Confessions of a Flarm Follower

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 4:24:50 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:29:22 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

I wouldn't describe all opponents of Open Flarm as technophobes - some are (and have admitted to me that they are "not computer people"), other like technology just fine but seem to feel that some skill they have (perhaps risk-tolerance is one) will be diluted with new and better information. But denying people all external information hardly seems like a fundamental principle of glider racing - if it were we would do separate time trials or all MAT format to maximize the separation of gliders so you can't use any visual cues. We would have leeching penalties that are quite easy to calculate with IGC files. We don't, and no one seems to be interested in going down that path.

9B

While maybe not a "fundamental principle" one might look to the rules that have been in place and withstood the test of time.

6.6 Restricted Equipment
6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
* Permits flight without reference to the ground.
* Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at a distance greater than one wingspan.
6.6.2 An external cleaning device is any device with moving parts designed to clean the exterior of the sailplane during flight, such as bugwipers.
The use of such devices is allowed in all classes Rule 6.12.
6.6.3 Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,
commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight capabilities beyond those referenced below:
6.6.3.1 An aircraft-band VHF radio
6.6.3.2 An aircraft transponder
6.6.3.3 A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)
6.6.3.4 A air-to-ground position reporting device
6.6.3.5 An anti-collision device. Rule 6.6.3 does not forbid the use of a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by the
device.
6.6.4 Other than an aircraft-band VHF radio, any device that allows in-flight access to weather data is prohibited.
6.6.5 Violations of any provisions of this Rule are considered Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (Penalty described in Rule 12.2.5.3.)

Note that the rule was added a few years ago to permit a collision avoidance device. We have a pretty good one of those in Flarm. They do not expressly permit a device for tactical tracking or viewing our competitors which turns out to be another very useful application of the device. This is what I might call a "back door benefit" of the use of Flarm which could reasonably be seen as not included and thus either removed(not possible without destroying the benefit of safety), or limited in some manner.
The rules also are clear in intent to limit information in to that which is described in the text.
For 2016, phones will now be allowed to be on for the purpose of enabling tracking outputs only.
So while you might want to roll over the top on this and create a wide open cockpit technology race, the process will require a measured pace which starts with no new information in until due process allows it.
Cheers
UH


I was making more of a philosophical point - as well as a practical one. What is the principle behind banning technology? Is it cost? - the case against GPS was much stronger and the case against Flarm in general is much stronger than the case for stealth. Flarm costs money, open Flarm versus stealth has zero cost consequences. Is it ensuring fair competition? How is a technology that virtually every one is carrying unfair? Is it preserving the primacy of specific skills and halting the introduction of new skills? What's the basis for that?

You know if you have to write a new rule every time technology changes that you are not working from a general principle - it's something else at work..

Wait till you see my $200 FLIR sensor. It's sensitive to 0.1 degrees F. It's measuring the temperature of the ground, not the air, so it is permitted under 6.6. In initial testing the range seems to be a few miles.

Time for a new rule.

9B

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:11:56 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
So under the rules is the anti-collision strobe in my fin illegal? This strobe has a LX cal controller so when I get a Flarm alert the strobe goes off like a Christmas tree.

Not listed as restricted equipment so let 'er rip.
Note that most restrictions relate to information sources permitted.
When it fires off does your head get warm?- LOL
UH

While I agree that Flarm was and is a valid safety tool in a certain
environment, the statement about bludgeoning to stop debate has a lot of
merit.

You simply can't argue against children, harp seals, safety, etc., and
it seems to be the first line of argument for those who want to stop
debate. Kinda like the bumper sticker I saw years ago: God said it, I
believe it, that settles it. No further room for discussion.

Asinine? We each have a right to our opinions and, whether you like
them or not, there's no need for name calling.

On 12/31/2015 3:28 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
"Does anyone really doubt that the hard core Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover? I think most of the Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm. "Safety" is mostly just a bludgeon to be used against the debate opposition."

This is the most asinine statement I have ever read on RAS. Crying out loud, did you really not know Flarm was designed from the ground up as an anti-collision device and it is very effective for its designed purpose ?! Can you really not see multiple holes in your "logic jump"? Your thoughts become your words, and yours are off base illogical and downright foolish. I hope your New Years resolution if for clearity of thought.

Happy NewYears all!

--
Dan, 5J

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:29:22 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:16:08 PM UTC-8, wrote:

The often quoted manufacturers recommendation to not enable stealth is taken out of context. They are cautioning that leaving the Flarm in stealth when not at a contest will, of course, limit what is displayed on your Flarm and others. This designed feature is for use at contests not general flying.


Hey Sean,

I've read the spec over and over. I've read other Flarm-produced documentation and I've spoken at one point or another to most of the Flarm leadership team, including spending a day with Urs in his California office. Without putting specific words in anyone's mouth it was made pretty clear to me that the recommendation against using Stealth specifically includes contest use. They have said (in writing) that the only reason to use it (and implied that the only reason it was developed) was to forestall people turning their units off altogether. You can speculate that this was due to liability concerns, but no one ever said that to me and the way people talked about it just reinforced the sense that the main consideration is that they thought using it was a bad idea on technical grounds - second only to not using Flarm at all.

We can talk about the (small) probabilities of glider midairs and merits of a bit less situational awareness against the (still to be described in a quantifiable way) reduction in "tactical use", but it really is a line drawing exercise that makes many of us pretty uncomfortable - since the costs are some small increment in a horrific outcome versus a benefit that can't be adequately described, let alone quantified or demonstrated as to how it decreases the accuracy to which contest scores represent soaring skills.

Take John's confessional and unpack it a bit into the real implications. There are two main tactical use cases he describes:

Use Case 1: Knowing where other gliders are and to some extent how they are progressing - a different line, a different thermal, etc. Knowing where a handful of other pilots are some of the time - maybe where they made their turn in the cylinder - give you a sense of whether you are gaining or losing. In other words, it give you a sensation that you are racing - which a lot of pilots seem to enjoy. You have tactical information that you are, for instance, losing ground to another glider - instead of waiting until dinner time and the scores to figure this out. At three miles distance it gives you almost no useful information about what to do about it. Three miles laterally is a hard gap to close on a leg - you just give up too much to make a sharp deviation and if you do it with a gradual course change it's equally pointless as whatever is happening differently will likely be totally changed 10 miles or more down the course line. As prior data analysis - and experience - has demonstrated, following someone from 3 miles behind is generally a recipe for getting 4 miles behind unless you find your own, better thermals - that is, fly you own flight.

Use Case 2: Having some confidence under marginal conditions when there are other gliders about that you will have a decent shot at finding a thermal if there is one to be had. This reduces the chances that you will miss the saving climb that prevents a landout (or being stuck for a long time) when climbs (and particularly good climbs) are few and far between. From looking at the names on the list of landouts on days like this, it seems that there is more luck than skill involved, but it is possible that there is some skill, some local knowledge and some risk tolerance involved (e.g. willingness to drive down to 300', fly over unlandable terrain, into tight canyons, etc). Are these the types of soaring skills we want to value? Is having more landouts a desirable way to ensure these skills are tested? Does it really make the sport more attractive to new pilots to know we specifically want them to not have the information that could have gotten them home on a marginal day or when they are low and desperate? Landouts are the enemy of fair scoring - they scramble the scoresheet and we can't even come to a stable view of how to score miles versus miles per hour. The points we grant for landing out have come up and up over the years specifically because we realize landouts are mostly an indication of bad luck more than lack of skill.. We devalue days with lots of landouts (luck factor). We've increased landout scores to the point that slow finishers are starting to complain that they don't get enough points. Why is it a good idea to deny pilots useful tactical information to avoid a landout? In addition to the basic fairness and values issues, it is a question the tort lawyers will be interested to address the next time we have a landout fatality in a contest - all the IGC files will be analyzed to see if there were any climbing gliders in range to avoid the tragedy. The next question will be "who is to blame for deliberately denying the pilot this potentially life-saving information". At that point what actually would have happened in the alternate case won't matter.

I wouldn't describe all opponents of Open Flarm as technophobes - some are (and have admitted to me that they are "not computer people"), other like technology just fine but seem to feel that some skill they have (perhaps risk-tolerance is one) will be diluted with new and better information. But denying people all external information hardly seems like a fundamental principle of glider racing - if it were we would do separate time trials or all MAT format to maximize the separation of gliders so you can't use any visual cues. We would have leeching penalties that are quite easy to calculate with IGC files. We don't, and no one seems to be interested in going down that path.

9B

Andy,
I am really not going after you personally, but I have to point out some of what I see as flaws in your argument.

1) The FLARM folks are in the business of FLARM not soaring. We need to talk about what is best for soaring not what is best for the FLARM company. I suppose if you were to ask any individual at the company they would have to take the CYA approach. The IGC, BGA and now the SSA are looking at practical solutions that preserve the competitiveness of racing and offer increased collision avoidance through the use of FLARM.

2) Folks keep discounting the tactical use of FLARM like it a nebulous, undefined thing. BB describes how he can now take a risk on a bad line and instead of paying the price for bad decision making with a slow climb out, he now can play a wild card and wiggle over to gliders he's been tracking electronically (and win the day). That's John. He's good. Most folks will use in more mundane ways. Using FLARM this way changes the risk management part of the race. Another real example happened in Finland when one of the pilots from another team overtook one of our guys. When asked how he did it he said, "It was easy I saw you climbing at 1.5 m/s and I could see another guy climbing at 3 m/s. I went to his thermal and passed you up." No better skill involved just a better FLARM installation. There are plenty of real world examples.

3) The data analysis and your quoted experience hints at a bias toward western conditions. A 3 mile gap is not much NY/PA where we deviate much more on a typical course line.

There is also a bias in your reasoning toward this "ism" that soaring has to be about unlimited technology. That all technology is good for the sport and this is some sort of unstoppable force.

4) This idea that land outs are due primarily due to luck is not true at all. It has been my experience that when I land out I can sit against a tree and enumerate the errors that led me there. The same is true about the other land outs I have seen in the contests I have flown. Avoiding land outs is all in setting yourself up for success before hand by proper risk management this is the essence of the sport of racing. As stated previously, land outs are and should be part of the game. If you are going to fly aircraft across the countryside without a motor it follows logically that there is a risk of not making it home. This is the big whammy that makes the sport interesting.

Avoiding land outs is not about scary, risky last minute maneuvers you have used to make your point. I think it is becoming apparent that proponents of open FLARM ready do plan to use it to cover mistakes and avoid the inconvenience of landing away. In this way the scores will not reflect pilots ability to manage risk.

5) You and BB have both tried to scare us with lawyers and death now several times to make your point. Like name calling this is a sign of deficient argument.

Sorry to be so blunt but you an BB have a preconceived idea/agenda on this FLARM thing and are going to great lengths to push it on us.

The competition mode with an expanded radius of 5 km plus the other enhancements for head to head conflicts seems to be plenty for collision avoidance.. Beyond that we are talking about tactical use of FLARM.


XC

XC(Sean) and all,

I can accept that a philosophical argument against PowerFlarm exists. It comes from the SSA's "anti-technology oligarchy." As usual, many disagree, some very strongly, with their opinions and strategy to reduce the situational awareness benefits of PowerFlarm. Those disagreeing with the competition mode mandate includes prominent members of the RC itself! The anti-technology, "spirit of the sport" argument and views are hypothesis at best, not fact. There is zero objective evidence, only theory and insecurity.

The "peanut gallery" has recently offered absurd accusatory explanations of how most (if not all) US pilots bought PowerFlarm (at incredible expense) as a pure leeching toy and that any safety value PowerFlarm advertised had zero weight in their purchase decision. In my opinion, these statements have taken the anti-technology argument to a new low. The philosophical argument against new technologies in soaring, for me, no longer has any credibility. These statements are out of line, unacceptable and unworthy of further serious consideration. These statements are also childish and reckless. If any member of the RC shares such opinions, they should not be representing me.

We need a straight vote by all US/Candian contest pilots on such decisions moving forward rather than SSA oligarch games. No more interpretation of a subjective poll. A simple, straight vote would leave no doubts. A vote would solve a lot of problems and end many arguments. We would know that vote represented the majority of our pilots wishes and not a crusade rammed thru by an over-empowered and over-dramatic minority.

Back to the real world of PowerFlarm and how it provides us safety. I have found myself (several times) wincing for the impending impact of a critical PowerFlarm warning (I have one embarrassing example on video) when I was entirely unable to ID the threat location. These are moments of sheer panic. In these moments, I have no idea if I am about to be hit from head on, behind, below or the side. I find myself occasionally waiting for these phantom collisions, completely unsure of why my Flarm is aggressively telling me to do something different. I desperately check my peripheral vision for wingtips, looking below the glider, etc. in a hope that I can avoid the worst case scenario. This has happened to me between 5-10 times.

The usefulness of the PowerFlarm system in proximity to other gliders, at current, is far from 100% comprehensive. A big part of the reason "close in" Flarm warnings are useful to us at all is THE ABILITY TO DETECT OTHER SAILPLANES BEFORE THEY GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO CAUSE A WARNING! You are not surprised! We know, at least generally (often very precisely), where the threat is located before the warning. Competition mode (or Stealth before it) removes all or most of this foreshadowing, situational awareness or knowledge.. Terrifying, surprise warnings will increase. Even with the full capability of PowerFlarm (normal mode), as I have described above, situational awareness is far from guaranteed. I DO NOT LIKE THESE SURPRISE WARNINGS. I highly doubt anyone else does either. We are not dealing with a perfect system here, handicapping it makes it far less perfect as a safety tool. Is that worth the reward?

Reducing general situational awareness for pilots, in any significant way, or making a miscalculation in thinking thru the new "competition mode" requirements, or how pilots will respond to the new paradigm, or making incorrect assumptions about the range of likely antenna performance, or blind spots of situational awareness that allow more surprise collision warnings, is dangerous and unacceptable. In other words, the narrower the field situational awareness, the more chance there is that two gliders get close without detecting each other. When and if the warning comes, the pilots ability to identify the threat and react to the warning is reduced. That is my first point. This is basic statistics. We are far from having a perfect Flarm system. Monkeying with it could destroy most of the value.

I hear what is being proposed in Competition mode (at a very high level), I just doubt it will work as wonderfully as the fanboys are claiming. It's not a simple change. Are the almost fantasy world claims of not ever needing to think for oneself and winning contests via flarm radar worth the potential consequences? I believe this is going to be an utter disaster initially, just as POWERFlarm was in 2011, 2012. I believe the relatively few who are driving this are completely tunnel visioned and are completely ignoring the intrinsic situational awareness value that PowerFlarm provides. I also believe the new competition mode requirements are impractical and not fully thought out. There needs to be testing before implementation. Just as POWERFlarm had initial growing pains, this massive change to its governing dynamics and human interaction with Flarm will take time for pilots to RE-adjust to. This all assumes that the philosophical argument really justifies the downgrade and that there is significant majority consensus in the USA supporting it...which there is clearly not. Again, we are going competition mode before having the guts to make Flarm mandatory at contests in the first place. That makes me consider selling my Flarm. What's the point? I don't trust half the warnings already. Some are absolute surprises. Now the situational awareness will be chopped off at the neck without any serious study of the "cost/benefit" impacts within a purely philosophical context.

For example, if I visually acquire a glider (or small gaggle) at 3 miles (then cross check on Flarm) and see that they are transmitting a good signal as they approach or parallel, I can trust that they have a reasonably functioning Flarm. If a glider at 3 miles, that I see visually (I'm 20/10 in both eyes) has no corresponding signal on Flarm, I have to ask myself; does he/she not have Flarm or is it just a 1) poor angle or 2) an antenna problem.. Regardless, I now have to spend a lot of time tracking them to see how reliable their Flarm signal is and pay more attention to them (or confirm that they are "flarmless"...the worst part of any contest). The guys without Flarm make Flarm nearly useless, in my opinion at a contest. There is no trust in the system because its usage is not 100%. That is just one of many practical examples of reality that nobody mentions. With competition mode, you will not have the ability to assess the function of gliders as they approach my airspace. Surprises will increase; general situation awareness will decrease significantly. The value of Flarm falls to near zero for me.

Next, I do not trust the RC with my safety or to be brilliant enough to consider all of the potential problems that may result from this radical change to Flarm this summer. The Flarm system, as it was before this debate, was FAR from perfect. It is moderately reliable, but that is a database you build as you get to know your competitors and how their Flarm behaves in proximity. The RC refuses to mandate Flarm in contests, but they will rapidly and significantly roll back its situational awareness value for somewhat unsubstantiated reasons that are so factually inconsequential to US contests results it borders on comedy. That is not a trivial thing they are messing with; it's CRITICAL to our collective safety. A dramatic change in situation awareness changes the balance of the whole system (PowerFlarm) that we spent years trying to promote and create. The fact that the RC, despite a strong argument from prominent members of the committee, has still chosen to rush forward with this change has dropped my confidence in their judgement to a new low.

I consider myself to be a glider pilot who cares greatly about contest safety. That is why I made the investment in Flarm way back in 2011 (despite what some have tried to insinuate here). I have owned and used a Flarm since the first day they become available in the USA. I see it as a last line of defence from the unthinkable accidental, fatal collision. It gives us a chance to avoid that collision THAT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY. Perhaps it has already prevented that accident and our RC (and IGC) is being quite complacent because there is no recent story of a fatal contest collision because of the situational awareness the PowerFlarm system has been providing? Hmmm? But the value of that investment in safety is reduced to little when so many refuse to make the same investment in our collective security. I try very hard to be a good citizen (not to scare anyone), give room in thermals, etc. For the most part, this is true of all of our fellow US contest pilots. But I also understand that this sport is inherently dangerous whenever we are in close proximity (5 miles) of numerous other gliders (Flarm or no Flarm) while hitting the same basic hot spots along the way. It's when you are competing at a high level (focusing carefully on clouds, birds, feeling for energy, etc that we are most vulnerable to not noticing a glider (or other aircraft) nearby. Now we will have less of a picture of where those choke points may be by intentionally placing blinders on situational awareness leading in and out of them

This whole conversation has a very real potential to mess with the safety value the system was finally beginning to provide. The manner in which this risk is flippantly dismissed by many shows me that "our leaders" have not fully thought this decision and timeline thru. They are driven mainly by emotion here. I find this very surprising, disturbing and unintelligent.

If someone is beating me because they have a better grasp of Flarm situational awareness (unfounded and unproven) I am willing to accept that if the safety is collectively higher because of it. Just as if someone is beating me at MAT, TAT or HAT task because their fancy flight glide computer does a better job of helping them manage critical decisions. That glide computer advantage is true! Just talk to the salespeople! Yet we don't ban them! Nor do we ban new gliders with perceived higher performance from competing in 15 or 18 meter. In fact, a massive list have gotten in line to enjoy the promise of that 1-3% advantage. Hmmm?

Where does this anti-technology insanity end?

Here is a bold statement. I think some seem to care far more about preventing slight, philosophical (at this point) and potentially imaginary competitive disadvantage (via the ability of some to better adapt to new technology, not unique technology) than improving or maintaining safety. In other words, if it comes down to insecurity or safety, ease my insecurities and screw safety. Ban that Flarm! Don't even test, do it now!!!! Rush, go, turn them damn things off!!! The insecurity and willingness to risk safety and hold ground against a good deal of valid concerns, is a sight to behold.

Happy New Year All!

Sean

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:23:21 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:


You don't need to apologize to me as I had no part in bringing PowerFlarm to US, but you can call me a PowerFlarm pusher anyway since I am advocating its use to the full extend for safety reasons. I also installed ADSB-out in my glider for safety reasons at great expense. If I did not see PowerFlarm improving my safety I would take it out of my glider.

Here is a fact, RC proposed (contrary to Flarm recommendation) compulsory use of Stealth mode without dealing with reduced safety issue. Then when RC finally figured out (thanks to RAS) that Stealth was not such a good idea they renamed it to the Competition mode without proper definition by the vendor of what it would be. This was less than 3 months before the first competition of 2016. Flarm does not have a Competition mode available at this time that RC is talking about.

I am sorry but this decision is a sign of RC incompetence at best. How can you mandate something that is not defined and it does not exist and then hope that maybe it shows up in time for the first contest?

Everyone reasonable can accept changes provided the change is clearly defined and tested to ensure safety is not compromised. Some discussion prior to making such a huge decision would be in order as well. I guess we already had that on RAS.

In the past RC stated that no major change can happen without being properly tested. What happened to that? I guess it was a different group of people back then, a little bit more restrained perhaps.

We don't want RC to become a knee jerk reaction group imposing their will on the rest of the pilots. What happened to a democratic process? The poll does not support this decision.

I have no issue with bringing a change as long as it is done with proper consultation and the technology is there to avoid negative safety impact. That is not the case now. Nothing is ready. It is time to give it up for 2016.

Let's do proper polling for 2017 to truly understand what pilots want and meantime figure out the technology puzzle.

UH Response:
I have worked quite hard when discussing this topic to be respectful of the views of others and speak in a manner that reflects my experience and opinions while trying to make it clear that they were just that.
I may stray a bit from that philosophy in responding to the message above.
Fact- The allegation that the RC has not considered the safety implications of use of Stealth or a follow on version(Competition)are simply not true. In our discussions 9B made a strong case for these concerns and they have been part of the continuing dialog among our group. The "competition" mode is not our relabeling of Stealth, but in fact is the label being used in discussions by members of the IGC and ourselves with Flarm wherein changes are expected to be made to address concerns that arose out of the implementation of the 2015 version of Stealth tested in the UK. Report that I have read is that version was well accepted by pilots, but that meaningful concerns were identified related to other glider users of Flarm and well as UK military users that have Flarm. As of this time, we do not have clarity as to the details of the coming revision.
Fact- RAS had not one thing to do with our understanding of the factors related to this process, with the exception of the level of passion it would raise from a few.
Fact- It is planned that the RC is to review the best information we have about the next version before proceeding with the rule as currently drafted. We have agreed that if the coming version does not meet the needs of our situation, we will not proceed.
Fact- The RC is on a rules schedule that requires us to complete changes before the winter board meeting. That may seem like a rush, and sometimes it is, but that is the process we live with.
Fact- The RC takes it's obligation to let affected parties know about actions that affect them in a timely manner so that they can plan accordingly.
The allegation of incompetence, with an implication of worse, is nothing less than insulting. The volunteers who work for all of us deserve better than this kind of public treatment.
Fact- This is not a major change and it has been tested at the national level with favorable results, though not without concerns voiced by some.
Fact - This is not a "knee jerk" reaction. Some action of this type has been under discussion literally from the initial introduction of Flarm. The experiences in Europe described in Russell Cheatham's paper reinforced these original concerns and led to consideration of action.
There is a very real likelihood that what will be developed by Flarm will not meet our expectations. I am sure that whatever is done will not satisfy everyone. Please rest assured that the US RC is doing the best we can to act in a responsible manner to address the wide variety of considerations related to this topic. If we do not believe that the next progression of Flarm will be acceptable, we will not proceed.
Respectfully
UH

Thank you Sean for you well thought and well written response!

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:04:31 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Thank you Sean for you well thought and well written response!

Hank, I am very aware of Andy's opposition to the Stealth mode and I thank him for his continuous effort to educate others about flaws of the Stealth mode.

If you truly understood the shortcomings of the Stealth mode then why did you go ahead with the proposal for the 2016? What is the rush? Even if a new solution was developed this winter there would not be enough time to test it and refine it. So, why did this provisional vote take place at all? Why did you deny Nephi's petition?

I use strong words because you seem not to understand that your decisions have safety impact not only on you but also on others. The position you hold is a very responsible one and I would expect a real careful consideration before any rule impacting safety is voted on, even if it is a provisional rule. I do not think this took place here, especially considering the 3-2 vote.

Again, please scrap the proposal until there is fully tested solution available that does not impact safety.

Regards,
Andrzej

Sean, thank you, very well written.

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 2:47:38 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
XC(Sean) and all,

I can accept that a philosophical argument against PowerFlarm exists. It comes from the SSA's "anti-technology oligarchy." As usual, many disagree, some very strongly, with their opinions and strategy to reduce the situational awareness benefits of PowerFlarm. Those disagreeing with the competition mode mandate includes prominent members of the RC itself! The anti-technology, "spirit of the sport" argument and views are hypothesis at best, not fact. There is zero objective evidence, only theory and insecurity.

The "peanut gallery" has recently offered absurd accusatory explanations of how most (if not all) US pilots bought PowerFlarm (at incredible expense) as a pure leeching toy and that any safety value PowerFlarm advertised had zero weight in their purchase decision. In my opinion, these statements have taken the anti-technology argument to a new low. The philosophical argument against new technologies in soaring, for me, no longer has any credibility. These statements are out of line, unacceptable and unworthy of further serious consideration. These statements are also childish and reckless. If any member of the RC shares such opinions, they should not be representing me.

We need a straight vote by all US/Candian contest pilots on such decisions moving forward rather than SSA oligarch games. No more interpretation of a subjective poll. A simple, straight vote would leave no doubts. A vote would solve a lot of problems and end many arguments. We would know that vote represented the majority of our pilots wishes and not a crusade rammed thru by an over-empowered and over-dramatic minority.

Back to the real world of PowerFlarm and how it provides us safety. I have found myself (several times) wincing for the impending impact of a critical PowerFlarm warning (I have one embarrassing example on video) when I was entirely unable to ID the threat location. These are moments of sheer panic. In these moments, I have no idea if I am about to be hit from head on, behind, below or the side. I find myself occasionally waiting for these phantom collisions, completely unsure of why my Flarm is aggressively telling me to do something different. I desperately check my peripheral vision for wingtips, looking below the glider, etc. in a hope that I can avoid the worst case scenario. This has happened to me between 5-10 times.

The usefulness of the PowerFlarm system in proximity to other gliders, at current, is far from 100% comprehensive. A big part of the reason "close in" Flarm warnings are useful to us at all is THE ABILITY TO DETECT OTHER SAILPLANES BEFORE THEY GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO CAUSE A WARNING! You are not surprised! We know, at least generally (often very precisely), where the threat is located before the warning. Competition mode (or Stealth before it) removes all or most of this foreshadowing, situational awareness or knowledge. Terrifying, surprise warnings will increase. Even with the full capability of PowerFlarm (normal mode), as I have described above, situational awareness is far from guaranteed. I DO NOT LIKE THESE SURPRISE WARNINGS. I highly doubt anyone else does either. We are not dealing with a perfect system here, handicapping it makes it far less perfect as a safety tool. Is that worth the reward?

Reducing general situational awareness for pilots, in any significant way, or making a miscalculation in thinking thru the new "competition mode" requirements, or how pilots will respond to the new paradigm, or making incorrect assumptions about the range of likely antenna performance, or blind spots of situational awareness that allow more surprise collision warnings, is dangerous and unacceptable. In other words, the narrower the field situational awareness, the more chance there is that two gliders get close without detecting each other. When and if the warning comes, the pilots ability to identify the threat and react to the warning is reduced. That is my first point. This is basic statistics. We are far from having a perfect Flarm system. Monkeying with it could destroy most of the value.

I hear what is being proposed in Competition mode (at a very high level), I just doubt it will work as wonderfully as the fanboys are claiming. It's not a simple change. Are the almost fantasy world claims of not ever needing to think for oneself and winning contests via flarm radar worth the potential consequences? I believe this is going to be an utter disaster initially, just as POWERFlarm was in 2011, 2012. I believe the relatively few who are driving this are completely tunnel visioned and are completely ignoring the intrinsic situational awareness value that PowerFlarm provides. I also believe the new competition mode requirements are impractical and not fully thought out. There needs to be testing before implementation. Just as POWERFlarm had initial growing pains, this massive change to its governing dynamics and human interaction with Flarm will take time for pilots to RE-adjust to. This all assumes that the philosophical argument really justifies the downgrade and that there is significant majority consensus in the USA supporting it...which there is clearly not. Again, we are going competition mode before having the guts to make Flarm mandatory at contests in the first place. That makes me consider selling my Flarm. What's the point? I don't trust half the warnings already. Some are absolute surprises. Now the situational awareness will be chopped off at the neck without any serious study of the "cost/benefit" impacts within a purely philosophical context.

For example, if I visually acquire a glider (or small gaggle) at 3 miles (then cross check on Flarm) and see that they are transmitting a good signal as they approach or parallel, I can trust that they have a reasonably functioning Flarm. If a glider at 3 miles, that I see visually (I'm 20/10 in both eyes) has no corresponding signal on Flarm, I have to ask myself; does he/she not have Flarm or is it just a 1) poor angle or 2) an antenna problem. Regardless, I now have to spend a lot of time tracking them to see how reliable their Flarm signal is and pay more attention to them (or confirm that they are "flarmless"...the worst part of any contest). The guys without Flarm make Flarm nearly useless, in my opinion at a contest. There is no trust in the system because its usage is not 100%. That is just one of many practical examples of reality that nobody mentions. With competition mode, you will not have the ability to assess the function of gliders as they approach my airspace. Surprises will increase; general situation awareness will decrease significantly. The value of Flarm falls to near zero for me.

Next, I do not trust the RC with my safety or to be brilliant enough to consider all of the potential problems that may result from this radical change to Flarm this summer. The Flarm system, as it was before this debate, was FAR from perfect. It is moderately reliable, but that is a database you build as you get to know your competitors and how their Flarm behaves in proximity. The RC refuses to mandate Flarm in contests, but they will rapidly and significantly roll back its situational awareness value for somewhat unsubstantiated reasons that are so factually inconsequential to US contests results it borders on comedy. That is not a trivial thing they are messing with; it's CRITICAL to our collective safety. A dramatic change in situation awareness changes the balance of the whole system (PowerFlarm) that we spent years trying to promote and create. The fact that the RC, despite a strong argument from prominent members of the committee, has still chosen to rush forward with this change has dropped my confidence in their judgement to a new low.

I consider myself to be a glider pilot who cares greatly about contest safety. That is why I made the investment in Flarm way back in 2011 (despite what some have tried to insinuate here). I have owned and used a Flarm since the first day they become available in the USA. I see it as a last line of defence from the unthinkable accidental, fatal collision. It gives us a chance to avoid that collision THAT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY. Perhaps it has already prevented that accident and our RC (and IGC) is being quite complacent because there is no recent story of a fatal contest collision because of the situational awareness the PowerFlarm system has been providing? Hmmm? But the value of that investment in safety is reduced to little when so many refuse to make the same investment in our collective security. I try very hard to be a good citizen (not to scare anyone), give room in thermals, etc. For the most part, this is true of all of our fellow US contest pilots. But I also understand that this sport is inherently dangerous whenever we are in close proximity (5 miles) of numerous other gliders (Flarm or no Flarm) while hitting the same basic hot spots along the way. It's when you are competing at a high level (focusing carefully on clouds, birds, feeling for energy, etc that we are most vulnerable to not noticing a glider (or other aircraft) nearby. Now we will have less of a picture of where those choke points may be by intentionally placing blinders on situational awareness leading in and out of them

This whole conversation has a very real potential to mess with the safety value the system was finally beginning to provide. The manner in which this risk is flippantly dismissed by many shows me that "our leaders" have not fully thought this decision and timeline thru. They are driven mainly by emotion here. I find this very surprising, disturbing and unintelligent.

If someone is beating me because they have a better grasp of Flarm situational awareness (unfounded and unproven) I am willing to accept that if the safety is collectively higher because of it. Just as if someone is beating me at MAT, TAT or HAT task because their fancy flight glide computer does a better job of helping them manage critical decisions. That glide computer advantage is true! Just talk to the salespeople! Yet we don't ban them! Nor do we ban new gliders with perceived higher performance from competing in 15 or 18 meter. In fact, a massive list have gotten in line to enjoy the promise of that 1-3% advantage. Hmmm?

Where does this anti-technology insanity end?

Here is a bold statement. I think some seem to care far more about preventing slight, philosophical (at this point) and potentially imaginary competitive disadvantage (via the ability of some to better adapt to new technology, not unique technology) than improving or maintaining safety. In other words, if it comes down to insecurity or safety, ease my insecurities and screw safety. Ban that Flarm! Don't even test, do it now!!!! Rush, go, turn them damn things off!!! The insecurity and willingness to risk safety and hold ground against a good deal of valid concerns, is a sight to behold..

Happy New Year All!

Sean

Sean,
Happy New Year, too. How the hell did you complete that whole post in the time it took me to walk the dog?

How can you continue to describe the tactical use of FLARM as a philosophical fantom when we were all on the same frequency as you, I, and others marked Jerzy pre-start using FLARM at PAGC? The only reason I didn't go with you guys and follow him down the course line is that my partner was stuck low and I waited for him.

Later in the contest while pair flying neither I or my partner had any more ideas as to what to do as we glided along in smooth air. Luckily his FLARM display (his was better) showed MS climbing at 3 knots outside of visual range. We set sail for the dot on the screen and kept the flight going. No skill involved just antennae and radio waves.

So FLARM is being used as a tactical tool in contests. If folks don't use it as such, they will be at a disadvantage. It can be used to cover bad decision making. FLARM, along with visual tracking, can be used as the primary means some competitors choose to find thermals. It certainly is faster and easier than doing all that work on your own. It is leading us away from measuring a pilots soaring skills.

I bought FLARM to use as an anti-collision device, too. I used it stealth enabled at Harris Hill and found even the current stealth mode to be more than adequate. The audio warnings pointed out gliders all over the place, too many in fact. I could quickly pick them up visually. I could also see all the targets within the immediate area (2km) and their relative altitude which gave me plenty of SA on who was around.

I understand folks want to tweak the current stealth mode into a more practical competition mode that will address the concerns of head to head high speed flight, etc. Fine it shouldn't be that earth shatteringly hard to put in new parameters.

Perhaps you should try flying a competition in stealth or the new competition mode before getting so excited about bashing it. Pause and think back to 3 years ago. Were you spooked out of your wits flying in a contest that people would be running into you? No, you kept your head on a swivel and flew your flight. Now that we have these additional warnings this has all become terribly dangerous and if we don't display all gliders outside of 2 km (now going to 5 km) we are insane and negligent.

As P3 said in the initial post long ago, FLARM+stealth really works well and is an enjoyable way to race gliders.

XC