Is FLARM helpful?

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

Hey Sean,

Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.

The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.

I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.

9B

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

Hey Sean,

Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.

The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.

I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.

9B

The mention of normal flight (I read this as non-contest flight) is included in the description of the values 0 and 1 in the table. Somewhat obtuse I know, but that is where it is.

I think many in the IGC and the BGA seriously value the use of this competition or stealth mode and think it is a good thing to do. These are more than just "people". These are highly competent and involved racing pilots who are looking after the future of our sport.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:42:02 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

Hey Sean,

Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.

The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.

I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.

9B

The mention of normal flight (I read this as non-contest flight) is included in the description of the values 0 and 1 in the table. Somewhat obtuse I know, but that is where it is.

I think many in the IGC and the BGA seriously value the use of this competition or stealth mode and think it is a good thing to do. These are more than just "people". These are highly competent and involved racing pilots who are looking after the future of our sport.

XC

In Europe ADS-B out installation is much cheaper than in the US as the GPS source does not need to meet the same standards as in US. How are these "more than just "people"" going to deal with that, outlaw ADS-B in contests?
What about here?

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:57:17 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:42:02 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it.. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

Hey Sean,

Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.

The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.

I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.

9B

The mention of normal flight (I read this as non-contest flight) is included in the description of the values 0 and 1 in the table. Somewhat obtuse I know, but that is where it is.

I think many in the IGC and the BGA seriously value the use of this competition or stealth mode and think it is a good thing to do. These are more than just "people". These are highly competent and involved racing pilots who are looking after the future of our sport.

XC

In Europe ADS-B out installation is much cheaper than in the US as the GPS source does not need to meet the same standards as in US. How are these "more than just "people"" going to deal with that, outlaw ADS-B in contests?
What about here?

The assumption here is that ADS-B will be mandatory for gliders. It is not included to be mandatory at this time. I am not 100% sure of this but someone out there will clarify I'm sure.

Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.

XC

Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.

XC

The idea that seeing gliders a few kilometers away via flarm destroys the "integrity of our sport" seems a little far-fetched. Certainly it is not an idea universally held.

The echo of how GPS would do the same thing is hard to ignore. Heck, apparently when Kronfeld put in the first variometer, there was complaining that pilots would lose their seat of the pants skills and they'd all fly around staring at the little pellets all day long.

John Cochrane BB

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:01:51 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.

XC

The idea that seeing gliders a few kilometers away via flarm destroys the "integrity of our sport" seems a little far-fetched. Certainly it is not an idea universally held.

The echo of how GPS would do the same thing is hard to ignore. Heck, apparently when Kronfeld put in the first variometer, there was complaining that pilots would lose their seat of the pants skills and they'd all fly around staring at the little pellets all day long.

John Cochrane BB

It seems that we have a solution to a technology problem with no objective evidence of its actual existence, being addressed against the manufacturer's recommendations, supported by far less than a majority of the pilots using it, which is likely to be obsolete in less than 5 years. Did I miss anything?

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 10:19:12 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:

Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals?

Infeasible on open system. Get ready for a lot more data in the cockpit.

I'm not cheering, just observing. My advice to the RC: deal with the inevitable. Anything you can do on a phone is in the competition cockpit right now whether you want it or not. That includes ADS-B in, weather, private communication, tracking, AHRS. The chief limitation now is communication with the rest of the world. That's only going to become more reliable, ubiquitous, inexpensive.

Mandating stealth mode for comps may be feasible and enforceable and even have some tactical impact for this year and next. In five years time it will be as pointless as trying to ban GPS.

best,

Evan Ludeman / T8