Confessions of a Flarm Follower

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