RC madness

At 05:01 21 December 2015, wrote:

SNIP
2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK,
it may,but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is
that it's a very small amount but who really knows?

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

If you have read my other posts on other threads you will realise
that it is by no means a "small" amount but that is not the main
issue.

As part of my enquiry into a mandate stealth mode for competitions
in the UK I communicated with Dr Urban Mäder. Below is what I
learned

"I have been in touch with Dr Urban Mäder, CTO at Flarm. He has
informed me that if Stealth mode is set on any Flarm unit there is a
degredation of the data which that unit transmits to all other FLARM
units. Specifically:

1. The range at which the Stealth mode set unit is detected is
significantly reduced
2. Important information useful for situational awareness is not
transmitted by a unit in Stealth Mode
3. If a Flarm unit is set to stealth mode it effects all other FLARM
units irrespective of their setting."

This is from FLARM itself, and they should know just how much.
They very sensibly DO NOT recommended the use of stealth mode.

You might say why should I care if competition pilots in the USA
bang into each other? I do care but that is not the issue. Setting
stealth mode effects all other units, whether they are set to stealth
mode or not. Competition pilots do not operate in protected
airspace, they share it with all sorts of other users in GA and the
military, who may use FLARM and who may not be aware that their
situational awareness is reduced. They expect the service they get
from FLARM to be normal.
Can you really justify degrading the safety for pilots who may not
have any involvement or knowledge of gliding competition rules, for
any reason, or by any amount? I would be very surprised if you
could.
We cannot uninvent FLARM, we are stuck with what it is. The only
logical move is to accept that it will provide information that it was
not intended to. If everyone has FLARM it is still a level playing field,
the only people who miss out are those who do not.

Note: In the UK GA and the Royal Air Force are fitting FLARM to their
aircraft for the specific purpose of avoiding gliders. I accept that
our airspace may be more "crowded"

Other significant info snipped...

We cannot uninvent FLARM, we are stuck with what it is. The only
logical move is to accept that it will provide information that it was
not intended to. If everyone has FLARM it is still a level playing field,
the only people who miss out are those who do not.

Recognizing that (arguably) *every* (not merely U.S./contest/etc.) glider
pilot is (potentially) affected by the appearance of (P-)FLARM on the stage
(e.g. by the presence of choice, peer pressure, contest rules,
potential/actual legal fallout, etc.), factual anality compels me to take
issue with the statement "...the only people who miss out are those who do not
[have FLARM]." Consider...

Let's say I choose to go the no-FLARM route. Where do I get my legally binding
affidavit protecting me from outside human pressure, said pressure
fundamentally based on the implied additional risk my choice "forces" on the
FLARM-carrying crowd.

I have little doubt that some lawyer, somewhere (probably in the U.S., sad to
non-cynically admit), will eventually - after some sort of crunch - argue in
court that some unfortunate glider pilot's failure to have/use a FLARM unit
constituted (willful negligence, assault, etc.). (I also hope this sort of
sweeping, overreaching rationale will quickly be swept into the dustbin of
legal trash reserved for "laughable nuisance suits," just in case anyone wonders.)

Human nature - boy it can be messy to have to deal with.

For the record, in my ideal world, use (or not) of FLARM would be simply
another life-risk-choice we get/have to make without the specter of
doomsayers/lawyers trying to ram it down our throats, just as (for one
example) motorcycle helmets. Life itself is a risk, and attempts to try and
force it to be otherwise are - at minimum - wishful thinking.

Bob W.

P.S. Merry Christmas (to all who choose to participate!)

Strong arguement that more time is required to study this question...........

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:37:32 AM UTC-5, Bob Whelan wrote:
Other significant info snipped...

We cannot uninvent FLARM, we are stuck with what it is. The only
logical move is to accept that it will provide information that it was
not intended to. If everyone has FLARM it is still a level playing field,
the only people who miss out are those who do not.

Recognizing that (arguably) *every* (not merely U.S./contest/etc.) glider
pilot is (potentially) affected by the appearance of (P-)FLARM on the stage
(e.g. by the presence of choice, peer pressure, contest rules,
potential/actual legal fallout, etc.), factual anality compels me to take
issue with the statement "...the only people who miss out are those who do not
[have FLARM]." Consider...

Let's say I choose to go the no-FLARM route. Where do I get my legally binding
affidavit protecting me from outside human pressure, said pressure
fundamentally based on the implied additional risk my choice "forces" on the
FLARM-carrying crowd.

I have little doubt that some lawyer, somewhere (probably in the U.S., sad to
non-cynically admit), will eventually - after some sort of crunch - argue in
court that some unfortunate glider pilot's failure to have/use a FLARM unit
constituted (willful negligence, assault, etc.). (I also hope this sort of
sweeping, overreaching rationale will quickly be swept into the dustbin of
legal trash reserved for "laughable nuisance suits," just in case anyone wonders.)

Human nature - boy it can be messy to have to deal with.

For the record, in my ideal world, use (or not) of FLARM would be simply
another life-risk-choice we get/have to make without the specter of
doomsayers/lawyers trying to ram it down our throats, just as (for one
example) motorcycle helmets. Life itself is a risk, and attempts to try and
force it to be otherwise are - at minimum - wishful thinking.

Bob W.

P.S. Merry Christmas (to all who choose to participate!)

snic, snic, snic I love good sarcasm.

Are race car drivers who draft the leader leeching? How about the
sailing captain who maneuvers into the "good air" of his opponent
essentially stalling his "engine"? Aren't they simply making use of
tactics available to them? Are the the above two examples against the
rules of their respective sports? Should they be? Do their
participants whine so much about it?

Does knowing where the current soaring super star is and knowing his
height and rate of climb give you some advantage over him? If you think
that knowing his state vector will give you an advantage I've got a
bridge to sell you.

On 12/20/2015 10:01 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 2:45:37 PM UTC-5, John Carlyle wrote:
SNIP
I think we need to discuss these proposed rules much, much more before they are presented to the SSA BoD!
Yeah, that's what we need. More discussion.

That said, I offer a few thoughts:

1. There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it. Others have reported on it in this forum and many of us can confirm it. The REAL question is whether this is antithetical to the objectives of U.S. competitive events. Elderly pilots such as myself who have to be helped into our gliders from our walkers and who couldn't conjure up a weather forecast on our flip phones if our Social Security checks depended on it agree it is. Technophiles who babble on about how unenlightened it is to oppose change--and who are unapologetic about the $4,000 they dropped on their 3D televisions last year when they slavishly embraced THAT stillborn change--give a cautious nod (barely) to soaring over fiddling with their Playstations/Xboxes but would like to see all "platforms" reflect their belief that whomever masters the latest technology should win. The rest are somewhere in the middle.

2. The other question is whether Stealth mode reduces safety. OK, it may, but the real question is by how much? My own opinion is that it's a very small amount but who really knows? More worrisome are recent comments that raise questions about whether some pilots are already relying too heavily on graphically displayed FLARM data to maintain situational awareness at the cost of looking out the window. Regardless, anyone who truly opposes mandatory Stealth for safety reasons should also be just as vocal in opposing ANY use of Stealth by ANY pilot. Additionally, they should be campaigning loudly for mandatory FLARM at all contests and perhaps even across the U.S. glider fleet at large, followed closely by mandatory ADS-B out. Not that open FLARM insures against midair collisions; I've read at least one reference on this forum that a midair involving FLARM-equipped aircraft has already occurred.

3. Lastly, those who are truly committed to staying at the leading edge of technology and maximizing safety no matter the cost should be lobbying vociferously for mandatory FES gliders, 1,500' AGL "hard decks", and a no-landout policy for all competitive events. After all, we have the technology to eliminate off-airport landings, still one of the greatest risks of cross-country soaring. Who cares what that would cost? Quit yammering about the liability associated with mandated Stealth and imagine how a jury would react to learning that contest organizers tasked an entire field of pilots of varying abilities with flying 300 miles over populated areas WITHOUT AN ENGINE!!!! Horrors! How irresponsible is that!!!

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

--
Dan, 5J

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:41:33 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
snic, snic, snic I love good sarcasm.



Are race car drivers who draft the leader leeching?* How about the
sailing captain who maneuvers into the "good air" of his opponent
essentially stalling his "engine"?* Aren't they simply making use of
tactics available to them?* Are the the above two examples against
the rules of their respective sports?* Should they be?* Do their
participants whine so much about it?


No. No. Yes. No. No. Some do.




Does knowing where the current soaring super star is and knowing his
height and rate of climb give you some advantage over him?* If you
think that knowing his state vector will give you an advantage I've
got a bridge to sell you.

Dan, with all due respect, I note that you haven't shown up in a single SSA Sanctioned race (unless your profile on the SSA Website is wrong, in which case I'll apologize for the assumption). So, maybe you haven't had to make some of these decisions in a contest setting.

The short answer is: Flarm information matters. A lot. Not always in the way you are implying. As stated ad-nauseum, races are frequently won/lost at the start. Knowing where everyone is, how high, etc. gives a huge insight as to what is happening and what's about to happen as the gate opens. There are many days in East Coast contests where you can't see guys who are a couple of clouds away. In the start gate. Missing the "hot gaggle" can be the end of your day... before the task even starts.

More importantly, knowing which way the "good guys" are heading 6 miles ahead is hugely valuable. I'm coming to the end of this street. Is the gaggle jogging left to the "obvious" street (at least obvious to me) or is it going right? Stop viewing it as a thermal finder and start thinking of it as tactical situation indicator.

It's interesting though - I'm also seeing some level of divergence of opinion between East Coast and West Coast pilots. Maybe the on-course options out West are so "obvious" or defined (e.g. running the Whites or Sierras - nobody's gonna charge out into the Owens Valley) that Flarm info is less valuable. And obviously, with much higher closing speeds up at high altitude, one can see where any perceived degredation of warning time would raise eyebrows.

Again, to my knowledge, nobody is yet flying with a PowerFlarm setup with dedicated tactical information screens optimized for competition support. If they are, it would be very interesting to see the UI for those systems.

P3

To reply directly, Eric, I have only flown in 3 contests and those were
in the 80s and 90s. I did not find the rules and regimentation to my
liking and so I stopped. I simply find it ludicrous that people
actually believe that knowing where the champ is, will give them some
advantage. Maybe it will, I'll bet it won't mean too much, and you
certainly won't overtake and pass him. My experience has been that you
can't often benefit much from a thermal that is "over there" as much as
you can with one "right here".

I will bow out now.

On 12/21/2015 11:28 AM, Papa3 wrote:
On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 11:41:33 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
snic, snic, snic I love good sarcasm.



Are race car drivers who draft the leader leeching? How about the
sailing captain who maneuvers into the "good air" of his opponent
essentially stalling his "engine"? Aren't they simply making use of
tactics available to them? Are the the above two examples against
the rules of their respective sports? Should they be? Do their
participants whine so much about it?

No. No. Yes. No. No. Some do.




Does knowing where the current soaring super star is and knowing his
height and rate of climb give you some advantage over him? If you
think that knowing his state vector will give you an advantage I've
got a bridge to sell you.
Dan, with all due respect, I note that you haven't shown up in a single SSA Sanctioned race (unless your profile on the SSA Website is wrong, in which case I'll apologize for the assumption). So, maybe you haven't had to make some of these decisions in a contest setting.

The short answer is: Flarm information matters. A lot. Not always in the way you are implying. As stated ad-nauseum, races are frequently won/lost at the start. Knowing where everyone is, how high, etc. gives a huge insight as to what is happening and what's about to happen as the gate opens. There are many days in East Coast contests where you can't see guys who are a couple of clouds away. In the start gate. Missing the "hot gaggle" can be the end of your day... before the task even starts.

More importantly, knowing which way the "good guys" are heading 6 miles ahead is hugely valuable. I'm coming to the end of this street. Is the gaggle jogging left to the "obvious" street (at least obvious to me) or is it going right? Stop viewing it as a thermal finder and start thinking of it as tactical situation indicator.

It's interesting though - I'm also seeing some level of divergence of opinion between East Coast and West Coast pilots. Maybe the on-course options out West are so "obvious" or defined (e.g. running the Whites or Sierras - nobody's gonna charge out into the Owens Valley) that Flarm info is less valuable. And obviously, with much higher closing speeds up at high altitude, one can see where any perceived degredation of warning time would raise eyebrows.

Again, to my knowledge, nobody is yet flying with a PowerFlarm setup with dedicated tactical information screens optimized for competition support. If they are, it would be very interesting to see the UI for those systems.

P3

--
Dan, 5J

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 9:01:20 PM UTC-8, wrote:

SNIP
1. There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it. Others have reported on it in this forum and many of us can confirm it.

There is no real dispute that open FLARM allows following gliders at a greater and greater distance. Whether that is a tactical advantage leading to faster times is the argument. We have heard from those who claim to have seen others following still others. The GPS traces are public record, yet no one has been able to show a case of advantage due to FLARM leeching. If it were the huge problem we are led to believe, examples would abound. Proponents of stealth need to make their case with evidence, not anecdotes and feelings. Here is a first person report: I have tried very hard to use FLARM to leech. I have the very best tools to do it. I have tried to leech from national champions and regional champions and just friends who were faster. At least in western desert conditions it does not work. You will not fly faster because of it. And Nephi is in the western desert.

In most any form racing, following a competitor at a greater and greater distance is not a path to the podium.

" ...There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching. Stop arguing about it.... "

There have been many posters arguing the above in one form or another. While not intending to offend ANYONE, nor intending to quote any particular individual... the above type of argument is akin to a woman arguing that her intuition should be accepted as fact in an argument! )

It is just as possible to argue that leeching BVR is a losing proposition, stop arguing about it... Andy is a smart guy who has taken the time to actually look at traces and has the skills to do an analysis.

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 8:25:58 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
" ...There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows greater leeching.. Stop arguing about it.... "

There have been many posters arguing the above in one form or another. While not intending to offend ANYONE, nor intending to quote any particular individual... the above type of argument is akin to a woman arguing that her intuition should be accepted as fact in an argument! )

It is just as possible to argue that leeching BVR is a losing proposition, stop arguing about it... Andy is a smart guy who has taken the time to actually look at traces and has the skills to do an analysis.


One more time, Jonathan: FLARM facilitates leeching. I believe Andy is not disputing that; he's just saying that it doesn't pay off as a contest tactic. That's different than denying that being able to see gliders around you farther than the naked eye makes it easier to find and follow them.

I don't think gender has anything to do with understanding the difference between these two points but I do find myself empathizing a lot more with women who know they're right and who must deal with men who don't listen very well. Learning that you have a law degree explains a lot.

I don't think Andy has "proven" anything with his analysis but it's intriguing not just because he's a smart guy with an analytical bent and his own drone (note to CD: make sure that's locked up at Nephi), but because I confess I improved my performance in the two contests I flew with FLARM on several occasions, both with and without Stealth. Opponents may dismiss this as just more opinions or apocryphal stories, as they have others who have reported the same thing. Call me a liar. I didn't win those contests but I did get some help at critical times, help I wouldn't have gotten without FLARM.

At this point, no one is going to prove anything conclusive. Even those of us who were allegedly traumatized by leeches 30 years ago admit it's unlikely that anyone will win the nationals again with that tactic.

Andy, I noted your carefully parsed words about newer pilots. That they believe Stealth prevents them from tagging along with the big boys doesn't necessarily mean they could stay with them even with open FLARM. But you make a good point, with which I agree. It's been a time-honored technique to follow better pilots for a while to learn from them. But if Stealth hinders this, I'm completely in accord with open FLARM at regional contests, which is where newer pilots have traditionally come up to speed. I still think philosophically that it makes sense for our national contests to try to limit technology and techniques that detract from the individualism that's always been fundamental to soaring in this country. Yes, leeching isn't illegal and it's always been there to some extent. Open FLARM just makes it easier and that's why I--as a midpack pilot most likely to be displaced by leeches--support limiting its effects in a manner consistent with safety.

It's interesting that Stealth is being portrayed as the RC hurtling at light speed into the unknown. That might have been a better argument a year ago.. Maybe the scariest thing to FLARMistas is that Stealth has already been tried and found to work well. As several have observed profoundly: it's tough to fight change.

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

At 06:35 22 December 2015, wrote:
On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 8:25:58 PM UTC-5, Jonathan
St. Cloud wrote:
" ...There can be no real dispute that open FLARM allows
greater
leeching=
.. Stop arguing about it.... "
=20
There have been many posters arguing the above in one form or
another.
W=
hile not intending to offend ANYONE, nor intending to quote any
particular
=
individual... the above type of argument is akin to a woman
arguing that
he=
r intuition should be accepted as fact in an argument! )
=20
It is just as possible to argue that leeching BVR is a losing
proposition=
, stop arguing about it... Andy is a smart guy who has taken the
time to
a=
ctually look at traces and has the skills to do an analysis.


One more time, Jonathan: FLARM facilitates leeching. I believe
Andy is not
=
disputing that; he's just saying that it doesn't pay off as a contest
tacti=
c. That's different than denying that being able to see gliders
around you
=
farther than the naked eye makes it easier to find and follow them.


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

So what. In virtually every other kind of racing, following your
opponent and mugging him on the last lap is the norm. Happens
especially in athletics, cycling and motor cycle racing.
If you want to look at unfair consider the competitor who can afford
to buy the latest 55-1 water wasting glider and competes against
people who do not have that sort of cash to throw around.
Tactics and strategy are part of racing, if so called leeching is a
problem, deal with it. You do not hear other racers whining about it
all the time.