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

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.

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 11:56:54 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
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

John,

Upon rereading my post, I see that I came across rather harshly. My apologies to you and anyone else I might have offended with my somewhat enthusiastic reply.

I agree your response to my "leeching" riff wasn't argumentative. I guess I reacted that way after the fact because of your subsequent response to Erik Mann's posting where you misunderstood his position and questioned his motives. He's a close friend and is rather busy with some non-soaring stuff right now so I leaped into the fray because I know what that kind of thing does when it happens to me.

Perhaps a better way would have been for you to inquire what other factors he might have considered rather than to just state boldly that his strong dislike of FLARM (which he doesn't have) was motivated by "something much deeper than pride" (a statement I'm still mulling over, wondering what you had in mind). I think Erik stated his position pretty well so I won't repeat it again.

He and I do share an opinion that isn't universal, and that may be at the root of the confusion. Neither one of us warmly welcomes the arrival of technology that reduces the traditional skills that good soaring pilots have. We're very comfortable with technology--both of us work in that field--but there's something about making one's own decisions (beyond whom to follow for the day) that makes soaring attractive. It also makes it more uncertain and frustrating at times, which is why I suspect not everyone takes the same position.

There's lots of room in soaring for all types of enthusiasts. Where we sometimes encounter friction is in the area of contest rules, which is what we're discussing now. I look forward to meeting you so we can improve on the imperfect level of communication offered by USENET discussion groups.

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

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.