PowerFLARM leeching comments

On Oct 28, 4:00*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
[snip]

No, but I have flown with an LX800, not that this has anything to do with
it at all. I would rather take the advice of the makers of the instrument
and those who have been using FLARM for some time. Stealth mode is no
longer required here for competitions, the full mode can be used. FLARM are
very clear, "We do NOT recommend the use of stealth mode", which part of
that do you not understand. You ignore it at your peril or perhaps more
likely to the peril of others.

Just to be clear on this: I do have competition experience with the
equipment we're discussing.

Where I disagree with Flarm -- based on my experience -- is on the
utility of the "radar" display for collision avoidance. It's a net
negative based on the amount of head down time required to develop any
useful situational awareness from the display. Try it. You'll see.

Stealth mode affects *only* information displayed in "radar" mode --
information straight from Flarm. No effect at all in the anti-
collision warning mode. There seems to be a lot of nearly willful
misunderstanding on this issue.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

The butterfly display has 2 types of displays:
1 - radar display for situational awareness
2- led like display for collision alert. It automatically switch to this mode when it detects collision risk.
Which one are you referring to?

Ramy

On Monday, October 29, 2012 12:36:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
The butterfly display has 2 types of displays:

1 - radar display for situational awareness

2- led like display for collision alert. It automatically switch to this mode when it detects collision risk.

Which one are you referring to?



Ramy

There is actually a 3rd display which is totally useless and on most of the time (the one with the HUGE red butterfly). Why don't Butterfly use this real estate for something useful? Almost anything else is more useful (battery voltage, Lat/Lon, "friendly" traffic nearby, altitude, you-name-it, etc.)

-Jim

On Monday, October 29, 2012 9:46:58 AM UTC-7, Jim wrote:
On Monday, October 29, 2012 12:36:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:

There is actually a 3rd display which is totally useless and on most of the time (the one with the HUGE red butterfly). Why don't Butterfly use this real estate for something useful? Almost anything else is more useful (battery voltage, Lat/Lon, "friendly" traffic nearby, altitude, you-name-it, etc.)



-Jim

+1, I'm with you on that. Also give us the option to display local time instead of UTC please.

bumper

On Oct 29, 12:36*pm, Ramy wrote:
The butterfly display has 2 types of displays:
1 - radar display for situational awareness
2- led like display for collision alert. It automatically switch to this mode when it detects collision risk.
Which one are you referring to?

Ramy

I'm disparaging the #1 radar display, of course. The one where a) you
have to squint in order to read the scale, the relative altitude and
climb rate, b) you have to scroll through the targets in order to
decide which target you want relative alt and climb rate info for. We
are doing a somewhat better job of displaying the same raw data with
ClearNav (2.2.0.38 should be available for public beta testing very
shortly) but I think your eyeballs are better employed looking out the
window.

Pretty much everyone likes the #2 collision warning display, which is
fast, effective and intuitive.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Wow! So much is assumed about the usefulness of PowerFLARM in so-called "radar mode." Its painful to read the assumption, marketing based arguments some are making loudly. FLARM itself strongly recommends not using STEALTH mode as it significantly reduces to capability of the system. Pretty clear to me. But some really want to go after this latest technology ban. Why? An apparent deathly fear of new technology. Almost a phobia. We have seen it many times before, yet it is all here! Radio's. Vario's. GPS. Eyeglasses.

Again, I vote (and did so in the SSA Contest pilot poll weeks ago) for ABSOLUTELY NO restrictions, limitations or complications of any kind to the implementation and adoption of PowerFLARM until such time that:

A) PowerFLARM adoption reaches a level of completeness that satisfies the initial goals (Mandatory in contests and strong growth in general US soaring) and

B) it is OBJECTIVELY PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that so-called Flarm leeching is reasonably possible.

To review: The goal of powerFLARM is improved safety generally in all environments (towing, clubs, contests) and a general reduction of collisions...such as the one that happened in the US a few months back at the World Championships.

That's right. A nearly fatal collision just occurred in the USA where a glider was lost, a pilot was forced to bail out and was knocked unconscious on the parachute landing. Thankfully he was OK...but the truth is that collisions are STILL OCCURRING, statistically very often. Very little was said about this accident and the numerous other accidents at that event. Near misses are all to common in US contest soaring and in clubs. Collision safety is a huge concern worldwide. Regardless of these facts, some really want to ban important aspects of this impressive new innovation in soaring safety before it even gets started. Some seem more concerned about crushing any small almost impossibly unrealistic chance of improved "leeching" than achieving original goal of the system...SAFETY and prevention of needless fatal collision accidents of our friends.

Safety needs to be doubled down on at all costs.

It should be the policy of the US rules committee to error DEEPLY on the the side of SAFETY. I think this is true in most cases. But FLARM and collision risk is not the area to screw around with at this point. Most pilots in the US are still relying on "chance" to avoid collision. A collision occurs when both pilots do not see eachother. It is clear that visual scan's are not sufficient and never will be. Without PowerFLARM or better technology, it's only a matter of time until you have your collision. We need to do better!

When looking at those involved in these arguments, ask yourselves the following questions: 1) Who is concerned about general safety off the soaring community? 2) Who here is concerned about the slim potential for leeching harming THEM in a contest? What is the motivation? Expand safety without comprimise? Or personal concerns? Answer those questions and I think you will have some useful intelligence on this discussion. Is the PowerFLARM system worth working on a ban for the minuscule chance that someone could actually follow (LEECH) you at greater speed from outside visual range with the PowerFLARM and LX 8000?

Give me a break!!!!!! Lets move on and focus on more productive things this winter.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

On Monday, October 29, 2012 5:32:44 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Safety needs to be doubled down on at all costs.

Yup. I'm installing a 5-point harness on my Barcolounger
so I can't hurt myself watching foootbaaall.
Hope I don't hurt myself with the power-tools during
installation, wish me luck.
Yes, I've got an STC for that harness install.


Give me a break!!!!!! Lets move on and focus on more
productive things this winter.

Yup, its time for the PW-5 debate to start...


See ya, Dave

On Monday, October 29, 2012 5:32:44 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Wow! So much is assumed about the usefulness of PowerFLARM in so-called "radar mode." Its painful to read the assumption, marketing based arguments some are making loudly. FLARM itself strongly recommends not using STEALTH mode as it significantly reduces to capability of the system. Pretty clear to me. But some really want to go after this latest technology ban. Why? An apparent deathly fear of new technology. Almost a phobia. We have seen it many times before, yet it is all here! Radio's. Vario's. GPS. Eyeglasses. Again, I vote (and did so in the SSA Contest pilot poll weeks ago) for ABSOLUTELY NO restrictions, limitations or complications of any kind to the implementation and adoption of PowerFLARM until such time that: A) PowerFLARM adoption reaches a level of completeness that satisfies the initial goals (Mandatory in contests and strong growth in general US soaring) and B) it is OBJECTIVELY PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that so-called Flarm leeching is reasonably possible. To review: The goal of powerFLARM is improved safety generally in all environments (towing, clubs, contests) and a general reduction of collisions...such as the one that happened in the US a few months back at the World Championships. That's right. A nearly fatal collision just occurred in the USA where a glider was lost, a pilot was forced to bail out and was knocked unconscious on the parachute landing. Thankfully he was OK...but the truth is that collisions are STILL OCCURRING, statistically very often. Very little was said about this accident and the numerous other accidents at that event. Near misses are all to common in US contest soaring and in clubs. Collision safety is a huge concern worldwide. Regardless of these facts, some really want to ban important aspects of this impressive new innovation in soaring safety before it even gets started. Some seem more concerned about crushing any small almost impossibly unrealistic chance of improved "leeching" than achieving original goal of the system...SAFETY and prevention of needless fatal collision accidents of our friends. Safety needs to be doubled down on at all costs. It should be the policy of the US rules committee to error DEEPLY on the the side of SAFETY. I think this is true in most cases. But FLARM and collision risk is not the area to screw around with at this point. Most pilots in the US are still relying on "chance" to avoid collision. A collision occurs when both pilots do not see eachother. It is clear that visual scan's are not sufficient and never will be.. Without PowerFLARM or better technology, it's only a matter of time until you have your collision. We need to do better! When looking at those involved in these arguments, ask yourselves the following questions: 1) Who is concerned about general safety off the soaring community? 2) Who here is concerned about the slim potential for leeching harming THEM in a contest? What is the motivation? Expand safety without comprimise? Or personal concerns? Answer those questions and I think you will have some useful intelligence on this discussion. Is the PowerFLARM system worth working on a ban for the minuscule chance that someone could actually follow (LEECH) you at greater speed from outside visual range with the PowerFLARM and LX 8000? Give me a break!!!!!! Lets move on and focus on more productive things this winter. Sincerely, Sean F2

Your vote and your impassioned arguments are respectfully and duely noted.
That said, the conversation on the topic of the effect of Flarm on the sporting aspects of competition soaring are appropriate and should continue.
A number of very experienced pilots have commented here and in other forms that they has serious concerns about what "Flarm radar" will do to our sport.