The truth about Flarm Stealth and Competition definition...

You need a better tactical display. No one I know tracks gliders for 4 minutes. You take a one second glance at the display and notice that there are 4 gliders the direction you are headed. A minute later another one second glance shows that one has headed off so there are still three. 2 minutes later another 1 second glance confirms that the 3 gliders are now pretty close, headed the opposite direction, and you should be looking for them that direction. You opt to alter course slightly right. A minute later a one second glance shows that your course alteration put the 3 other gliders safely to your left with no possibility of a conflict or Flarm alert. Situational awareness is only useful if you use it. You now have 4 seconds total heads down time spent over 4 minutes to completely eliminate any conflict with 4 other gliders with no other tactical benefit.

I am not believing you when you say you are looking at your display 4 seconds out of every 4 minutes.

The level one warnings begin to go off 13-18 seconds before a collision would happen. They are independent of the any stealth mode setting. That's a long time to make the small flight path adjustment necessary to avoid another glider. They are really pretty good but not perfect. Layer on top of that 2 km radius (going to 5 km now) and plus or minus 300 meters and you have all the situational awareness that is necessary.

The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC

However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?


12.2.5 Contest penalty categories
12.2.5.1 Unsafe operation (including all phases of flight and ground operation) (Rule 10.9.1.4, Rule 10.9.4.4): maximum penalty = disqualification.
12.2.5.3 Unsportsmanlike conduct (including falsification of flight documentation) (Rule 6.3.3.6, Rule 6.6.5, Rule 10.7.1.1, Rule
10.8.8.4): maximum penalty = disqualification from the contest and ineligibility for Sanctioned competitions for a period of 5 years.

The examples you postulated above fall under the above penalty categories. IMO, contest management tends to be the "nice guy" and won't go down this road. Perhaps it's about time to enforce the rules.

On Monday, 4 January 2016 16:19:52 UTC-7, Craig Reinholt wrote:
However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?


12.2.5 Contest penalty categories
12.2.5.1 Unsafe operation (including all phases of flight and ground operation) (Rule 10.9.1.4, Rule 10.9.4.4): maximum penalty = disqualification..
12.2.5.3 Unsportsmanlike conduct (including falsification of flight documentation) (Rule 6.3.3.6, Rule 6.6.5, Rule 10.7.1.1, Rule
10.8.8.4): maximum penalty = disqualification from the contest and ineligibility for Sanctioned competitions for a period of 5 years.

The examples you postulated above fall under the above penalty categories.. IMO, contest management tends to be the "nice guy" and won't go down this road. Perhaps it's about time to enforce the rules.

SO Craig, how can this 'blockage' be automatically detected?

On Monday, 4 January 2016 16:19:52 UTC-7, Craig Reinholt wrote:
However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?


12.2.5 Contest penalty categories
12.2.5.1 Unsafe operation (including all phases of flight and ground operation) (Rule 10.9.1.4, Rule 10.9.4.4): maximum penalty = disqualification..
12.2.5.3 Unsportsmanlike conduct (including falsification of flight documentation) (Rule 6.3.3.6, Rule 6.6.5, Rule 10.7.1.1, Rule
10.8.8.4): maximum penalty = disqualification from the contest and ineligibility for Sanctioned competitions for a period of 5 years.

The examples you postulated above fall under the above penalty categories.. IMO, contest management tends to be the "nice guy" and won't go down this road. Perhaps it's about time to enforce the rules.

So Craig, how can this 'blockage' be automatically detected?

Well, I would certainly consider anti-Flarm countermeasures to be unsportsmanlike in the extreme. However, unless Flarm use is mandated in that contest, then supressing one's Flarm signal or turning it off altogether would not be actionable under the rules. And, as Ron said, how would we know with certainty that someone was screwing around with their Flarm signal?

I know we gotta have rules, and situations arise where mandates are justified, but the idea of more rules and mandates generally sets my teeth on edge..

On Monday, 4 January 2016 17:42:19 UTC-7, WB wrote:
Well, I would certainly consider anti-Flarm countermeasures to be unsportsmanlike in the extreme. However, unless Flarm use is mandated in that contest, then supressing one's Flarm signal or turning it off altogether would not be actionable under the rules. And, as Ron said, how would we know with certainty that someone was screwing around with their Flarm signal?

I know we gotta have rules, and situations arise where mandates are justified, but the idea of more rules and mandates generally sets my teeth on edge.

Craig, aas Bill points out even if FLARM is mandatory is it mandatory that logs from the PF unit is turned in? Not every PF unit is able to produce a valid IGC file and many folks have other primary loggers. Even if a scorer gets all PF generated files how are they checked to determine if blockage has occurred? Scoring programs such as SeeYou Competition and SSA WINSCORE automatically determines if a airspace violation has occurred so are you advocating that these solution be upgraded to check PF files? Or do pilots turn in perceived blind gliders?

"The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC "

Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.

You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?

What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?

Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 3:16:36 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
You need a better tactical display. No one I know tracks gliders for 4 minutes. You take a one second glance at the display and notice that there are 4 gliders the direction you are headed. A minute later another one second glance shows that one has headed off so there are still three. 2 minutes later another 1 second glance confirms that the 3 gliders are now pretty close, headed the opposite direction, and you should be looking for them that direction. You opt to alter course slightly right. A minute later a one second glance shows that your course alteration put the 3 other gliders safely to your left with no possibility of a conflict or Flarm alert. Situational awareness is only useful if you use it. You now have 4 seconds total heads down time spent over 4 minutes to completely eliminate any conflict with 4 other gliders with no other tactical benefit.

I am not believing you when you say you are looking at your display 4 seconds out of every 4 minutes.

The level one warnings begin to go off 13-18 seconds before a collision would happen. They are independent of the any stealth mode setting. That's a long time to make the small flight path adjustment necessary to avoid another glider. They are really pretty good but not perfect. Layer on top of that 2 km radius (going to 5 km now) and plus or minus 300 meters and you have all the situational awareness that is necessary.

The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC

You may believe as you like. I probably look at the display somewhat less than 1 second/minute on average. My point is to look at and assess every glider on the display takes very little time, no more than one second, on a good display. Perhaps you have a poor one.

The 13 - 18 seconds you talk about is under ideal conditions. This is provably not the case in all situations. I have played around with friends to see just how close we can get before getting a warning and it is damn close under some circumstances. 2-3 seconds from potential impact. Come fly with me and I will prove it. These are not obscure situations, but ones you might easily find yourself in through a loss of situational awareness. This is why I concur with others who say that the situational awareness aspect is 80% of the value.

In stealth mode (and I assume the vaporware competition mode, but who knows?) you DO NOT get all of the situational data within 2, or 5 km. Read the spec. Altitude, track, and speed are not available until you get a collision warning. ID is not available ever. You literally do not know if a glider is coming or going.

I have been quite up front in saying that I want to use Flarm as an entertainment and educational tool. It's tactical use is quite limited (I have tried), and while it is a great safety tool, it protects against only a very rare event. I would say instead that the ongoing comments about heads down time is being made by those with a religious argument against Flarm technology who want to perpetuate the current status quo of tactics without objective reason. Let's not turn that into a safety argument.

One change that would make me and some others happier, is to make stealth non-reciprocal. That is, if you are flying in stealth it works as it does now, but if I am not I see everything. Since stealth is implemented on the receiving side, this would be easy to do and as risk free as a firmware change can get. In a Flarm and stealth mandated contest, you can still check to see if anybody in the contest cheated from the IGC file. But you would not be affecting everyone in the area, who may not even know a competition is going on.

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 7:02:55 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
"The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC "

Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.

You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?

What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?

Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.

Not speaking for XC, but I'll take you at your word that you are sincerely interested in Flarm for the safety aspects. So am I. And, I'll say again, for me, I do not care about leeching, regardless of whether it's good 'ol visual leeching or Flarm enabled. As hard as I have tried, I can't making leeching work for me, and god help anyone who follows me. However, it is known, or at least strongly suspected, that pilots are turning off or suppressing Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Imagine someone being just out of reach of the podium on the last day by just a point or two. Inbound to the last turn, that pilot sees a chance to break from the pack and maybe grab a win. However, our pilot knows everyone and his brother will see him on their Flarms and rush in to exploit our intrepid pilot's good fortune. How tempting to just turn off the Flarm and zoom away for the win, but putting fellow competitors are risk. You and I, holding safety paramount, would never do such a thing. However, there will always be those who will (or are already doing it) for the sake of a win.

Limiting the tactical use of Flarm is at least worth exploring IF it will contribute to safety.

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 8:57:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 7:02:55 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
"The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC "

Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.

You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?

What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?

Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.

Not speaking for XC, but I'll take you at your word that you are sincerely interested in Flarm for the safety aspects. So am I. And, I'll say again, for me, I do not care about leeching, regardless of whether it's good 'ol visual leeching or Flarm enabled. As hard as I have tried, I can't making leeching work for me, and god help anyone who follows me. However, it is known, or at least strongly suspected, that pilots are turning off or suppressing Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Imagine someone being just out of reach of the podium on the last day by just a point or two. Inbound to the last turn, that pilot sees a chance to break from the pack and maybe grab a win. However, our pilot knows everyone and his brother will see him on their Flarms and rush in to exploit our intrepid pilot's good fortune. How tempting to just turn off the Flarm and zoom away for the win, but putting fellow competitors are risk. You and I, holding safety paramount, would never do such a thing. However, there will always be those who will (or are already doing it) for the sake of a win.

Limiting the tactical use of Flarm is at least worth exploring IF it will contribute to safety.

Since most of our antennas are on glare-shields it would be quite visible to competitors if someone tries to cheat by putting a hat over an antenna. If found cheating penalty should be disqualification.

I doubt if any of our top pilots would resort to that. Can you imagine the shame associated with such an action? We can argue here all day I just don't believe that 99% of contest pilots in the USA would do such a thing. The 1% that would do will probably not achieve much in a long run anyway if he needs to cheat to succeed. Somehow the top pilots can win no matter what. They were winning before Flarm and they are winning with Flarm. Some, I will not name don't have Flarm and they still win.

Maybe we should look for a solution and stop this back end forth.