On Oct 10, 9:41*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:09*pm, Andy wrote:









On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell wrote:

The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.

Yes Paul that's clear. *What is not clear is the consequence of not
being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.

Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed to produce a log?

Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed?

No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
event outside his control.

Andy

I am strongly in favor of mandatory use of flarms in contests -
ultimately (and soon). *And I am a strong believer that a pool of
rental units will speed the adoption.
That said, the devil (as usual) is in the details of how to get there
safely.

I don't think we can say "the only valid log for a contest flight is a
Flarm log" which is what the suggested rule effectively does. Even
though Flarm is a proven technology, the PowerFlarm is a new box and
needs a track record. I also don't want to see the workload of the
scorer increased by having to process two logs per flight. While
organizers can require impact activated ELTs, there is no requirement
for contestants to prove they are working correctly and I don't see
the clear necessity for this WRT Flarm.

There are also a couple of (to me) worrisome safety details to work
out related to the introduction of rental/loaner/borrowed units:

1. *The position of the transmitting antenna is important, especially
so in carbon ships. *If you don't get this right, you effectively
don't have the device on board making it useless to both you and
others. There will need to be a knowledge base of what works and what
doesn't developed (and adopted from European experience).

2. *I am not comfortable with the idea of pilot having a new piece of
equipment on the first contest day that they have never seen before
and are trying to learn and that is making noises/visual cues at
them. *This problem goes away over time, but it is a serious concern
to me in seeing the technology introduced without unintended negative
safety consequences. Any you can't just say "turn down the volume and
put it in the back out of sight because that creates the problem of
(1).

Keep the discussion going.
John Godfrey (QT)
US Rules Committee

I suspect the proposed requirement for mandatory inspection of all
FLARM logs after each contest day will be modified somewhat, maybe to
make it a bit like the current U.S. practice of random (or maybe not
so random if there are other independent indications of a potential
infraction) weighing on the grid to discourage over-ballasting.

I ask everyone to keep in mind that we have a very difficult chicken-
and-egg problem to overcome with FLARM that is completely different
than other types of equipment. FLARM won't work adequately well
unless all pilots have a FLARM and use it in flight, despite any fears
about loss of competitive edges, etc. If only 10% or so of the
community buys and uses FLARM, then it won't work at all.

I think what we are seeing is a groundswell of sentiment for making
the hard decisions and implementing what we all know is a proven
safety multiplier when there are lots of gliders in the same general
area (i.e. contests). We have had way too many preventable mid-air
collisions, and at least one too many deaths here in the U.S. in the
last few years, and it is just plain time to do something about it.
Rather than quibbling forever about the details, lets get something
going, and iron out the rough spots as they appear. Better that than
to lose another pilot (especially when it might be me!)

Regards,

TA