Chip, I'm very interested that you say you don't consider the behavior Jim White described as "leeching".

If we can all agree that "leeching" is when someone follows someone else around the course and never makes his own decisions, we can assign time and altitude limits to define "following" and automatically scan IGC files to identify when possible leeching is occurring.

I've been playing around with a computer program that attempts to do this. The program needs a lot more work, but I haven't been putting much effort into it because until now there hasn't been a usable definition of "leeching".

Perhaps it's possible to agree on a way forward to permit the solving of the issue I think is behind all of the "stealth" angst expressed in many recent RAS posts...

-John, Q3

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 7:03:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Lots of snipping to show subject

Jim's scenarios are very interesting--and realistic. But I'm not sure I'd use the word "leeching" to describe them, however, because they involve pilots using FLARM to make decisions. The only decision made by a self-respecting leech (a contradiction in terms?) is whom to follow that day. Jim describes pilots using [FLARM] technology to get better information to make better decisions. And regarding scenario #1, the leader starting behind the 2nd place guy on the last day to shadow him and insure a win, XX, George Moffat himself--the anti-leech--did it at Marfa one year in the 60s to Wally Scott, IIRC.

So can we use technology--i.e., post-flight analysis of logger traces--to impose penalties for leeching? Yeah, it sounds messy. More post-processing work. After-the-fact penalties. More protests from innocent and not-so-innocent pilots.

No, this isn't a troll. I'm serious. I'm sure I'm not the first to propose it. Have at it.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.