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

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


EXACTLY! that's what i was trying to say. i just couldn't word it properly.

I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If tactical use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it -

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.. EXACTLY!

The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring competition.

We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.

Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest levels? Unquestionably yes; navigation ceased to be a relevant skill and excellence at reading/guessing the weather for AAT and MAT tasks came to the fore.

Did it change the nature of competition? Yes, even to the extent of changing the starting/finishing process; opening up the types of tasks we fly--a plus; and for the first time allowing--through the use of SeeYou--each pilot to study in exquisite detail exactly how he/she and every other pilot flew each day's tasks. It's amusing to think back now to a time when the only clues we often had about how someone smoked the field were the few carefully chosen (and sometimes obfuscating) comments he/she made in the next morning's pilots' meeting.

Did it increase the ease and enjoyment of competition flying? Certainly it's easier to get around the course now and I think most would agree it's less frustrating.

Did it increase the cost and technical complexity of the sport? Arguably yes; early adopters spent thousands of dollars to make the transition from cheaper handheld commercial GPS units (which themselves were startlingly expensive compared with today's consumer-grade prices) to soaring-specific loggers. It's worth remembering that the technology race had already begun, however, with vario/flight director systems that imputed the wind from pilot-updated position locations and remote compass sensors.

Finally, did it change who wins contests? Probably not, although certain more navigationally challenged pilots benefited disproportionately.

I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.

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

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 09:56:06 UTC-6, wrote:
I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If tactical use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it -

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. EXACTLY!

The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring competition.

We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.

Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest levels? Unquestionably yes; navigation ceased to be a relevant skill and excellence at reading/guessing the weather for AAT and MAT tasks came to the fore.

Did it change the nature of competition? Yes, even to the extent of changing the starting/finishing process; opening up the types of tasks we fly--a plus; and for the first time allowing--through the use of SeeYou--each pilot to study in exquisite detail exactly how he/she and every other pilot flew each day's tasks. It's amusing to think back now to a time when the only clues we often had about how someone smoked the field were the few carefully chosen (and sometimes obfuscating) comments he/she made in the next morning's pilots' meeting.

Did it increase the ease and enjoyment of competition flying? Certainly it's easier to get around the course now and I think most would agree it's less frustrating.

Did it increase the cost and technical complexity of the sport? Arguably yes; early adopters spent thousands of dollars to make the transition from cheaper handheld commercial GPS units (which themselves were startlingly expensive compared with today's consumer-grade prices) to soaring-specific loggers. It's worth remembering that the technology race had already begun, however, with vario/flight director systems that imputed the wind from pilot-updated position locations and remote compass sensors.

Finally, did it change who wins contests? Probably not, although certain more navigationally challenged pilots benefited disproportionately.

I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.

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


Chip you state 'I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).'

I agree that the Rules Committee has a tough time here but they *MUST* lead the way provide specific guidance for organizers regarding stealth mode. IMO there is no way an organizer should be forced to make this decision, just look at the varied opinions here. I see where PF mandatory is an easy decision, stealth mode decision is till an unknown.

Ron Gleason

FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition Mode), there will still be leeches. They will just have to leech more tightly (visually). I am still completely unconvinced that a pilot can take advantage of a supposed strong thermal (or gaggle) identified solely by FLARM and outside of visual range. I would love to see some SEEYOU evidence of that (I would be impressed with even ONE example). So far, astonishingly after the dramatic statements up and down this thread, I have seen nothing in terms of a replay example. I honestly do not believe that one can leech effectively outside of visual range. This is simply overhyped.

This debate really comes down to people who don't like/want change and people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation) into the mix. I don't mind Flarm or competitors seeing me on their screen. Its fun to see how other pilots are doing around me to be honest or to notice them being there when I probably would have missed them visually. This experience is much like Condor (highly competitive) with the visual range setting.. We turn it off in the big races (see FLARM v10.0 with perfect information), but leave it on for the easier going nightly events (last I checked). This definitely is to help beginners stay in touch and it is just fun to see how the race is progressing in real time (racing) rather than being alone and "sneaking around" all day only to see what happens in the evening (after calculating scoring for AAT, HAT's...you know the drill).

My ONLY problem with FLARM is that an arms race will (has) develop(ed) with special antennas, amplifiers, tin foil hats (antenna covers), etc. The game will be to gain an unfair advantage with the "tool." As with all games, there will be prodigies at this new variable (skill). No other technology really allows that large of a variance in the usability of the information.. A GPS logger works or it does not. Varios are, for the most part, all the same. There is really not much difference between a smart phone with XC Soar (free) and an LX 9000 ($5000). I am still unconvinced that the information FLARM provides is highly actionable but you CAN modify level of value to you to your competitors. This is unique.

With FLARM, I have done some research and there are some clear methods to stacking the deck in ones favor. in other words, CHEATING! That is a big red flag. If necessary, I would simply have to master these "techniques." No big deal, but unfortunate to people who don't want to manage another variable. For these reasons, I am supporting Stealth Competition Mode. But, if assurances could be made that the potential of each Flarm was the same (impossible), I would be fine with leaving it alone and accepting the new technology.

In general, I think it is dangerous to let the RC ban or limit anything more than they already have.......BUT...this one makes good sense for the 3-4 years before ADSB. Then it will be weapons free again and we will not be able to "ban" it.

This is a another very difficult decision for the RC. I will vote for COMPETITION MODE.

Sean



On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If tactical use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it -

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. EXACTLY!

The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring competition.

We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.

Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest levels? Unquestionably yes; navigation ceased to be a relevant skill and excellence at reading/guessing the weather for AAT and MAT tasks came to the fore.

Did it change the nature of competition? Yes, even to the extent of changing the starting/finishing process; opening up the types of tasks we fly--a plus; and for the first time allowing--through the use of SeeYou--each pilot to study in exquisite detail exactly how he/she and every other pilot flew each day's tasks. It's amusing to think back now to a time when the only clues we often had about how someone smoked the field were the few carefully chosen (and sometimes obfuscating) comments he/she made in the next morning's pilots' meeting.

Did it increase the ease and enjoyment of competition flying? Certainly it's easier to get around the course now and I think most would agree it's less frustrating.

Did it increase the cost and technical complexity of the sport? Arguably yes; early adopters spent thousands of dollars to make the transition from cheaper handheld commercial GPS units (which themselves were startlingly expensive compared with today's consumer-grade prices) to soaring-specific loggers. It's worth remembering that the technology race had already begun, however, with vario/flight director systems that imputed the wind from pilot-updated position locations and remote compass sensors.

Finally, did it change who wins contests? Probably not, although certain more navigationally challenged pilots benefited disproportionately.

I hope the Rules Committee will display their usual wisdom in guiding us to resolve the FLARM "stealth" question at their Fall meeting (or, alternatively, to continue leaving it up to each contest's organizers).

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.

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

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 8:56:06 AM UTC-7, wrote:

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.

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

I have been away from soaring for almost 13 years, just started soaring again this last March. I was pleasantly surprised how the instrumentation has changed, including PF and unpleasantly surprised that two of my favorite places to fly were shut down and now where I do fly from only a hand full of pilots fly on any given weekend instead of the 20 plus. Just a thought but Chip has an important point, making it easier to to compete. I know there is another thread on this matter, but the cream always raises to the top, stealth mode or not, GPS or not. Maybe the rules committee should consider in the rules process anything that induces more pilots to fly competitions and thus fly with great pilots, learning from them. This way we feed and seed our sport.

I wonder when do we hit critical mass on the downside, where glider ports cannot make enough to stay in business, contests only have a few pilots and manufacturers move on to making other things.