PowerFLARM leeching comments

On Nov 1, 7:42*pm, Richard wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:23*am, Mike the Strike wrote: I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. *My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas *is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. *The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of *the"stealth" mode. Mike Mike, I had exactly that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near cloudbase at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120 mph over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the southwest and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My Butterfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight ahead and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3 pass me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was around 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I have no problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT)

Tim,

I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le Display, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, *so I do not recommend the Stealth Mode. * More time to identify the threat is much better..

Richardwww.craggyaero.com

Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle
of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack
traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a
foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the
one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius
of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply
don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few
minutes.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:01:12 PM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:42*pm, Richard wrote: On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote: On Nov 1, 9:23*am, Mike the Strike wrote: I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. *My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas *is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. *The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of *the"stealth" mode. Mike Mike, I had exactly that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near cloudbase at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120 mph over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the southwest and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My Butterfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight ahead and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3 pass me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was around 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I have no problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT) Tim, I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le Display, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, *so I do not recommend the Stealth Mode. * More time to identify the threat is much better. Richardwww.craggyaero..com Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few minutes. Evan Ludeman / T8

Change your zoom on the Ultimate Le and you will only see the ones closer. The lady discriminates the threat with a voice warning "traffic 5 oclock 50 feet low"



Richard
www.craggyaero.com

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:01:12 PM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:42*pm, Richard wrote: On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote: On Nov 1, 9:23*am, Mike the Strike wrote: I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. *My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas *is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. *The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of *the"stealth" mode. Mike Mike, I had exactly that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near cloudbase at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120 mph over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the southwest and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My Butterfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight ahead and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3 pass me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was around 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I have no problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT) Tim, I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le Display, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, *so I do not recommend the Stealth Mode. * More time to identify the threat is much better. Richardwww.craggyaero..com Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few minutes. Evan Ludeman / T8

On SeeYou Mobile you can also set the zoom level that shows the Flarm Radar..

Always , Never, 1,2,5,10,20 nm you may want it at higher levels for situational awareness and to see fast moving ADS-B. I saw an ADS-B target that was coming out of Grant County at a climb rate of +6000 fpm and moving fast.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

At 00:01 02 November 2012, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:42=A0pm, Richard wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:48:01 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Nov 1, 9:23=A0am, Mike the Strike wrote: I ha=
ve had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one
incide=
nt a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague
a=
t very high closing speeds. =A0My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy
an=
tennas =A0is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me
in
=
this scenario. =A0The more information the unit can provide the better -
th=
at is why I oppose use of =A0the"stealth" mode. Mike Mike, I had
exactl=
y that scenario at Parowan during the nationals this year. Was near
cloudba=
se at about 17,000 feet and doing over 100 knots indicated or about 120
mph=
over the ground. Light angle was low as I was running back to the
southwes=
t and the air noise from flying fast made it hard to hear the Flarm. My
But=
terfly display switched to conflict mode and showed a target straight
ahead=
and at my altitude. I banked immediately and dove in time to watch W3
pass=
me in the opposite direction at about the same speed. Closing speed was
ar=
ound 240 mph (390 kmh), this would have worked in stealth mode so I
have
no=
problems recommending stealth mode for contests. Tim (TT)

Tim,

I would have seen the target apporximately 4 mile out on my Ultimate Le
D=
isplay, and then the Lady would warn me of the traffic, =A0so I do not
reco=
mmend the Stealth Mode. =A0 More time to identify the threat is much
better=
..

Richardwww.craggyaero.com

Voice warnings of traffic *4 miles* out? So what happens in a gaggle
of 30 gliders in one thermal? What happens when you're in a six pack
traveling at high speed down a cloud street in cruise and meet a
foursome head on, but the 3rd glider in the oncoming foursome is the
one that is on a direct collision course? My point is that the genius
of flarm is the ability to discriminate and prioritize. I simply
don't want to know about gliders that might become threats in a few
minutes.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan,

Just to be clear, you see the traffic 4 miles out but you only get the
collision
warning message when it close enough to be a potential collision warning.

When you have flown in a Flarm rich environment for a season, you will
understand why putting it in stealth mode feels like flying with a
blindfold on.

Mike

Yes Mike (and Richard too),

There is no question that Flarm is a great tool for soaring. The issue here is should we use full range and information during contests.

Are we willing to change the sport so much and at what price? I have flown two nationals with Flarm and it was interesting. But, I personally feel it changes the sport too much in the full mode. It will spark an arms race of additional information and software analysis.

It allows easy leaching and changes the tactical flying style. You can see what gliders up to nearly ten miles away are doing.

At the nationals level I feel we should have Flarm in stealth mode. This provides the safety it was developed for, but allows pilots to focus on their own decision making and not on what pilots two to three miles away are doing.

I look forward to all the information that Flarm and new software will provide in flight, just also want to preserve the essence of competition soaring which is pilot against pilot.

Tim

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:57:01 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
Yes Mike (and Richard too), There is no question that Flarm is a great tool for soaring. The issue here is should we use full range and information during contests. Are we willing to change the sport so much and at what price? I have flown two nationals with Flarm and it was interesting. But, I personally feel it changes the sport too much in the full mode. It will spark an arms race of additional information and software analysis. It allows easy leaching and changes the tactical flying style. You can see what gliders up to nearly ten miles away are doing. At the nationals level I feel we should have Flarm in stealth mode. This provides the safety it was developed for, but allows pilots to focus on their own decision making and not on what pilots two to three miles away are doing. I look forward to all the information that Flarm and new software will provide in flight, just also want to preserve the essence of competition soaring which is pilot against pilot. Tim

This states the case very well. It will be interesting to see how many will agree with your view. Personally, I do, but know we need to get enough experience to allow the group to guide the long term situation.
UH

On Friday, November 2, 2012 6:13:27 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:57:01 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:

Yes Mike (and Richard too), There is no question that Flarm is a great tool for soaring. The issue here is should we use full range and information during contests. Are we willing to change the sport so much and at what price? I have flown two nationals with Flarm and it was interesting. But, I personally feel it changes the sport too much in the full mode. It will spark an arms race of additional information and software analysis. It allows easy leaching and changes the tactical flying style. You can see what gliders up to nearly ten miles away are doing. At the nationals level I feel we should have Flarm in stealth mode. This provides the safety it was developed for, but allows pilots to focus on their own decision making and not on what pilots two to three miles away are doing. I look forward to all the information that Flarm and new software will provide in flight, just also want to preserve the essence of competition soaring which is pilot against pilot. Tim



This states the case very well. It will be interesting to see how many will agree with your view. Personally, I do, but know we need to get enough experience to allow the group to guide the long term situation.

UH

I'm not sure I appreciate the "arms race" concern. Flarm costs a bit more than a regular logger and upgrades to the software we all use aren't typically that expensive. I think it would be good to have some additional incentive to adopt Flarm for contest flying in particular and if a belief in a modest tactical advantage encourages some more pilots to adopt I think that's a good thing.

I am yet to be convinced that Flarm does much to alter competition dynamics since it has only slightly greater range than the human eyeball and is not (yet) as good at picking up details like climb rates. The European experience has not surfaced big changes in the character of racing to my knowledge and the Europeans have rejected use of Stealth mode. What little change I have picked up from my own experience was modestly positive - it made racing feel a bit more "head to head". If world championships will have no-stealth Flarm allowed then the arguments about how differences in the US rules hinder the competitiveness of US team pilots would also apply to Flarm usage - particularly at Nationals.

In general I am leery of efforts to retard the adoption of technology as the fears are typically overstated and the enforcement can be cumbersome. The exception for me would be cases where there is a potential for reduced safety from use of a technology - artificial horizons and the temptation to fly in clouds for instance - not the case for Flarm.

9B

Bravo 9B.