Announcement: no USA FLARM-related rules changes for 2016

Flarm has enabled me to see just how fast and far the good guys get away from me. For some reason, I don't seem to be getting any faster! Perhaps skill does count for something?

Mike

On 1/20/2016 10:53 AM, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
The USA Rules Committee will not recommend any changes to the existing rules related to FLARM for the 2016 season.

John Godfrey (QT), Chair

Good call RC, I don't feel strongly STEALTH versus OPEN but I think it
is imperative that we don't mandate stuff that hasn't been tested yet,
let alone not even developed by the hardware vendor....

Luke Szczepaniak

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 10:53:18 AM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
The USA Rules Committee will not recommend any changes to the existing rules related to FLARM for the 2016 season.

John Godfrey (QT), Chair

The only factor I am interested in is does a flarm in the cockpit of soaring pilot decrease the potential for a collision. Even if the answer is yes, the argument will still be around that it does help leeching.
You are never going to eliminate leeching unless you monitor logs for leeching and either disqualify or penalize people for doing so.

My opinion is, the flarm does help avoid collisions and therefore helps to make the sport safer.

Chip,

I appreciate your position but stand opposed to the idea that Flarm leeching (or following) is an "absolute fact." I say far, far from it. As will all complex topics, there are many shades of gray to consider.

Here is a thought. Many think there is value to "Flarm following" or "leeching." I say there is not. Many may try to rely on Flarm for tactical decisions. I say fine, LET THEM. Many agree with me on this position. We say, no big deal. Reason: letting people continue trying to Flarm follow is going to hurt them more than it will ever help them. There are many ways of looking at these issues from a competitive viewpoint. Not always simple straight forward reasons.

The chance that Flarm has real safety value is the only real reason for Flarm. It can be superb and has saved some already.

Furthermore, Flarm is an equal opportunity for all device (well, maybe a slight SA advantage for the large specialized displays like LX9000x or ClearNav). If someone is smuggling tin foil into their cockpits to disable their Flarm opportunistically, good for them. They are "swinging wildly" in my opinion. They are desperate and unconfident in their skills vs. their competitors. Wasting mental energy on ridiculous tactics and unreliable electronic tools not designed to be tactically valuable (example, climb rates are wildly false). I am mainly talking about US National level contests, not the Worlds. That said, I am also highly skeptical of the "tall tales" many are spreading about the Flarm value at Worlds.

The best US pilots tend to loiter in the start cylinder and let the markers (prey) spread out ahead. This practice is so boring. It probably could be argued that those trying to Flarm leech (if there is such a thing) will try to do the same thing. You say some have said ("admitted?") they have used Flarm for benifit...but is the practice effective, overall? Does it regularly improve results? NO CHANCE! For all the stories of successful Flarm following, how many times has it wasted time for them? I argue that Flarm following fails for more than it succeeds.

If you really wanted to discourage the potential for a pilot to benefit from Flarm "SA," a reasonable limit to start gate time (say 30 minutes or 1 hour) will make this tactic (setting up behind the gaggle and chasing it down from long range) more challenging to pull off and higher risk. This would be much easier to implement than a new Flarm mode. It also has many other benefits:

1) More even competition with less variability.
2) More flying, less criss-cross crashing in the start cylinder
3) More of a race, less of a weather casino
4) etc, etc.