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

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