Trig TT21 Transponder ... reports?

On Aug 19, 8:19*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Aug 19, 12:10 am, *wrote:
BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.

Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
with and a separate one to leach with?

-Paul

You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.
I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
on that display (if the software supports that)).

Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
"official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
log file.

I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
implies.

Darryl

Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety
of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????

Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
(even inside) of our small insular world???

--
Mike Schumann


None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that
the rules committee and contest community has already decided that
anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other
collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/
being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any
details on what these product features are?

I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others
as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real-
world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried
about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific
areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with
transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that
community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also
GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and
products that solve these real world problems.

Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve
a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance
issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly
damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local
contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so
I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I
definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real
sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to
provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and
traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A
perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might
allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious
contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes
restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the
receiver side).

BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
(since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
"two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
issues.

---

Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision
avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to
provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios
like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting
the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are
important vectors for introducing new technology and developing
official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing
that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight
recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good
examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas.

You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if
(and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide
some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's
stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need
products developed specifically for the glider community. And this
again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what
is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another
reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing
downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build
any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B
position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is
inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a
single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing
the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial
display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the
market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors
creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the
threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings
differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company
willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate
many of the things Flarm has already done.

For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using
stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B
direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km
or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point
is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly
reduce leeching concerns.


Darryl

On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike
wrote:
On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Aug 19, 12:10 am, wrote:
BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.

Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
with and a separate one to leach with?

-Paul

You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.
I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
on that display (if the software supports that)).

Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
"official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
log file.

I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
implies.

Darryl

Banning ADS-B in contests???? We are all trying to increase the safety
of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????

Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
(even inside) of our small insular world???

--
Mike Schumann


None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that
the rules committee and contest community has already decided that
anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other
collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/
being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any
details on what these product features are?

I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others
as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real-
world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried
about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific
areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with
transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that
community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also
GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and
products that solve these real world problems.

Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve
a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance
issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly
damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local
contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so
I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I
definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real
sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to
provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and
traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A
perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might
allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious
contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes
restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the
receiver side).

BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
(since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
"two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
issues.

---

Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision
avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to
provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios
like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting
the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are
important vectors for introducing new technology and developing
official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing
that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight
recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good
examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas.

You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if
(and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide
some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's
stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need
products developed specifically for the glider community. And this
again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what
is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another
reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing
downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build
any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B
position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is
inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a
single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing
the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial
display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the
market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors
creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the
threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings
differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company
willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate
many of the things Flarm has already done.

For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using
stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B
direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km
or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point
is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly
reduce leeching concerns.


Darryl

The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's
visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive
advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up.
The number one focus should be safety. Knowing the exact location of
every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum
1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance.

There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that
can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. If that gives
someone an advantage, that is a good thing; it will encourage everyone
else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment.

Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are
flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the
tricks the race leader is using to win.

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 19, 9:38*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike
wrote:
On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Aug 19, 12:10 am, * *wrote:
BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.

Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
with and a separate one to leach with?

-Paul

You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g..
I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
on that display (if the software supports that)).

Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
"official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
log file.

I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
implies.

Darryl

Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety
of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????

Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
(even inside) of our small insular world???

--
Mike Schumann

None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that
the rules committee and contest community has already decided that
anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other
collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/
being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any
details on what these product features are?

I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others
as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real-
world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried
about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific
areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with
transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that
community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also
GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and
products that solve these real world problems.

Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve
a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance
issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly
damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local
contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so
I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I
definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real
sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to
provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and
traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A
perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might
allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious
contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes
restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the
receiver side).

BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
(since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
"two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
issues.

---

Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision
avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to
provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios
like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting
the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are
important vectors for introducing new technology and developing
official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing
that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight
recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good
examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas.

You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if
(and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide
some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's
stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need
products developed specifically for the glider community. And this
again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what
is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another
reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing
downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build
any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B
position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is
inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a
single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing
the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial
display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the
market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors
creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the
threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings
differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company
willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate
many of the things Flarm has already done.

For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using
stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B
direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km
or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point
is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly
reduce leeching concerns.

Darryl

The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's
visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive
advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up.
The number one focus should be safety. *Knowing the exact location of
every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum
1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance.

There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that
can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. *If that gives
someone an advantage, that is a good thing; *it will encourage everyone
else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment.

Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are
flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the
tricks the race leader is using to win.

--
Mike Schumann

Hi, Mike,

the issue is not so much knowing where the other planes are, as much
as knowing how well they're climbing. If you know someone has a great
thermal somewhere in particular (especially at a considerable
distance)
you have an advantage over someone without that knowledge. The
current
method of visually seeing the climb of a competitor in a nearby
thermal is
part of the game (you can only roughly estimate his climb rate).
Knowing
the climb rate of thermals ahead to the nearest 0.1m/s is not
sporting.
Knowing that someone is on a collision course with you is safety, and
that's what the so-called "stealth" mode still will warn you about.

-- Matt

On Aug 19, 6:38*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike
wrote:
On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Aug 19, 12:10 am, * *wrote:
BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.

Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
with and a separate one to leach with?

-Paul

You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g..
I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
on that display (if the software supports that)).

Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
"official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
log file.

I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
implies.

Darryl

Banning ADS-B in contests???? *We are all trying to increase the safety
of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????

Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
(even inside) of our small insular world???

--
Mike Schumann

None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that
the rules committee and contest community has already decided that
anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other
collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/
being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any
details on what these product features are?

I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others
as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real-
world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried
about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific
areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with
transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that
community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also
GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and
products that solve these real world problems.

Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve
a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance
issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly
damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local
contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so
I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I
definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real
sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to
provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and
traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A
perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might
allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious
contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes
restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the
receiver side).

BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
(since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
"two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
issues.

---

Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision
avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to
provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios
like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting
the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are
important vectors for introducing new technology and developing
official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing
that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight
recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good
examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas.

You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if
(and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide
some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's
stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need
products developed specifically for the glider community. And this
again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what
is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another
reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing
downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build
any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B
position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is
inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a
single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing
the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial
display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the
market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors
creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the
threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings
differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company
willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate
many of the things Flarm has already done.

For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using
stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B
direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km
or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point
is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly
reduce leeching concerns.

Darryl

The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's
visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive
advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up.
The number one focus should be safety. *Knowing the exact location of
every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum
1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance.

There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that
can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. *If that gives
someone an advantage, that is a good thing; *it will encourage everyone
else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment.

Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are
flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the
tricks the race leader is using to win.

--
Mike Schumann

I am not suggesting turning off Flarm. It has stealth mode
specifically for contest. I am suggesting that if other technology
does not have the equivalent then that may not be acceptable. That
this might be an issue should not be a surprise to anybody who thinks
about the contest environment. Now the contest folks may well decide
that they actually are able to live with the leeching concerns some
pilots have.

There are lots of human factors here. What I hope the contest
community focuses on is using something that works at reducing the
risk of mid-air collisions, including in crowded contest environments.
In those environments I am just not sure at all you want or need an
accurate display of all traffic within some large volume. ADS-B
potntial volumes start getting very large.

But have you actually bothered to look at what Flarm stealth mode
provides? Like it actually meets your 1-2 mile requirement (with other
restrictions that make sense).

Darryl

On 8/19/2010 9:21 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:38 pm, Mike
wrote:
On 8/19/2010 8:19 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Aug 19, 8:19 am, Mike
wrote:
On 8/19/2010 9:23 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Aug 19, 12:10 am, wrote:
BTW ADS-B products used in contests are going to be "interesting" for
the poor CD to deal with, ... not just worry about somebody getting
weather reports. I'd expect Flarm to have that though out given their
existing "stealth mode" and logging of that mode setting.

Couldn't a pilot just have 2 Flarms, 1 to turn stealth mode logs in
with and a separate one to leach with?

-Paul

You'd have to smuggle it aboard and risk being disqualified and then
if you turned it on both Flarms are going to alert on the other
devices presence. If anybody knows if there is a way to suppress those
warnings and have the smuggled aboard device usable for leaching (e.g.
I wonder on PowerFLARM you might be able to turn the volume down and
even if the built-in display is useless because it has popped up a
traffic alert you might be able to bring up the moving map on an
attached PDA - but you might need to suppress the traffic alert pop-up
on that display (if the software supports that)).

Flarm also logs random position data of other aircraft in the IGC log
file and that can be uploaded to Flarm to do things like help Flarm
analyze effective range etc. and improve their products. I wonder if
turning on another Flarm or PowerFLARM unit in the same glider, even
if you were stupid enough to somehow turn off all the annoying alerts
between each unit and try to use it to leach off somebody that your
"official" FLARM unit would capture the presence of the "illegal" unit
in its IGC log file. Of course to catch you somebody really have to
suspect you are cheating and would then have to analyze your Flarm IGC
log file.

I kind of see it as the workable way in glider contests is you allow/
require Flarm based products and ban other ADS-B receivers (not
transmitters), Mode S TIS, even maybe in-cockpit reception of SPOT
trackers, etc. or you have to open the gates fully and allow any
tracking technology receivers and the full on leaching that probably
implies.

Darryl

Banning ADS-B in contests???? We are all trying to increase the safety
of aviation by increasing situational awareness for all pilots and you
guys are talking about banning one of the most promising technologies
out there because someone might use it to cheat in a contest?????

Does anyone have any concept on how absurd this makes us look outside
(even inside) of our small insular world???

--
Mike Schumann

None of this concern should come as a surprise. Are you saying that
the rules committee and contest community has already decided that
anti-leeching type technology is not needed in future UAT or other
collision avoidance/traffic display devices? Or is there work done/
being done on this by those inside the SSA advocating UATs? if so any
details on what these product features are?

I'm not worried about the glider community being perceived by others
as absurd for not rushing to adopt technology that does not solve real-
world problems. I'd hope the gliding community is much more be worried
about the number of midair collisions in contests and in some specific
areas the risks to our sport by not equipping gliders with
transponders (and raising awareness of traffic issues in that
community, and working with local ATC facilities, etc.) and maybe also
GA traffic risks. Looking absurd would be not adopting technology and
products that solve these real world problems.

Contests have a significant risk of mid-air collisions and so deserve
a significant focus on really trying to address collision avoidance
issues in those environments and doing so in a way that won't overly
damage the competitive contest environment. I fly friendly local
contests and very occasionally want to do a small regional contests so
I definitely do not consider myself a real contest pilot and I
definitely do not want to dictate what should be acceptable in real
sanctioned contest environments. I expect the SSA rules committee to
provide leadership here on what in-cockpit collision avoidance and
traffic information is acceptable/recommended/required in contests. A
perfectly valid answer is allow everything, a different answer might
allow or require specific technology like Flarm. I want the serious
contest guys to drive this, but I'd hope that it never includes
restricting transmitters that report position (i.e. restrict the
receiver side).

BTW I don't want to get sidetracked here but the current USA rules
have not kept track with technology and as a result are strange in how
they do not for example strictly prohibit an ADS-B traffic receiver
(since it is not a "two-way communication device"), but by banning
"two-way communication devices" they do currently prohibit Flarm based
devices. As Dave says I suspect the rules committee understand the
issues.

---

Any product/technology trying to present an alternative collision
avoidance solution to FLARM for the glider community really needs to
provide better collision avoidance technology in key use scenarios
like the contest environment. That means thinking through and meeting
the actual needs of those end users. Contests and contest pilots are
important vectors for introducing new technology and developing
official and defacto standards for the glider community and testing
that technology in challenging environments. The development of flight
recorders and lots of advances in our gliders themselves are good
examples. As is the actual development of and use of Flarm overseas.

You don't need to go very far along the though process to realize if
(and I'll grant that *if* needs to be determined) you want to provide
some of these contest oriented features like an equivalent to Flarm's
stealth mode (and logging of that mode change etc.) then you need
products developed specifically for the glider community. And this
again challenges the idea that general purpose ADS-B devices are what
is needed in glider cockpits. e.g. the contest scenarios are another
reason you do not want to do the traffic threat and display processing
downstream on a PDA or external display device. You just cannot build
any protection against using very detailed and long-range ADS-B
position data cheating into that scheme. But that approach is
inherently bad anyhow as many pilots will likely want the option of a
single box solution that issue basic warnings directly, and not doing
the threat processing in the box goes against all the Flarm serial
display protocol soaring software and flight computers already in the
market. And you probably don't want a bunch of separate vendors
creating collision avoidance software for our community that does the
threat analysis etc. all using different algorithms, issuing warnings
differently etc. So as I see it you either need to find a company
willing to do a custom ADS-B receiver box for our market and replicate
many of the things Flarm has already done.

For people commenting on leeching with Flarm already (when not using
stealth mode), Flarm is relatively short range, a few km or so. ADS-B
direct (even with low-power UATs) may provide ranges of many 10s of km
or more. That may open up more additional issues. But the main point
is Flarm has stealth mode built into their receivers to significantly
reduce leeching concerns.

Darryl

The concept that we would want to artificially reduce a contest pilot's
visibility of other aircraft to prevent some form of competitive
advantage is a sign that the sport's priorities are really screwed up.
The number one focus should be safety. Knowing the exact location of
every other aircraft within a reasonable distance of you (at a minimum
1-2 miles) is precisely what you want for collision avoidance.

There shouldn't be any restrictions of any sort on any equipment that
can help improve the situational awareness of the pilot. If that gives
someone an advantage, that is a good thing; it will encourage everyone
else to get with the program and get the same type of equipment.

Turning off FLARM or ADS-B so you can't see where other gliders are
flying is like blindfolding a NASCAR driver so he can't figure out the
tricks the race leader is using to win.

--
Mike Schumann

I am not suggesting turning off Flarm. It has stealth mode
specifically for contest. I am suggesting that if other technology
does not have the equivalent then that may not be acceptable. That
this might be an issue should not be a surprise to anybody who thinks
about the contest environment. Now the contest folks may well decide
that they actually are able to live with the leeching concerns some
pilots have.

There are lots of human factors here. What I hope the contest
community focuses on is using something that works at reducing the
risk of mid-air collisions, including in crowded contest environments.
In those environments I am just not sure at all you want or need an
accurate display of all traffic within some large volume. ADS-B
potntial volumes start getting very large.

But have you actually bothered to look at what Flarm stealth mode
provides? Like it actually meets your 1-2 mile requirement (with other
restrictions that make sense).

Darryl

Every sport has leeching. In Nascar you drive 2" off the leader's
bumper to reduce drag. There's no problem as long it's a level playing
field and everyone has the same options.

We are NEVER going to get competitively priced equipment if everything
needs to be customized for the soaring community. Anti-collision
hardware and software should be standardized for ALL aircraft. Granted,
we have a unique style of flying that can cause excessive false alarms
in systems that aren't designed to recognize that.

That should be dealt with by working with the avionics industry to make
sure that everyone who is designing collision avoidance systems (from
TCAS II down to low end ADS-B enabled devices) understand the unique
characteristics of gliders and accommodate that in their algorithms.

Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your
vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat.
As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an
imminent collision. I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles
out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable
situation. If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening
in 3D with the other gliders that are already there.

Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go
over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next
time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft
equipped with this kind of equipment. It's surprising that this
wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how
skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of
our legal system.

--
Mike Schumann

On 8/19/2010 8:13 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:


Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your
vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a
threat. As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to
an imminent collision. I want to see what is going on around me 1-2
miles out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable
situation. If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening
in 3D with the other gliders that are already there.
It sounds like you've never flown in a contest, and have no idea of what
contest flying is like. True statement?

My thinking, as someone who flew about 60 contests over 30 years, is
much different than yours. I can't even imagine what you mean by
assessing an "uncomfortable situation" that's 1-2 miles away, and I sure
don't see how a 3 D picture of a 15 glider gaggle is going to improve my
safety when I can already look outside and see what's going on as I
approach it.

I've never used Flarm, but it's been tested in many contests over
several years, the pilots like it VERY much, and it's ridiculous to keep
suggesting it can't do the job, and so we also need ADS-B.


Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go
over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next
time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft
equipped with this kind of equipment. It's surprising that this
wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how
skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of
our legal system.
You are just guessing about all that, right? No legal expertise at all,
right? No research into the liability of a company like Zaon, for
example, right? Instead of being "surprised" by the Flarm developers
lack of foresight, you should first discuss the situation with them.
I've talked to Urs Rothacher a number of times, and he isn't a naive
programmer glider geek. You would be a much better advocate for safety
with some real facts, instead of guessing and making stuff up.

--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Aug 19, 8:13*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
[snip]
Every sport has leeching. *In Nascar you drive 2" off the leader's
bumper to reduce drag. *There's no problem as long it's a level playing
field and everyone has the same options.

We are NEVER going to get competitively priced equipment if everything
needs to be customized for the soaring community. *Anti-collision
hardware and software should be standardized for ALL aircraft. *Granted,
we have a unique style of flying that can cause excessive false alarms
in systems that aren't designed to recognize that.

That should be dealt with by working with the avionics industry to make
sure that everyone who is designing collision avoidance systems (from
TCAS II down to low end ADS-B enabled devices) understand the unique
characteristics of gliders and accommodate that in their algorithms.

Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your
vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat.
* As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an
imminent collision. *I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles
out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable
situation. *If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening
in 3D with the other gliders that are already there.

Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go
over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next
time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft
equipped with this kind of equipment. *It's surprising that this
wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how
skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of
our legal system.

--
Mike Schumann

Are you speaking for yourself alone or does this represent the option
of the SSA or other people within the SSA or Miter working on UAT
stuff? What is your involvement with the SSA on UAT technology?

All this contest oriented features that Flarm developed (largely as I
understand it at the request of (non-USA) contest pilots and I believe
the IGC) is meaningless in your world. How about letting the contest
pilots and their rules committees drive what they need and the
technology providers can work on meeting their needs not the other way
around. I can only guess what the USA rules committe wants in this
space, but I'd rather hear from them. But I gather you don't think
asking them what is worthwhile.

And a basic summary of you position on collision avoidance technology
is that -- we should not use stuff just because it works to solve a
particular problem (or some set of problems) because things that solve
particular problems that a small community of users have are bad
because they must be inherently expensive and to lower the cost
instead of minimizing the problem space you are trying to address with
a technology/product you maximuse the space, make the solution as
general as possible and the process as large and bureaucratic as
possible. You seem to believe this as a universal truth?

No consideration that probably one of the most effective, proven, bang
for the buck collision avoidance technologies in aviation is wait for
it... Flarm (and yes it cannot do everything, but duh that's a large
part of the reason it is so affordable and works so well for what it
is intended to do).

Getting things done is not about dogma of how things should be done,
the devil is in the details of trying to leverage standards and mass
market technology and working out how to affordable deliver a real
solution to real problems that real users have. That takes a team of
really bright people with a focus on solving real problems. If anybody
thinks they have a UAT based product that is going to compete in the
glider market they better actually better get out and solicit input
from target users on what they actually need and they ought to be
doing basic things like circulating trial balloon product specs to see
if they meet minimum market entry and competitive differentiation
requirements. But I gather there seems to be an opinion that this is
not needed. Is that just you or do other folks working on UATs in the
SSA believe this as well?


Darryl

On Aug 19, 10:18*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:13*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
[snip]





Every sport has leeching. *In Nascar you drive 2" off the leader's
bumper to reduce drag. *There's no problem as long it's a level playing
field and everyone has the same options.

We are NEVER going to get competitively priced equipment if everything
needs to be customized for the soaring community. *Anti-collision
hardware and software should be standardized for ALL aircraft. *Granted,
we have a unique style of flying that can cause excessive false alarms
in systems that aren't designed to recognize that.

That should be dealt with by working with the avionics industry to make
sure that everyone who is designing collision avoidance systems (from
TCAS II down to low end ADS-B enabled devices) understand the unique
characteristics of gliders and accommodate that in their algorithms.

Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your
vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat.
* As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an
imminent collision. *I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles
out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable
situation. *If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening
in 3D with the other gliders that are already there.

Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go
over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next
time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft
equipped with this kind of equipment. *It's surprising that this
wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how
skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of
our legal system.

--
Mike Schumann

Are you speaking for yourself alone or does this represent the option
of the SSA or other people within the SSA or Miter working on UAT
stuff? What is your involvement with the SSA on UAT technology?

All this contest oriented features that Flarm developed (largely as I
understand it at the request of (non-USA) contest pilots and I believe
the IGC) is meaningless in your world. How about letting the contest
pilots and their rules committees drive what they need and the
technology providers can work on meeting their needs not the other way
around. I can only guess what the USA rules committe wants in this
space, but I'd rather hear from them. But I gather you don't think
asking them what is worthwhile.

And a basic summary of you position on collision avoidance technology
is that -- we should not use stuff just because it works to solve a
particular problem (or some set of problems) because things that solve
particular problems that a small community of users have are bad
because they must be inherently expensive and to lower the cost
instead of minimizing the problem space you are trying to address with
a technology/product you maximuse the space, make the solution as
general as possible and the process as large and bureaucratic as
possible. You seem to believe this as a universal truth?

No consideration that probably one of the most effective, proven, bang
for the buck collision avoidance technologies in aviation is wait for
it... Flarm (and yes it cannot do everything, but duh that's a large
part of the reason it is so affordable and works so well for what it
is intended to do).

Getting things done is not about dogma of how things should be done,
the devil is in the details of trying to leverage standards and mass
market technology and working out how to affordable deliver a real
solution to real problems that real users have. That takes a team of
really bright people with a focus on solving real problems. If anybody
thinks they have a UAT based product that is going to compete in the
glider market they better actually better get out and solicit input
from target users on what they actually need and they ought to be
doing basic things like circulating trial balloon product specs to see
if they meet minimum market entry and competitive differentiation
requirements. But I gather there seems to be an opinion that this is
not needed. Is that just you or do other folks working on UATs in the
SSA believe this as well?

Darryl


I believe Mike has made the perfect argument for why the Soaring
community should standardize on PowerFlarm. His scale economies
argument fails as UAT transceivers are at least as expensive as
PowerFlarm for less functionality (the Mitre unit has no display, no
PCAS). The argument that trial lawyers would flock to sue contest
organizers if they required collision units to be turned off argues
strongly for PowerFlarm to be mandated since the lack of ADS-B
standards argues for a single standard. Plus imagine the field day the
lawyers would have if they knew that a soaring-specific technology was
available that solved for the highest probability threat and failed to
act on it - a clear case for negligence.

I have grown weary of the UAT spin - and to think that I used to be a
supporter.

9B

On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:13 pm, Mike
wrote:
[snip]
Every sport has leeching. In Nascar you drive 2" off the leader's
bumper to reduce drag. There's no problem as long it's a level playing
field and everyone has the same options.

We are NEVER going to get competitively priced equipment if everything
needs to be customized for the soaring community. Anti-collision
hardware and software should be standardized for ALL aircraft. Granted,
we have a unique style of flying that can cause excessive false alarms
in systems that aren't designed to recognize that.

That should be dealt with by working with the avionics industry to make
sure that everyone who is designing collision avoidance systems (from
TCAS II down to low end ADS-B enabled devices) understand the unique
characteristics of gliders and accommodate that in their algorithms.

Knowing the rate of climb or decent of aircraft that are in your
vicinity is very useful in evaluating whether or not they are a threat.
As a pilot, I don't want to wait for an alarm just prior to an
imminent collision. I want to see what is going on around me 1-2 miles
out, so I can avoid getting anywhere close to an uncomfortable
situation. If I am entering a gaggle, I want to see what is happening
in 3D with the other gliders that are already there.

Artificially turning off this type of information is not going to go
over very well with the FAA, the NTSB, or the trial lawyers, the next
time there is a mid-air involving gliders in a contest with aircraft
equipped with this kind of equipment. It's surprising that this
wouldn't be raising huge red flags with the FLARM guys given how
skittish they were about the US market due to the litigious nature of
our legal system.

--
Mike Schumann

Are you speaking for yourself alone or does this represent the option
of the SSA or other people within the SSA or Miter working on UAT
stuff? What is your involvement with the SSA on UAT technology?

All this contest oriented features that Flarm developed (largely as I
understand it at the request of (non-USA) contest pilots and I believe
the IGC) is meaningless in your world. How about letting the contest
pilots and their rules committees drive what they need and the
technology providers can work on meeting their needs not the other way
around. I can only guess what the USA rules committe wants in this
space, but I'd rather hear from them. But I gather you don't think
asking them what is worthwhile.

And a basic summary of you position on collision avoidance technology
is that -- we should not use stuff just because it works to solve a
particular problem (or some set of problems) because things that solve
particular problems that a small community of users have are bad
because they must be inherently expensive and to lower the cost
instead of minimizing the problem space you are trying to address with
a technology/product you maximuse the space, make the solution as
general as possible and the process as large and bureaucratic as
possible. You seem to believe this as a universal truth?

No consideration that probably one of the most effective, proven, bang
for the buck collision avoidance technologies in aviation is wait for
it... Flarm (and yes it cannot do everything, but duh that's a large
part of the reason it is so affordable and works so well for what it
is intended to do).

Getting things done is not about dogma of how things should be done,
the devil is in the details of trying to leverage standards and mass
market technology and working out how to affordable deliver a real
solution to real problems that real users have. That takes a team of
really bright people with a focus on solving real problems. If anybody
thinks they have a UAT based product that is going to compete in the
glider market they better actually better get out and solicit input
from target users on what they actually need and they ought to be
doing basic things like circulating trial balloon product specs to see
if they meet minimum market entry and competitive differentiation
requirements. But I gather there seems to be an opinion that this is
not needed. Is that just you or do other folks working on UATs in the
SSA believe this as well?


Darryl

I am speaking only for myself, a non-contest flying glider pilot and
commercial airline passenger.

Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM). The issue is
that see and avoid is not a reliable way to avoid collisions between
airplanes.

The problem is not just contests. Every day, we have near misses
between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. Everyone who has purchased a
PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
never see.

You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
are the FLARM guys. You completely ignore the significant efforts that
have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
and glider world.

This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions.
A major irony and tragedy was the mid-air that killed Chris
O’Callaghan, who was an enthusiastic participant in this demonstration
project.

It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.

The ultimate goal that we should all be be working towards is that every
aircraft, including gliders, balloons, jets, and even parachutists,
should be electronically visible to all other aircraft. That visibility
should extend far enough that everyone can avoid other aircraft to their
own comfort level. The 172 on a point to point excursion flight is
going to probably be much more interested in avoiding other aircraft
than a glider pilot participating in a contest. A jet is going to want
to have an even wider safety margin.

Obviously in a high traffic environment, like a contest, you want to
have an intelligent system that minimizes false alarms. If you don't do
that, then the alarms become meaningless and will be ignored. That is a
legitimate goal.

However, arbitrarily turning off position data, just to enhance the
competitive nature of an event, without any further justification, would
certainly result in some serious scrutiny, if this was a contributing
factor to an accident.

If the accident was between contest participants, all of whom agreed to
this arrangement, there might be a defense. However, if the accident
involved another aircraft that just happened to be in the area, a good
trial lawyer could certainly make a serious case against the pilots
involved, as well as the contest organizers, any governing bodies that
created rules that contributed to the accident, as well as any avionics
manufacturer that artificially suppressed data that could have been
helpful without any legitimate justification.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this whole FLARM debate is moving us
any closer to widespread deployment of collision avoidance systems in
gliders. What I see is a very narrow focus on a quick band-aid to try
to help the contest environment, while we continue to ignore a
comprehensive solution to the bigger problem.

--
Mike Schumann

P.S. I do have a legal background.

On Aug 20, 12:50*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/20/2010 12:18 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:

Personally, I don't care how we get a comprehensive collision avoidance
system in the US (whether it is UAT, 1090ES or FLARM).

Your arguments (even later in this same post) belie this statement.

The problem is not just contests. *Every day, we have near misses
between gliders, other aircraft, and jets. *Everyone who has purchased a
PCAS unit knows full well how many aircraft are flying around that they
never see.

PCAS is an important adjunct technology for the immediate future -
PowerFlarm has it but Navworx and Mitre units don't and therefore
can't see anything but ADS-B UAT direct outside the very limited
ground station deployment. Which meant you won't be able to see 1090ES
equipped jets unless you are near ground stations taht are yet to be
built (or even funded to be built I suspect) Correct?

You have this attitude that the only people who care about this problem
are the FLARM guys. *You completely ignore the significant efforts that
have been made by many people in the SSA, MITRE, AOPA, and even the FAA
to try to get the bureaucracy to address the mid-air threats in the GA
and glider world.

I think the point is that Flarm (and PowerFlarm by extension) has done
a much better job of actually solving for the primary glider collision
scenarios in a unit you can order today (and will likely be delivered
in time for next season) - that is why people are getting interested
in it. For instance, and as has been pointed out, the Navworx unit is
more expensive and draws 0.8 amps @ 12v before you add a GPS or
display. That likely doubles or triples the power requirements on most
gliders. We can recognize the efforts of Mitre and Navworx all we
want but the fact remains they are FAR more focused on GA than gliders
- a look at what they are producing confirms that.

This summer, the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA were conducting operation tests
in the DC area to demonstrate the effectiveness of low cost ADS-B
transceivers in gliders to help reduce the threat of mid-air collisions.

Good for them, but it's mostly not material to the discussion of which
products now coming on the market are most suitable for gliders. Just
because it works in an operational test doesn't mean its the BEST
solution.

It is very frustrating that Chris's death has not brought together the
leadership of the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA to really get their hands
around a strategy to get these systems deployed in an expedited manner.

True - it's further evidence of how hard it is to get bureaucracies
with diverse interests to align. It gives strength to the argument
that a blanket approach is highly unlikely to end up producing a
superior solution to PowerFlarm and its successors.

The ultimate goal that we should all be be working towards is that every
aircraft, including gliders, balloons, jets, and even parachutists,
should be electronically visible to all other aircraft. *That visibility
should extend far enough that everyone can avoid other aircraft to their
own comfort level. *The 172 on a point to point excursion flight is
going to probably be much more interested in avoiding other aircraft
than a glider pilot participating in a contest. *A jet is going to want
to have an even wider safety margin.

Ultimate goals are nice but having a solution that works before 2020
would be better. For 2011 that is likely PowerFlarm or PowerFlarm plus
a Trig TT21/22 (or similar). The latter seems pretty future-proofed
too. I don't think the Navworx unit does me much good until the ground
infrastructure is built out over the next 10-20 years (particularly in
the remote deserts and ridges where many of us in the west fly). And
with UAT I may never get a solution for jets with 1090ES in those
areas.

Obviously in a high traffic environment, like a contest, you want to
have an intelligent system that minimizes false alarms. *If you don't do
that, then the alarms become meaningless and will be ignored. *That is a
legitimate goal.

It's the highest priority goal for many of us.

However, arbitrarily turning off position data, just to enhance the
competitive nature of an event, without any further justification, would
certainly result in some serious scrutiny, if this was a contributing
factor to an accident.

You need to look in detail at how contest mode works on PowerFlarm -
it does not turn off collision warnings, it simply makes it harder to
use it to find other gliders who are climbing better than you. Making
it harder for gaggle to form is a significant addition to safety. If
you ignore the human behavioral implications of rules you are left
only with theoretical rules that have limited practical value.

If the accident was between contest participants, all of whom agreed to
this arrangement, there might be a defense. *However, if the accident
involved another aircraft that just happened to be in the area, a good
trial lawyer could certainly make a serious case against the pilots
involved, as well as the contest organizers, any governing bodies that
created rules that contributed to the accident, as well as any avionics
manufacturer that artificially suppressed data that could have been
helpful without any legitimate justification.

This is how lawyers kill innovation - by making theoretical arguments
about specious causality.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this whole FLARM debate is moving us
any closer to widespread deployment of collision avoidance systems in
gliders. *What I see is a very narrow focus on a quick band-aid to try
to help the contest environment, while we continue to ignore a
comprehensive solution to the bigger problem.

I think the proposal on the table was to do just the opposite - drive
widespread adoption of PowerFlarm in the US rather than wait for UAT,
which is of more questionable value in glider-glider scenarios,
doesn't yet have the critical ground stations to make it work, and may
never work in seeing 1090ES jets in remote locations.

--
Mike Schumann

P.S. *I do have a legal background.

You style of argument is consistent with that Mike. Are you sure you
don't have a financial interest in UAT adoption?