PowerFLARM leeching comments

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

Perhaps this is a good summary of the various opinions skeptical of stealth mode:

Collision avoidance is enhanced by situational awareness, of gliders that you are not actually on a collision path towards. This is especially true of "carbon gliders with spotty contact." If you know there are 5 gliders in the gaggle, and where the ones you can't see are, you're less likely to miss one, or no know what to do when an alert goes off, than if they are all blanked from the screen. This does seem like a "real world" difficulty of stealth mode.

(And Dave, sorry for "gratuitous obnoxious comments." You are doing heroic work with Flarm, and hearing only the complaints when things aren't already perfect.)

John Cochrane

It sounds as if some of our leaders may have already come to some significant conclusions about PowerFlarm data and a new rule effort.

My experience is that PowerFlarm is not NEARLY reliable enough at range outside of 1 mile to leech effectively. The data is simply not reliable vs using your eyes. Perhaps we should consider banning eyes with vision better than say, 20/40 or new glasses before wasting time on this. :-) Occasionally I get a hit on a glider at longer range, which is nice. But leeching off the climb rate data at a significant distance. Not a chance.

PowerFlarm is a fantastic close proximity AUDIBLE collision alert system for me when flying in an environment full of other gliders. It has effectively alerted me to MANY gliders which I was not aware of and were in close proximity. That said, I rarely ever look at the actual screen unless it beeps a loud audible warning. I have have far better things to look at. If necessary to "leech", I can see and follow the heard visually with far better acuity and effectiveness.

Is there anything better to do in regards to rules than discussion on banning PowerFlarm and potentially hindering badly needed (my opinion of course) adoption? PowerFlarm is basically useless until A) everyone has one and B) everyone has one installed properly. I believe placing hurdles in between us and that goal is unnecessary. We desperately want to save the next pilot from a horrible, unnecessary collision. We need greater adoption to ensure that accident does not happen.

Perhaps someone should study and proves (at least confirms its possible) that PowerFlarm and the full data stream is consistently reliable enough to leech more effectively than without before considering bans? How about some testing of that "hypothesis" before prescribing the costly fix and sending the soaring suppliers scrambling? Ill admit I have not tried leeching with my PowerFlarm but from what I have seen with reliable range, I just cant believe it is being seriously discussed. Or perhaps this has already been proven? Has it?

I believe the tracking features PowerFlarm has marketed are basically fantasy outside of 1 (maybe 2 at times) miles. I just don't see FLARM targets outside of that range in my glider. My PowerFlarm antenna is in the perfect location and installed well. ADSB on the other hand I see easily at 20 miles +. But is the PowerFlarm range far enough out to "leech" other sailplanes from several miles out....I do not think so.

Are we defending against reality or the PowerFlarm/LX/"whatever" marketing hype?

Best,

Sean
F2

On Monday, October 22, 2012 1:04:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Perhaps this is a good summary of the various opinions skeptical of stealth mode:



Collision avoidance is enhanced by situational awareness, of gliders that you are not actually on a collision path towards. This is especially true of "carbon gliders with spotty contact." If you know there are 5 gliders in the gaggle, and where the ones you can't see are, you're less likely to miss one, or no know what to do when an alert goes off, than if they are all blanked from the screen. This does seem like a "real world" difficulty of stealth mode.



(And Dave, sorry for "gratuitous obnoxious comments." You are doing heroic work with Flarm, and hearing only the complaints when things aren't already perfect.)



John Cochrane

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:11:08 AM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
It sounds as if some of our leaders may have already come to some significant conclusions about PowerFlarm data and a new rule effort. My experience is that PowerFlarm is not NEARLY reliable enough at range outside of 1 mile to leech effectively. The data is simply not reliable vs using your eyes. Perhaps we should consider banning eyes with vision better than say, 20/40 or new glasses before wasting time on this. :-) Occasionally I get a hit on a glider at longer range, which is nice. But leeching off the climb rate data at a significant distance. Not a chance. PowerFlarm is a fantastic close proximity AUDIBLE collision alert system for me when flying in an environment full of other gliders. It has effectively alerted me to MANY gliders which I was not aware of and were in close proximity. That said, I rarely ever look at the actual screen unless it beeps a loud audible warning. I have have far better things to look at. If necessary to "leech", I can see and follow the heard visually with far better acuity and effectiveness. Is there anything better to do in regards to rules than discussion on banning PowerFlarm and potentially hindering badly needed (my opinion of course) adoption? PowerFlarm is basically useless until A) everyone has one and B) everyone has one installed properly. I believe placing hurdles in between us and that goal is unnecessary. We desperately want to save the next pilot from a horrible, unnecessary collision. We need greater adoption to ensure that accident does not happen. Perhaps someone should study and proves (at least confirms its possible) that PowerFlarm and the full data stream is consistently reliable enough to leech more effectively than without before considering bans? How about some testing of that "hypothesis" before prescribing the costly fix and sending the soaring suppliers scrambling? Ill admit I have not tried leeching with my PowerFlarm but from what I have seen with reliable range, I just cant believe it is being seriously discussed. Or perhaps this has already been proven? Has it? I believe the tracking features PowerFlarm has marketed are basically fantasy outside of 1 (maybe 2 at times) miles. I just don't see FLARM targets outside of that range in my glider. My PowerFlarm antenna is in the perfect location and installed well. ADSB on the other hand I see easily at 20 miles +. But is the PowerFlarm range far enough out to "leech" other sailplanes from several miles out....I do not think so. Are we defending against reality or the PowerFlarm/LX/"whatever" marketing hype? Best, Sean F2 On Monday, October 22, 2012 1:04:53 PM UTC-4, wrote: Perhaps this is a good summary of the various opinions skeptical of stealth mode: Collision avoidance is enhanced by situational awareness, of gliders that you are not actually on a collision path towards. This is especially true of "carbon gliders with spotty contact." If you know there are 5 gliders in the gaggle, and where the ones you can't see are, you're less likely to miss one, or no know what to do when an alert goes off, than if they are all blanked from the screen. This does seem like a "real world" difficulty of stealth mode. (And Dave, sorry for "gratuitous obnoxious comments." You are doing heroic work with Flarm, and hearing only the complaints when things aren't already perfect.) John Cochrane

I have no idea where you have gotten the idea that there is any consideration of banning Flarm. The Rules Committee has supported and encouraged adoption of this technology from the start. We have been asked to make a statement of support. The RC strongly encourages the adoption of Flarm technology in US competition sailplanes.
There are a variety of opinions about the issue of Flarm being a useful leech tool. My personal experience, while limited, shows it has the strong potential to be very useful in this regard.
The possibility of implementation of some sort of Stealth mode is a real consideration for the future as more experience becomes available. The potential affect on the sport is profound. The pilot poll asks for pilot input associated with this issue. Certainly no limitations will be imposed without testing and evaluation at the regional level.
Any pilots that have not participated in the poll are strongly encoraged to provide their input. The poll closes on 10/26.
UH
US RC Chair

I meant restriction on telemetry data (stealth mode), not a complete ban.

The Flarm people still don't have the damn logger function working. They have struggled a bit out of the blocks to say the least. The last thing they need is to have their attention drawn into perfecting stealth mode. That may cause more problems, etc.

Lets focus on PowerFlarm adoption 100%. Lets establish the reality of the systems performance and measure average useful range (and its practical usefulness) before installing limits, restrictions, etc aimed at preventing supposed "Flarm leeching".

The marketing slick is far different than reality even in my glider which has exceptional antenna position (max height and central).

Sean
F2