On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:53:32 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:

I just don't hear any specifics here...I hear broad statements and assumptions.


One last effort to put the data we have on the table. I removed Days 1 and 6 (mass landout days) from Harris Hill. This leaves only days that had high completion ratios - only P7, XC and BT flew both 2014 and 2015 15-Meter Nationals and could make informed judgements about how "randomizing" the conditions were for what remained (outside the two landout days, that is).

The result is Harris Hill had an average winners score of 952 versus 869 for Montague, so from a devaluation perspective dropping the two mass landout days makes Harris Hill quantitatively less random. Even so, pilot performance averaged 10% off of what you'd expect from the PRL versus 7% for Montague (and 6.5% if you exclude P7's "random" landout).

I'd add that at Montague I saw lots of pretty complete Flarm setups (I worked on a bunch - doing config files, RF testing and even installed my spare unit in a competitor's glider - which is why people kept seeing 9B in multiple places on course - heh heh). I'd have to say that I think many, if not most, pilots had the ability to use Flarm tactically - I certainly did when I could and there was even a protest based in part on use of Flarm data for tactical purposes. Flarm may not have been in use by everyone to 100% of its ultimate capability, but it was certainly in use by enough people that if it was making a big difference you ought to be able to detect something. HH randomness notwithstanding, the Montague results were pretty orderly - so Flarm leeches were not successfully crawling up the scoresheet - though some may have tried.

The data to-date provides no evidence that people are generating sustained benefit from tactical Flarm usage. In fact, the evidence is that people are NOT generating a sustained benefit. Maybe that will change with time and experience.

This discussion has raised another thought. The single biggest factor in randomizing scores away from what makes sense (at least based on the long term competition records of the pilots) is weather. It has been argued here that it is harder to pick up any signal from Flarm leeching with random weather noise in the scores from tricky days that land out most of the field except for a lucky few. So, should we be disallowing days where less than 2/3 or 3/4 of the fleet finishes? They say contests are won on the weak days, maybe that's bad thing?

I tend to agree with Sean (7T). There seems to be a lot of speculation and supposition and "anecdotalytics" floating about - on all sides. It does appear to me that Stealth mode retains enough warning range for most collision scenarios, but how restricting the broader situational view might cascade into a threat scenario under particular circumstances is unclear and I would want to know a lot more about that. For instance, I have already once mistaken a glider that didn't show up on Flarm for one that was a threat and mistakenly tracked the wrong target until way too late. I suspect trial lawyers don't care if Stealth is 99% as good as no Stealth in the event anything bad happens. That's a concern.

I also tend to agree with 7T in his view that tactical Flarm usage sometimes helps a bit, sometimes hurts a bit. In FAI-style team and gaggle flying it probably can be used to greater benefit as gaggle-hopping is a strategy that can win races (Sebastian Kawa has a view on this point). Gaggle-hopping is a strategy that may be enhanced by, but was not created by, Flarm. It's more a result of FAI scoring philosophy. In any event, the strategy is available to everyone. Also, with or without Flarm, flying more assigned tasks will likely generate more leeching behavior, so if you're opposed to leeching, you might not like ATs either.

I also don't buy the "expensive arms race" argument. Most US racing pilots have Flarm available to them today (if you're really poor I'll loan you my spare, or you can rent one). Most glider pilots have some sort of moving map display - whether it's an LX9000/ClearNav premium computer or an Oudie (basically the same software as the LX) or a smartphone running open source gliding software. They all have Flarm tracking basically for free and new Flarm features will be made available to the broad market (at least that's been the case so far). Turning features off won't make the devices or software any cheaper and they won't not develop them just because racing pilots don't like them - they're great for OLC/buddy flying.

That does leave us with what seems to be the essential point. Does Flarm increase or decrease (some might say ruin) the qualitative experience of glider racing? There's no better feeling than having a strategic inspiration, going off on your own and smoking the field. There's also something disheartening about struggling down low until you find the boomer that saves your day only to have the gaggle roll in right on top of you. Stories of pilots who leeched their way to the podium by following top pilots around have been part of soaring folklore as long as I can remember, but I don't generally think the people on the podium are second-rate and most scoresheets make sense to me most of the time. BUT, there is also GW's sentiment - and it does not seem so rare - that Flarm allows pilots to keep in touch with some of the field and generates more of a sense of racing and some camaraderie in a sport that can be isolating. He argues that that's more fun and makes the sport more accessible to new pilots, even if it doesn't catapult them to the top - or even middle - of the scoresheet. We struggle with limiting the shrinkage of the sport. I'd be curious to know whether newer racing pilots learn more quickly and enjoy the experience more when they can see more of what's going on out of course.

Good discussion - many useful points and perspectives.

9B