "anecdotal reports" -- and I wrote the poll and do the annual safety review. And when was the last time the rules committee imposed a major, controversial rule because of "anecdotal reports," that surface for the first time only after the rule is proposed and passed?

The clear inconsistencies suggest a bit of grasping at straws.

Arguments over in the other thread that we have to ban it now because someday someone might write some better software are just as empty.

I think we'd get a lot further not throwing such smoke around the real issues: A group of senior high-scoring pilots doesn't want tech-savvy youngsters to move up the scoresheet a few notches by occasionally finding a thermal at a bit more distance than one can see. A lot of less technophobic pilots like a lot the situational awareness, and overall fun, of flying when you know where everyone else is, and is willing to share an occasional thermal in return for the chance to borrow one.

The obvious answer: Pilot's choice.

John Cochrane BB

+1 to the keep-it-simple approach

Rob Dunning




On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:27:02 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
This is a very curious email. Three big reasons for imposing stealth:

* There is currently significant resistance to non-Stealth FLARM in contests at the international level, spearheaded by the BGA and IGC. The short (and not comprehensive) summary is that experience to date and concerns about the tactical use of FLARM data for competitive advantage are viewed as negatives by the various groups.

... Coupled with similar concerns expressed by other national organizations (e.g. BGA) and the possible restriction at the WGC level restriction on use of FLARM data for tactical purposes is a conservative approach.

3. Anecdotal reports are surfacing that there is significant "heads-down" time being spent by pilots analyzing tactical data. This is seen as a negative safety influence. ..

Historically, the US has not followed IGC rules, long ago enacted: We do our own thing on starts, turnpoints (credit for distance in all cases), units, task types, finishes, a ban on team flying etc etc. All (well, most) for good reasons. Now, it is argued, we should put in a stealth mandate not because of actual IGC rules, but because there is "significant resistance" abroad, "concerns" which "various groups" view as negative (and other groups do not!) because there may at some point in the future be a "possible restriction at the WGC level?"

Then, we are told of a new, heretofore undiscussed safety concern -- the old heads down in the cockpit staring at instruments bugaboo from the GPS wars. Did we not put this to bed then? The whole reason flarm radar is opposed is because it is easier to follow using flarm -- you don't have to stick half a mile from the glider you want to follow and stare intently at it! Just as GPS frees you from staring at maps and slide rule computers, flarm radar frees you from the intense focus that regular following requires.

Were it even true, this is the first time I've heard of any of these "anecdotal reports" -- and I wrote the poll and do the annual safety review. And when was the last time the rules committee imposed a major, controversial rule because of "anecdotal reports," that surface for the first time only after the rule is proposed and passed?

The clear inconsistencies suggest a bit of grasping at straws.

Arguments over in the other thread that we have to ban it now because someday someone might write some better software are just as empty.

I think we'd get a lot further not throwing such smoke around the real issues: A group of senior high-scoring pilots doesn't want tech-savvy youngsters to move up the scoresheet a few notches by occasionally finding a thermal at a bit more distance than one can see. A lot of less technophobic pilots like a lot the situational awareness, and overall fun, of flying when you know where everyone else is, and is willing to share an occasional thermal in return for the chance to borrow one.

The obvious answer: Pilot's choice.

John Cochrane BB

"I think we'd get a lot further not throwing such smoke around the real issues: A group of senior high-scoring pilots doesn't want tech-savvy youngsters to move up the scoresheet a few notches by occasionally finding a thermal at a bit more distance than one can see. A lot of less technophobic pilots like a lot the situational awareness, and overall fun, of flying when you know where everyone else is, and is willing to share an occasional thermal in return for the chance to borrow one."

RAS quote of the year nomination! :-)

I agree. This all seems incredibly rushed. Almost a panic.

Anyone care to try and list the top 10 senior guys driving this rushed decision? Power players for sure...

Sean

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:27:02 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
This is a very curious email. Three big reasons for imposing stealth:

* There is currently significant resistance to non-Stealth FLARM in contests at the international level, spearheaded by the BGA and IGC. The short (and not comprehensive) summary is that experience to date and concerns about the tactical use of FLARM data for competitive advantage are viewed as negatives by the various groups.

... Coupled with similar concerns expressed by other national organizations (e.g. BGA) and the possible restriction at the WGC level restriction on use of FLARM data for tactical purposes is a conservative approach.

3. Anecdotal reports are surfacing that there is significant "heads-down" time being spent by pilots analyzing tactical data. This is seen as a negative safety influence. ..

Historically, the US has not followed IGC rules, long ago enacted: We do our own thing on starts, turnpoints (credit for distance in all cases), units, task types, finishes, a ban on team flying etc etc. All (well, most) for good reasons. Now, it is argued, we should put in a stealth mandate not because of actual IGC rules, but because there is "significant resistance" abroad, "concerns" which "various groups" view as negative (and other groups do not!) because there may at some point in the future be a "possible restriction at the WGC level?"

Then, we are told of a new, heretofore undiscussed safety concern -- the old heads down in the cockpit staring at instruments bugaboo from the GPS wars. Did we not put this to bed then? The whole reason flarm radar is opposed is because it is easier to follow using flarm -- you don't have to stick half a mile from the glider you want to follow and stare intently at it! Just as GPS frees you from staring at maps and slide rule computers, flarm radar frees you from the intense focus that regular following requires.

Were it even true, this is the first time I've heard of any of these "anecdotal reports" -- and I wrote the poll and do the annual safety review. And when was the last time the rules committee imposed a major, controversial rule because of "anecdotal reports," that surface for the first time only after the rule is proposed and passed?

The clear inconsistencies suggest a bit of grasping at straws.

Arguments over in the other thread that we have to ban it now because someday someone might write some better software are just as empty.

I think we'd get a lot further not throwing such smoke around the real issues: A group of senior high-scoring pilots doesn't want tech-savvy youngsters to move up the scoresheet a few notches by occasionally finding a thermal at a bit more distance than one can see. A lot of less technophobic pilots like a lot the situational awareness, and overall fun, of flying when you know where everyone else is, and is willing to share an occasional thermal in return for the chance to borrow one.

The obvious answer: Pilot's choice.

John Cochrane BB

Anyone care to try and list the top 10 senior guys driving this rushed decision? Power players for sure...

Sean

Aaaah.... Politics. Don't you just love it?