FLARM in Stealth Mode at US 15M/Standard Nationals - Loved It!

So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.

I think we need to get back to a simple principle: Let's see if something is really a problem before we start passing rules against it.

Surely, you guys who want to impose stealth mode can come up with some real, serious, documented problem that real flarms today are causing, not just hypothetical problems of hypothetical future software?

By then we'll all have FAA mandated ADSB displays of all traffic, super cheap drone anti-collision technology showing us where the thermaling birds are, and so on.

John Cochrane

At 02:15 08 August 2015, Papa3 wrote:
I agree - lots of good discussion. =20

I would again emphasize though that nobody has yet put the effort into
buil=
ding a true Tactical Leeching Tool. Flarm just provides data and a
collisi=
on warning algorithm which seems to work extremely well for the purpose
for=
which it was designed. I have been truly impressed at how few spurious
wa=
rnings I have gotten in either unrestricted or stealth mode. As a safety
to=
ol, I love it. =20

But, please consider what folks could do IF they put their minds to it.
V=
isualizing and presenting the Flarm data for tactical advantage has
hardly
=
been tapped at all. Imagine a filtering algorithm that takes in Flarm
dat=
a from a bunch of gliders. It figures out if this is a "gaggle"
(defined
=
by at least 2 gliders circling for at least 30 seconds and climbing, for
ex=
ample). Now, imagine that it smooths the climb data from the gliders
th=
at are identified as Gaggle A with an indication of average climb rate
(30
=
second, 60 second, duration of climb) as selected by the user. Imagine
t=
hat another gaggle (Gaggle B) nearby is similarly filtered and
displayed.
=
Color coding is applied with strongest average climbs in Green and
decreas=
ing in size and intensity with weaker climbs. Also, the user can set
aler=
ts to indicate if specific targets are in Gaggle A or Gaggle B. Okay,
Gag=
gle A is clearly averaging a better climb, and as a bonus P7 is part of
the=
group. This is not 10 years out sort of stuff. I've already written
spe=
cs for several of these examples. =20

I suspect that the reason a lot of folks are finding Flarm of limited
tacti=
cal value right now is largely unfamiliarity with the tool combined with
Us=
er Interfaces which are not yet optimized for competition. My Flarm
routin=
ely provides 7.5km to 8km range, which is basically a corridor 15km wide
(l=
eft and right). And contrary to statements made in this thread, many
the=
rmals are relatively persistent and regenerative. All you have to do
to
=
see this in action is to download competition files from a recent contest
a=
nd replay the flights in maggot race mode on SeeYou. If you synchronize
o=
n start time, you can see gliders converging on exactly the same spot
often=
times 10-15 minutes apart when you shift back to real-time. So,
having
=
a choice of 2 gaggles displayed each of which is only 3 miles away and
KNOW=
ING which gaggle is the stronger climb is a very real tactical advantage.

=
Similar examples apply to the pre-start, straight glides, etc.=20

Of course, if everyone has it, then maybe the playing field is again
level.=
Except that instead of looking out the window and eyeballing other
glider=
s to figure out which group is climbing better relative to you, you'll be
z=
ooming in the gain on your Leeching Window. Sort of like good weather
rad=
ar operators today who know how to identify the really ugly cells vs. the
m=
ore benign cells. Maybe that's the exciting next frontier? =20

P3


Astute thinking. Flying the computers is the problem for me.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that Flarm leeching is no factor in contest results. Does anyone think that means tactical use of Flarm is not resulting in more time with eyes in the cockpit? Seems to me that the supposed safety benefit of not being in stealth mode may be negated by pilots fixated on their screens.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that Flarm leeching is no factor in contest results. Does anyone think that means tactical use of Flarm is not resulting in more time with eyes in the cockpit? Seems to me that the supposed safety benefit of not being in stealth mode may be negated by pilots fixated on their screens.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
... I have also heard the FAI is considering stealth mode requirements.

Further proof of a truly stupid idea...
But maybe it will keep them busy so they don't introduce an 11 meter class!

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
... I have also heard the FAI is considering stealth mode requirements.

Further proof of a truly stupid idea...
But maybe it will keep them busy so they don't introduce an 11 meter class!

greetings from the 13.5 meter worlds. FLARM was technically required here but not enforced. The Russians are not equipped. Some guys seem to have stealth some not. Either way I know that I can consistently see a glider before my FLARM picks it up.

I'll try to get some traction on the 11 meter class tomorrow. These long wings on the Silent are starting to get heavy!