PowerFLARM leeching comments

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.

Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.
It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.

Hope that is clear,
Best Regards, Dave

Exactly! Furthermore, the only thing happening when you set up stealth mode
is that you are sending a special information, together with your traffic
info through the radio, saying "I want stealth mode".
Other Flarms receiving this information with your traffic data will not send
out to the data port the complete data as usual.
Instead, they will work it out to make them somehow "unusable" for data
mining scope.
But the core flarm is receiving all info, and it is processing it as usual
concerning alerts and safety.
An intelligent approach in my opinion, because when you are close to the
traffic danger, the information is passed to data port integrally.
So nothing happens around safety.
Everything is about data outgoing to external instruments.

However in my opinion the stealth mode is not enough "strong" for the
purpose.
For example, the altitude is scrambled with sort of a white noise,
numerically, but averaging the value will most likely return the real
altitude to programmers.

There is another aspect about leeching with traffic advisors: range.
Range is fundamental if you want information about what is going on ahead of
you, say 10km away, 20km away.
First you need to extend the "range" flarm should use while sending out to
data port traffic info.
This can be done programmatically by the external instrument (LK offers a
button to do it).
But then, you actually need to be able to receive the radio transmission,
which is weak at 10mw if I remember correctly.
Those of use who are radio entusiasts know too well that the antenna makes
the big difference !
A good antenna will catch weak signals, and let you know what's happening
far away.
The standard antenna will not.
The antenna is attached with a standard SMA connector, and for 10 dollars
you get so many antennas to choose from!

So here is an example of what you can obtain from LK software, and probably
other (not sure):
- you sort the traffic by direction ahead of you, and you see the lift
values, suppose at 20km distance: a thermal ahead of you.
- you are about to leave you thermal and decide to go for the next one,
under that big cumulus.
- you know the lift value under there, and the exact position for best lift.
- you select the traffic position and make it a virtual waypoint, and you
immediately know the MC you can use to get there.
- You start the fast glide over there, and when you approach the cumulus
there are no more gliders under it, but you still get their traces drawn in
green red blue on the map, so you know exactly where to pull up.

It is also possible to calculate the MC value someone is flying with,
knowing the aircraft type (and thus its polar).

paolo




"Dave Nadler" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing
pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.

Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.
It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.

Hope that is clear,
Best Regards, Dave

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:

... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing

pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.



Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.

It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.



Hope that is clear,

Best Regards, Dave

Dave,

it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. Just my $0.02

Frank (TA)

On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:

... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing

pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device..

Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.

It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.

Hope that is clear,

Best Regards, Dave

Dave,

it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02

Frank (TA)

See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about
how stealth mode works.

It's he http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx

Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of
PowerFlarm at all. You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,
which is plenty.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:41:11 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:



... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing



pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.



Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.



It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.



Hope that is clear,



Best Regards, Dave



Dave,



it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02



Frank (TA)



See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about

how stealth mode works.



It's he http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx



Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of

PowerFlarm at all. You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,

which is plenty.



Evan Ludeman / T8

"Plenty" is interesting. Let's all remember, flarm is not a "collision avoidance" device. It is a "collision warning" device. You still have to find the other glider, avoid it, and not run in to anyone else while you're doing that. Don't just bank away from the collision threat, make sure there isn't a new collision threat.

If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode? No, I gather. If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...

And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if carbon fuselages are blocking signals. Gliders have collided when both had operating flarm systems. Norway and Uvalde.

A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only shows imminent collision threats. The operation and reliability of such a mode have to be really bulletproof. Which, given power flarm's recent history with range issues, software updates, antenna updates etc., would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find out its actual limitations?

It's interesting how many reports we're getting of pilots who saw collision threats with flarm. But we obviously don't know about the failures until they hit each other. And how do we learn about the failures under stealth mode. Can of worms here.


John Cochrane

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:52:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:41:11 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:

On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:



On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:



On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:







... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing







pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.







Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision..







It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.







Hope that is clear,







Best Regards, Dave







Dave,







it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02







Frank (TA)







See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about



how stealth mode works.







It's he http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx







Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of



PowerFlarm at all. You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,



which is plenty.







Evan Ludeman / T8



"Plenty" is interesting. Let's all remember, flarm is not a "collision avoidance" device. It is a "collision warning" device. You still have to find the other glider, avoid it, and not run in to anyone else while you're doing that. Don't just bank away from the collision threat, make sure there isn't a new collision threat.



If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode? No, I gather. If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...



And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if carbon fuselages are blocking signals. Gliders have collided when both had operating flarm systems. Norway and Uvalde.



A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only shows imminent collision threats. The operation and reliability of such a mode have to be really bulletproof. Which, given power flarm's recent history with range issues, software updates, antenna updates etc., would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find out its actual limitations?



It's interesting how many reports we're getting of pilots who saw collision threats with flarm. But we obviously don't know about the failures until they hit each other. And how do we learn about the failures under stealth mode. Can of worms here.





John Cochrane

I agree with John. I find the situational awareness as important as the collision alert. Also, not sure where the 25 sec came from, but when I was on a head on with another glider at 17K both of us flying above 100 knots TAS, the warning we got was more like 10 seconds, just enough to react and bank away. We never saw each other until we banked away, but luckily we saw each other on flarm radar 5 miles away giving us plenty time to be alerted and be prepared to change course. I sure hope no one will fly in stealth mode.

Ramy

On Oct 21, 8:28*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:52:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:41:11 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:

On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:

... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing

pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.

Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.

It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless..

Hope that is clear,

Best Regards, Dave

Dave,

it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02

Frank (TA)

See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about

how stealth mode works.

It's he *http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx

Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of

PowerFlarm at all. *You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,

which is plenty.

Evan Ludeman / T8

"Plenty" is interesting. Let's all remember, flarm is not a "collision avoidance" device. It is a "collision warning" device. You still have to find the other glider, avoid it, and not run in to anyone else while you're doing that. Don't just bank away from the collision threat, make sure there isn't a new collision threat.

If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode? No, I gather.. *If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...

And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if carbon fuselages are blocking signals. Gliders have collided when both had operating flarm systems. Norway and Uvalde.

A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only shows imminent collision threats. *The operation and reliability of such a mode have to be really bulletproof. Which, given power flarm's recent history with range issues, software updates, antenna updates etc., would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find out its actual limitations?

It's interesting how many reports we're getting of pilots who saw collision threats with flarm. But we obviously don't know about the failures until they hit each other. And how do we learn about the failures under stealth mode. Can of worms here.

John Cochrane

I agree with John. I find the situational awareness as important as the collision alert. Also, not sure where the 25 sec came from, but when I was on a head on with another glider at 17K both of us flying above 100 knots TAS, the warning we got was more like 10 seconds, just enough to react and bank away. We never saw each other until we banked away, but luckily we saw each other on flarm radar 5 miles away giving us plenty time to be alerted and be prepared to change course. I sure hope no one will fly in stealth mode.

Ramy

Ramy,

How did you know which direction to bank? I've not flown with the unit
enough to get a feel for what evasive moves to make. So far when I've
been warned I've seen the other aircraft and can react accordingly.

Thanks,
Brad

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:03:48 PM UTC-7, Brad wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:28*pm, Ramy wrote:

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:52:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:41:11 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:



On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:



On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:



On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:



... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing



pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.



Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision.



It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.



Hope that is clear,



Best Regards, Dave



Dave,



it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02



Frank (TA)



See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about



how stealth mode works.



It's he *http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx



Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of



PowerFlarm at all. *You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,



which is plenty.



Evan Ludeman / T8



"Plenty" is interesting. Let's all remember, flarm is not a "collision avoidance" device. It is a "collision warning" device. You still have to find the other glider, avoid it, and not run in to anyone else while you're doing that. Don't just bank away from the collision threat, make sure there isn't a new collision threat.



If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode? No, I gather. *If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...



And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if carbon fuselages are blocking signals. Gliders have collided when both had operating flarm systems. Norway and Uvalde.



A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only shows imminent collision threats. *The operation and reliability of such a mode have to be really bulletproof. Which, given power flarm's recent history with range issues, software updates, antenna updates etc., would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find out its actual limitations?



It's interesting how many reports we're getting of pilots who saw collision threats with flarm. But we obviously don't know about the failures until they hit each other. And how do we learn about the failures under stealth mode. Can of worms here.



John Cochrane



I agree with John. I find the situational awareness as important as the collision alert. Also, not sure where the 25 sec came from, but when I was on a head on with another glider at 17K both of us flying above 100 knots TAS, the warning we got was more like 10 seconds, just enough to react and bank away. We never saw each other until we banked away, but luckily we saw each other on flarm radar 5 miles away giving us plenty time to be alerted and be prepared to change course. I sure hope no one will fly in stealth mode.



Ramy



Ramy,



How did you know which direction to bank? I've not flown with the unit

enough to get a feel for what evasive moves to make. So far when I've

been warned I've seen the other aircraft and can react accordingly.



Thanks,

Brad

I should mention that we were also talking to each other on the radio. The whole time we were closing on each other I was waiting to see him but when the collision alert and the audio alarm started showing him at 12 ocklock same altitude I just decided the bank to the right while radioing to him that I am doing so, and he banked to the right as well. This was the first time for both of us to see each other, very eye opening as we both knew there is traffic ahead and were scanning for it yet we couldn't see each other as we were a non moving target. I figured banking right is the standard procedure with head on traffic, if not, it should be the protocol when flarm warns of traffic at 12 oclock. Diving or pulling my not work since both pilots may do the same thing, but both banking right will do the trick.

Ramy

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:52:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side
and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode?
No, I gather.
If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...

Correct.


And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if
carbon fuselages are blocking signals.

And especially if pilots have not followed sensible practice
installing the antennas, or used antennas with no radiation
downwards. Speak to your fellow pilots when you see this,
it could be your life...


A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only
shows imminent collision threats. The operation and reliability
of such a mode have to be really bulletproof.
gratuitous obnoxious comment snipped
... would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world
experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find
out its actual limitations?

One could possibly pay attention to foreign experience, where many
thousands of FLARM have been deployed for years, instead of
provincially continually reinventing the wheel...

Just a far-out idea, wishful thinking no doubt...

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:52:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:41:11 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:

On Oct 21, 7:35*pm, wrote:



On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:52:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:



On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:30:05 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:







... I was very uncomfortable with the concept of instructing







pilots to lessen the efficiency of an anti-colision assistance device.







Stealth mode in no way lessens the efficacy of FLARM anti-collision..







It gives you warnings when there is a collision hazard regardless.







Hope that is clear,







Best Regards, Dave







Dave,







it is clear, and while your statement is probably technically accurate, it isn't entirely correct. *Any mode that reduces the pilot's situational awareness also degrades safety to some extent. Stealth mode by definition does exactly that. *The OC fatality scenario is a case where stealth mode might not provide enough warning to assess the situation and take appropriate action, whereas the 'full' mode probably would. *Just my $0.02







Frank (TA)







See pg 19 of the PowerFlarm Dataport Specification for details about



how stealth mode works.







It's he http://tinyurl.com/8ne9cjx







Stealth mode does not change the anti-collision functionality of



PowerFlarm at all. You'll get the get the same 25 seconds warning,



which is plenty.







Evan Ludeman / T8



"Plenty" is interesting. Let's all remember, flarm is not a "collision avoidance" device. It is a "collision warning" device. You still have to find the other glider, avoid it, and not run in to anyone else while you're doing that. Don't just bank away from the collision threat, make sure there isn't a new collision threat.



If glider A is a collision threat, glider B is off to your side and not a collision threat, will flarm show glider B in stealth mode? No, I gather. If you suddenly bank towards glider B to avoid glider A...



And it doesn't always give 25 seconds warning, especially if carbon fuselages are blocking signals. Gliders have collided when both had operating flarm systems. Norway and Uvalde.



A stealth mode is far from obviously a good idea, if it only shows imminent collision threats. The operation and reliability of such a mode have to be really bulletproof. Which, given power flarm's recent history with range issues, software updates, antenna updates etc., would seem to be something one would want a lot of real world experience with. But how do we get real world experience and find out its actual limitations?



It's interesting how many reports we're getting of pilots who saw collision threats with flarm. But we obviously don't know about the failures until they hit each other. And how do we learn about the failures under stealth mode. Can of worms here.





John Cochrane

If there's a comm problem between flarm transceivers, then the operating mode simply doesn't matter. One advantage of the open mode is that it provides a means to test the system performance without aerial jousting. And yeah, I see a lot of carbon gliders (V2's mainly) with really spotty contact.

Short warning time when comm is established probably reflects maneuvering, i.e. a course conflict that arose "unexpectedly". For high speed head on traffic, "maneuvering" doesn't necessarily mean much. A small heading/glide slope change is all it would take.

T8