Flarm in 2011 USA Contests

At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

Paul Remde

"John Godfrey (QT)" wrote in message
...
The USA Rules Committee has published a document detailing the
decisions taken and background relating to Flarm usage in 2011 USA
contests. The document can be accessed via the link below:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011FlarmUSA.pdf

For the committee,

John Godfrey (QT)
USA Rules Committee

While I am not directly concerned as I am a competition director in the UK
I am concerned with one aspect of FLARM in competitions;

4. Stealth or other restrictions. We are not imposing stealth or other
restrictions at this time. We may impose restrictions later, and may do so
on a contest by contest basis.

Current UK rules do require stealth restrictions during competitions and
as a director I am uncomfortable with this on two main grounds.
The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.
The other concern is that the requirement is un-enforcable. FLARM is an
open technology and while it is possible to check an instrument installed
in the glider it is not possible to check and undeclared FLARM unit
carried by the pilot, searching pilots before they get into their glider
is not likely to ever be acceptable. It is comparatively easy to have a
non--stealth unit available. A rule that cannot be enforced should never
be made.
Personally I prefer the route you have taken at the moment, accept that
those with FLARM may receive an advantage from it's use. This alone may
encourage pilots to fit FLARM and if everyone has it the playing field is
at least level. In my opinion it would be unwise, given the nature of your
courts, to mandate the use of stealth mode.

"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only
the PDA output is degraded.
But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
nearby traffic. It is well thought.

The other concern is that the requirement is un-enforcable. FLARM is an
open technology and while it is possible to check an instrument installed
in the glider it is not possible to check and undeclared FLARM unit
carried by the pilot, searching pilots before they get into their glider
is not likely to ever be acceptable. It is comparatively easy to have a
non--stealth unit available. A rule that cannot be enforced should never
be made.

Flarm is not open technology. It is proprietary technology, and no company
except FLARM in switzerland can do it.
All other companies on the market bought licences from flarm. No US company
will be allowed to market its own traffic advisor,
unless they buy it from flarm. It is called monopoly , and in this case it
is about your safety.
A couple of years ago, the IGC had decided to adopt a public protocol for
traffic informations, but nothing happened so far.

paolo

On Nov 17, 5:05*pm, "PCool" wrote:
"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel et...

At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

Paulo explains this is not correct below. In the case of powerFlarm
some of that data normally shown on a PDA is shown on the display and
that is also dithered in the same way (or it would make no sense- and
the Flarm folks are not stupid). One observation is there also seems
to be lots of confusion about Stealth, Contest, Nearest and Collision
modes. The best thing to do there is to read the operation manual for
a current Flarm unit on Flarm's website (http://www.flarm.com/support/
index_en.html) and see their guide for contests as well.

No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only
the PDA output is degraded.
But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
nearby traffic. It is well thought.

The other concern is that the requirement is un-enforcable. FLARM is an
open technology and while it is possible to check an instrument installed
in the glider it is not possible to check and undeclared FLARM unit
carried by the pilot, searching pilots before they get into their glider
is not likely to ever be acceptable. It is comparatively easy to have a
non--stealth unit available. A rule that cannot be enforced should never
be made.

And that undeclared non-stealth unit would be visible to and recorded
by nearby Flarm units. So one possibility is just the risk of
detection would be enough to prevent carrying one. We do not strip
search pilots today at contests so I am not sure enforcement like that
would ever be needed. But again it is a non issue now as the rules
seem to be let's just see how things go without any stealth
requirement. And all this is a concern about something we just do not
have to face at the moment.

The major problem with all this is there is really nothing to complain
about :-) The USA rules commitee has actually looked at the issues,
looked at the technology coming in PowerFLARM and actually made a very
sensible decision given where we are and they took the time to explain
their thoughts. Thanks guys.

Flarm is not open technology. It is proprietary technology, and no company
except FLARM in switzerland can do it.
All other companies on the market bought licences from flarm. *No US company
will be allowed to market its own traffic advisor,
unless they buy it from flarm. It is called monopoly , and in this case it
is about *your safety.
A couple of years ago, the IGC had decided to adopt a public protocol for
traffic informations, but nothing happened so far.

paolo

Related muddled thinking around UAT technology by the SSA has probably
helped Flarm feel less than excited about entering the USA market.
Luckily PowerFLARM is not too far away...

Darryl

From my crystal ball.

A picture says a thousand words:

http://www.bmapper.com/VIRA.jpg

Dale Kramer
No Title anymore

On Nov 17, 7:08*pm, DaleKramer wrote:
From my crystal ball.

A picture says a thousand words:

http://www.bmapper.com/VIRA.jpg

Dale Kramer
No Title anymore

Dale

I am not sure why you seem pessimistic that contest pilots won't rent
PowerFLARM if available--especially to help make up their own minds
how well this technology works and whether they should purchase a unit
(should be pretty convincing).

I would hope that especially with rental units available then
preserving one's own ass, and if that fails then peer pressure, would
achieve a very high adoption rate. And even if that does not work then
trying that route before approaching this as something that needs to
be mandated seems to make a lot of sense. The contest community will
have vast amounts of experience with this by next year and able to
have a much more informed discussion--which might well change things.
And if things need a push or an experiment makes sense then the option
is still open to make a contest Flarm mandatory.

Darryl

Choice 1: Rental FLARMs left on the ground while we have FLARMless
gliders in the air = ??% FLARM usage in contests
Choice 2: Require FLARM usage if they are available = 100% FLARM usage
in contests

Choice 1 was chosen by the Rules Committee.

I will not take that chance so I will not participate, this has been a
very steadfast position I have taken all along.

This leaves a situation where I can only hope that I am wrong while
the RC can only hope that they are right.

Dale

On Nov 17, 8:50*pm, DaleKramer wrote:
Choice 1: Rental FLARMs left on the ground while we have FLARMless
gliders in the air = ??% FLARM usage in contests
Choice 2: Require FLARM usage if they are available = 100% FLARM usage
in contests

Choice 1 was chosen by the Rules Committee.

I will not take that chance so I will not participate, this has been a
very steadfast position I have taken all along.

This leaves a situation where I can only hope that I am wrong while
the RC can only hope that they are right.

Dale

Dale,

Not sure why you are so upset. You were asking the rules committee to
require the use of vapor-ware without any trial period. If the
SuperFLARM units arrive in time for the next contest season and they
work properly I would guess we will see them required in 2012. It is
a stretch to require something that is continually pushed back on
delivery dates and has not been tested yet.

I would guess that if we have a rental set in the country we will see
them used during the 2011 contest season. I look forward to using it
in the future.

At 01:05 18 November 2010, PCool wrote:

"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of
an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is
fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very
dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find
me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only

the PDA output is degraded.
But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
nearby traffic. It is well thought.


See http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

The warnings you may receive, and the data transmitted giving others
warning are degraded, maybe not by much but they are degraded. The
document above talks about 2 seconds. Would a jury understand this? The
documentation accepts that the warnings that might be transmitted and
received are degraded with some information unavailable. While we as
glider pilots might understand that the effect is small a non glider
pilot, especially a lawyer, might argue that any degredation is
unacceptable. While individual pilots might make the decision by
themselves, mandating a requirement puts the responsibility on the
organisation/directors of competitions. Having a unit designed as a safety
aid and then deliberately restricting it is any way is not likely to win
favour in legal circles. Who is going to get sued if it all goes wrong?

Hi Don,

I agree.

Paul Remde

"Don Johnstone" wrote in message
...
At 01:05 18 November 2010, PCool wrote:

"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of
an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is
fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very
dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find
me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only

the PDA output is degraded.
But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
nearby traffic. It is well thought.


See http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

The warnings you may receive, and the data transmitted giving others
warning are degraded, maybe not by much but they are degraded. The
document above talks about 2 seconds. Would a jury understand this? The
documentation accepts that the warnings that might be transmitted and
received are degraded with some information unavailable. While we as
glider pilots might understand that the effect is small a non glider
pilot, especially a lawyer, might argue that any degredation is
unacceptable. While individual pilots might make the decision by
themselves, mandating a requirement puts the responsibility on the
organisation/directors of competitions. Having a unit designed as a safety
aid and then deliberately restricting it is any way is not likely to win
favour in legal circles. Who is going to get sued if it all goes wrong?

Am 18.11.2010 11:45, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 01:05 18 November 2010, PCool wrote:

"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of
an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is
fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very
dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find
me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only

the PDA output is degraded.
But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
nearby traffic. It is well thought.


See http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

The warnings you may receive, and the data transmitted giving others
warning are degraded, maybe not by much but they are degraded. The
document above talks about 2 seconds. Would a jury understand this? The
documentation accepts that the warnings that might be transmitted and
received are degraded with some information unavailable. While we as
glider pilots might understand that the effect is small a non glider
pilot, especially a lawyer, might argue that any degredation is
unacceptable. While individual pilots might make the decision by
themselves, mandating a requirement puts the responsibility on the
organisation/directors of competitions. Having a unit designed as a safety
aid and then deliberately restricting it is any way is not likely to win
favour in legal circles. Who is going to get sued if it all goes wrong?


Don,
there is a difference between "Competition Mode" and "Stealth Mode". I
guess the wording could be better, but fact is that only Stealth Mode
was in question to be mandatory in competitions. Stealth mode has in
fact effects not only on your FLARM unit but also on others in
obfuscating your height and climb rate, except for warnings.

Competition Mode on the other hand is a setting that only affects the
FLARM unit where it is set, resulting in less (and/or later) alarms. It
only affects the pilot that choose to set that mode, either via
FLARM-Tool Software or via the config file on th SD-Card. Alternativly
you could turn the sound off or down if you get annoyed by too many
alarm signals.

I tried this mode during some days in a competition, but then turned it
off again in favour of reducing the warning level when a gaggle
situation lead to too many signals that were not a real threat.

I can assure you that much of the confusion will go away once you have
flown with FLARM for several days in different situation. In fact I am
sure most of you will love it. It is a great enhancement for security.
--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE