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

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:29:55 AM UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:
This extremely interesting thread started out focusing on using Stealth mode at a US Nationals contest, resulting from a feeling that Flarm was being used as a tactical device during a contest conducted under FAI rules (rules which we know encourage gaggling). During the discussion others stated their belief that non-Stealth Flarm was unsafe because it resulted in too much head down time, and several (tongue-in-cheek?) software specifications were given to improve non-Stealth Flarm leeching. The use of Flarm as a good situational awareness tool (suggested by some) seemed to be discounted because of claims of leeching.

But no solid evidence was presented that leeching really is a problem in US contests. Andy (9B) did an analysis which showed that the use of Flarm in Stealth mode resulted in worse contest finish performance by top pilots than they achieved when using non-Stealth Flarm. However, case for the use of Flarm for being used for leeching was only made anecdotally (at best) by others.

Before changes are made to the US rules regarding Flarm usage, I think it should be determined if leeching is really happening in US contests. This should be possible to determine by (1) defining quantitatively what leeching is, and (2) examining contest log files for instances meeting the definition.

A major hurdle, of course, is the definition of leeching. It's clear you're leeching if you follow someone within a mile of their tail all around the task. But, if KS passes me and I follow him 5 minutes to the next thermal where I lose him, is that leeching? How about if I happen to use 4 out of the 12 thermals he's used in a TAT, but our courses are different? What if all the thermals I use were also used by different top pilots in different classes within a few minutes of me arriving?

If leeching can only be defined by "I'll know it when I see it", then perhaps an adaptation of OLC's MeetingPoints function might help point out places to examine manually to see if leeching is occurring. But one way or another, looking for instances of leeching really should be done to determine if we really have a problem, before we go further on deciding what to do with Flarm in contests.

-John, Q3

I'm working on it.

It is entirely possible to quantify how much leaching is going on by looking at all the flight logs together. Percent of thermals, climb time and altitude gained in your own thermal versus one that was found by someone else. It is also possible to quantify which of the "borrowed" climbs would have been visible under stealth versus no stealth, by looking at the distance to the course line being flown. Lastly, it is possible to measure how much benefit is generated by having a thermal marked for you in terms of comparative climb rates for leeched versus self-sourced thermals. It's more complicated, but it may be possible to document consecutive climbs with the same glider ahead of you. Three climbs in a row is "leechier" that picking up a single marker and then going your own way. Gaggle flying makes this exercise, um, complicated.

I've gotten several PM suggestions on "leech-y" contest days to look at to aid in this effort - thank you to those who made the effort.

9B

There was a project in Germany called the "Pulk Pranger" which basically translates to "gaggle pillory" or "leeching pillory. It was a software which scored each participant of a competition for the amount of leeching he/she did. If I remember correctly the rules defined that the first 4 entrants of a thermal are not leeching. All subsequent entrants received leeching points for the duration of their climb. Just like normal competition scoring there was a daily leeching score and an overall leeching champion at the end of the competition.

A quick google search shows the following github project:
https://github.com/thelightwasbrighter/pulkpranger

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 12:04:36 AM UTC-7, Alexander Swagemakers wrote:
There was a project in Germany called the "Pulk Pranger" which basically translates to "gaggle pillory" or "leeching pillory. It was a software which scored each participant of a competition for the amount of leeching he/she did. If I remember correctly the rules defined that the first 4 entrants of a thermal are not leeching. All subsequent entrants received leeching points for the duration of their climb. Just like normal competition scoring there was a daily leeching score and an overall leeching champion at the end of the competition.

A quick google search shows the following github project:
https://github.com/thelightwasbrighter/pulkpranger


Do you know who the developer is? Github has no contact info and the script has, um, issues.

9B

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:29:55 PM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
The use of Flarm as a good situational awareness tool (suggested by some) seemed to be discounted because of claims of leeching.

-John, Q3

So, I'd love it if someone could define "situational awareness" in the context of FLARM given that it already has extensive algorithms designed to identify and prioritize threats. So, there's a glider 3 miles ahead and 1500 feet above me climbing at 2kts. What's the "situation" that I need to be aware of? I agree it's great to get a feel for where folks are out ahead or beside you from a comfort perspective. Whether or not you are trying to latch on to the other gliders, knowing the "situation" that others have headed out and are still in the air is great tactical information. But what's the safety angle (assuming there is one)?

P3

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:29:55 PM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
The use of Flarm as a good situational awareness tool (suggested by some) seemed to be discounted because of claims of leeching.

-John, Q3

So, I'd love it if someone could define "situational awareness" in the context of FLARM given that it already has extensive algorithms designed to identify and prioritize threats. So, there's a glider 3 miles ahead and 1500 feet above me climbing at 2kts. What's the "situation" that I need to be aware of? I agree it's great to get a feel for where folks are out ahead or beside you from a comfort perspective. Whether or not you are trying to latch on to the other gliders, knowing the "situation" that others have headed out and are still in the air is great tactical information. But what's the safety angle (assuming there is one)?

P3
Like most things, it depends. If you're at altitude, the fact that someone is 3 miles ahead, 1500 feet above and climbing at 2 kt is irrelevant. If, however, you find yourself at 2500 AGL over tiger country past the point of no return after having started the crossing at a safe altitude, it could be a lifesaver if your Flarm tells you that someone 3 miles ahead, 1500 feet above and climbing at 2 kt, ie, you know that the sink decreases in a certain direction.

-John, Q3

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 9:26:33 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:

Like most things, it depends. If you're at altitude, the fact that someone is 3 miles ahead, 1500 feet above and climbing at 2 kt is irrelevant. If, however, you find yourself at 2500 AGL over tiger country past the point of no return after having started the crossing at a safe altitude, it could be a lifesaver if your Flarm tells you that someone 3 miles ahead, 1500 feet above and climbing at 2 kt, ie, you know that the sink decreases in a certain direction.

-John, Q3

Wow - I'd argue that the scenario you describe is just about the last "situation" I'd want to be relying on FLARM to bail me out of. Low and desperate and staring at the "thermal finder" vs. looking outside at the terrain for thermal sources, searching for hawks, looking at the wind relative to a small ridge line - whatever.

FWIW, one of the truly scary things I've witnessed as a result of blind leeching (or maybe just "hanging on to the pack and hoping") is some really scary landouts and one crash (into the trees in the Juniata River gap at Lewistown). I can see people using FLARM as another source of that blind hope ("well, the scope says there are three guys out over the trees climbing through 5,000, so here goes...")

Not to twist this scenario beyond recognition, but it's that sense of self-reliance and resourcefulness that many of us who have been racing for years really relish. At some point, it's just you and your senses vs. the weather and you need to make it work.

Anyway, I've said my piece on this. I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions (with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and judgement.

P3

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 2:30:23 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
At some point, it's just you and your senses and all the **** you can see on your smart phone vs. the weather and you need to make it work.

Fixed for you. /sarc

btw, Erik, interested in an RC position? You'd get my vote.

-Evan

Wow, indeed Erik. You'd reject additional help from Flarm in showing you a possible way out of a jam? When all you'd have to do is glace quickly at the radar when you heard a beep, then fuse that information with your outside search?

And you'd reject this help from Flarm because of a sense of pride in self-reliance and resourcefulness? Is that the same sense of pride that accepts the help of GPS, moving maps and flight computers?

I think your strong dislike of Flarm stems from something much deeper than pride.

-John, Q3


On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 2:30:23 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
Wow - I'd argue that the scenario you describe is just about the last "situation" I'd want to be relying on FLARM to bail me out of. Low and desperate and staring at the "thermal finder" vs. looking outside at the terrain for thermal sources, searching for hawks, looking at the wind relative to a small ridge line - whatever.

FWIW, one of the truly scary things I've witnessed as a result of blind leeching (or maybe just "hanging on to the pack and hoping") is some really scary landouts and one crash (into the trees in the Juniata River gap at Lewistown). I can see people using FLARM as another source of that blind hope ("well, the scope says there are three guys out over the trees climbing through 5,000, so here goes...")

Not to twist this scenario beyond recognition, but it's that sense of self-reliance and resourcefulness that many of us who have been racing for years really relish. At some point, it's just you and your senses vs. the weather and you need to make it work.

Anyway, I've said my piece on this. I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions (with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and judgement.

P3

John/Q3, I gave you an honest (if lengthy) answer about leeching and you chose to be argumentative in your response. Fine. But your intentional misrepresentation of Erik's comment goes further. He said he was done (I know the feeling) so I'll jump in again on this point because a few people might actually believe your distortion of his position.

Erik didn't say he would reject help from FLARM. He said this was the last situation in which he would want to RELY on it: i.e., low, no place to land, few options. And I agree. Without getting into how you would allow yourself to get into that situation in the first place, a "FLARM radar" image of a few gliders circling up ahead is no guarantee of a workable thermal. It's the same way that savvy motorglider pilots talk about never relying on their engine to get them out of trouble. If it works, great. If it doesn't, though, they always have an alternative.

Not having a psychology degree or paranormal powers, I don't have any idea what you're referring to when you say his "strong dislike of FLARM stems from something much deeper than pride." Are you talking some kind of childhood trauma?

I can say that Erik, like me, thinks that FLARM is a very good addition to safety. But he's also said, and I agree, that we should limit its use to safety, not to providing a look ahead that invites certain people (not mentioning names) to blindly follow other pilots without making their own decisions OR to trust technology to bail them out of making bad decisions, as both FLARM and GPS have the potential to do. And yes, before you counter, I know of at least one nearly disastrous outlanding caused by a pilot blindly following his early GPS-enabled flight computer down to pattern height on final glide before, in sudden sink, bothering to look out to see what the landing prospects were (nearly nonexistent).

Misuse of FLARM also begs for another technical arms race of better antennas, ground station repeaters, FLARM cloaking devices, etc. It's soaring, not video games. We've consistently rejected remote thermal finding devices in our rules for a combination of reasons. To me, FLARM in non-stealth mode is on the borderline. I'll go further and say that if we continue to allow the use of FLARM for remote sensing, we're hypocritical if we don't allow the use of IR imaging, cloud-based aggregation of FLARM and SPOT data, and other ways of displaying distant thermals, updrafts, and flight tracks on a screen. And that will make the cost of a FLARM device seem like small change indeed.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

JB,

Thank you for your posting. I truly appreciate your taking the time to do so.

It seems clear that we're taking past one another. Maybe that's because we've never met and don't know each other's personality or background, or maybe because we can't get important clues from intonation or body language on what is actually meant, since text doesn't convey such clues. For example, you say I was argumentative when I was simply asking for a clarification about what I saw as an important inconsistency in your honest answer on leeching, which you posted in a discussion group.

Perhaps one day we'll actually meet and, if you're willing, talk about this important issue face to face. For now, let's agree to disagree and just drop it.

-John, Q3


On Saturday, August 15, 2015 at 11:14:22 AM UTC-4, wrote:
John/Q3, I gave you an honest (if lengthy) answer about leeching and you chose to be argumentative in your response. Fine. But your intentional misrepresentation of Erik's comment goes further. He said he was done (I know the feeling) so I'll jump in again on this point because a few people might actually believe your distortion of his position.

Erik didn't say he would reject help from FLARM. He said this was the last situation in which he would want to RELY on it: i.e., low, no place to land, few options. And I agree. Without getting into how you would allow yourself to get into that situation in the first place, a "FLARM radar" image of a few gliders circling up ahead is no guarantee of a workable thermal. It's the same way that savvy motorglider pilots talk about never relying on their engine to get them out of trouble. If it works, great. If it doesn't, though, they always have an alternative.

Not having a psychology degree or paranormal powers, I don't have any idea what you're referring to when you say his "strong dislike of FLARM stems from something much deeper than pride." Are you talking some kind of childhood trauma?

I can say that Erik, like me, thinks that FLARM is a very good addition to safety. But he's also said, and I agree, that we should limit its use to safety, not to providing a look ahead that invites certain people (not mentioning names) to blindly follow other pilots without making their own decisions OR to trust technology to bail them out of making bad decisions, as both FLARM and GPS have the potential to do. And yes, before you counter, I know of at least one nearly disastrous outlanding caused by a pilot blindly following his early GPS-enabled flight computer down to pattern height on final glide before, in sudden sink, bothering to look out to see what the landing prospects were (nearly nonexistent).

Misuse of FLARM also begs for another technical arms race of better antennas, ground station repeaters, FLARM cloaking devices, etc. It's soaring, not video games. We've consistently rejected remote thermal finding devices in our rules for a combination of reasons. To me, FLARM in non-stealth mode is on the borderline. I'll go further and say that if we continue to allow the use of FLARM for remote sensing, we're hypocritical if we don't allow the use of IR imaging, cloud-based aggregation of FLARM and SPOT data, and other ways of displaying distant thermals, updrafts, and flight tracks on a screen. And that will make the cost of a FLARM device seem like small change indeed.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.