Without question, this is a philosophical debate, based on the fear, emotion and perhaps the downright paranoia of few. Well, Andy's analysis and data and the opinions of a huge number of other US pilots notwithstanding. The scars of the 70's/80's leeching "epidemic" are clearly still healing, very slowly. Wow. One would think that period was deadly combat and not a nearly silent leisure sport.

Remember, I support this (barely) from the standpoint of reducing key variables (assuming improved results are possible from Flarm leeching, etc.) but only if it is proven not to impact the safety value of FLARM situational awareness for nearby gliders not yet acquired visually. This situational awareness is critical, especially in an often chaotic pre-start.

To me it simply comes down to a) is the value of BVR leeching or b) above average thermal identification, or c) IDing key competitors in the starting area really capable of regularly improving contest results for pilots that better master FLARM technology. That is a big assumption, and absolutely zero specific evidence is on record that any improved results are occurring.

The funny thing is that nothing today prevents the same supposed leeching epidemic of the 70's and 80's from happening again. And last I checked, "leeching" was not illegal. Its a tactic. A very common tactic. A desperate and uninspired one at times, but staying with your competitors can also be very wise. Perhaps this is why large and numerous gaggles constantly form in US, IGC and World level contests! Perhaps only attitudes about leeching have changed. Supposedly the USA's infamous TIMED (OLC like) tasks, which are roughly 97% of our total annual tasks, reduce leeching. Despite all this, we still have enough "percieved" leeching angst from a loud, influential few today to result in yet another major, complex US rule change.

As I write this, It occurs to me that FLARM leeching does exist (big assumption) those who have been "FLARM leeching" will simply be compelled to stay closer to the pack now. More leeching, not less, is a potential result of this new rule. A tighter, more intense gaggle. Not less leeching, even more! The old law of unintended consequences! Especially true at the world championship level but perhaps significant in US contests.

This whole argument reminds me of a book from my youth, "No Excuse to Lose" by Dennis Conner. True or not, it appears FLARM has developed into a very serious "excuse" for some. Blaming FLARM on their woes and hoping that by eliminating the perceived FLARM demon, the standings will somehow revert to the "proper order." Personally, I look forward to seeing the results of FLARM Competition Mode's on US contest results. I strongly suspect there will be none. But it will also serve to eliminate any remaining "excuses" even though they may be irrational, baseless and ultimately produce a real safety risk. I truly hope the new US mandate doesn't somehow result or contribute to an accident that normal FLARM operation might have otherwise prevented. Regardless, I see lots of serious technical and customer satisfaction challenges ahead for the FLARM team (a company that has clearly advised against this new limited FLARM function path we are now on) and the US RC, the IGC and the BGA...

I can only imagine the long list of public, angry complaints of a) surprise warnings (too late to easily avoid) or b) failed conflict warnings and c) other technical issues we may all experience next season. IMO, this rule is being pushed out WAY too soon for the USA. For a committee that had as a key objective (just this year) "simplify the rules," this aggressive, almost light speed move, is truly fascinating. The weighting of the variables in the decision equation is quite remarkable.

At least, we will all have some fun Xmas break entertainment as this war rages on.

Sean

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 9:27:51 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
Wait, was this the analysis where you compared results across two contests in different years in completely different geographies with a commonality of about 15 percent in the participating pilot population and using the the highly nebulous "PRL to Performance Metric"? The one where you claimed it was "only 259 data points" (when one could as easily argue it was 2 data points; contest A and contest B). Where I think you used "Bayesian" in a sentence... a tactic I thought only an economist would resort to?? Yes - just poking fun at your expense.

But seriously, the statistics (lies, damned lies) you are citing strike me as only one aspect of the analysis. I think the other is either unmeasurable after-the-fact or would need a much more controlled environment to study conclusively. All I can tell you is what I've observed in ACTUAL contests using Flarm Stealth and not using Flarm Stealth and... more importantly.... what is very achievable in the realm of software development and user interface development in the near future.

I fundamentally believe this is more of a philosophical discussion than a technical one at this point. I'm afraid it may be hard to "win" this one on technical analysis alone.

Back to real work. Q1 revenue estimates are due, and unfortunately I don't have Flarm to use to leech off the other consulting firms.

P3