Confessions of a Flarm Follower

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:56:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Your statement "Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover" is a pretty bad accusation directed towards people who brought Flarm to the USA.

Another of your comment "Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm"

Your above comment is simply ridiculous and offending to many people. You might consider rethinking before you post next time.

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:22:30 PM UTC-6, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 8:56:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Your statement "Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover" is a pretty bad accusation directed towards people who brought Flarm to the USA.

Another of your comment "Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm"

Your above comment is simply ridiculous and offending to many people. You might consider rethinking before you post next time.

Sorry if I offended you Andrzej, I apologize for not making it clear that I was not referring to the developers or the vendors of Flarm. My post was directed only towards those pilots who have vigorously pushed Flarm under the somewhat transparent guise of "safety" when what they really care about is tactical advantage. Those who protest vehemently against stealth mode on the basis of reduced safety, give away their true agenda when they refuse to at least acknowledge that tactical use of Flarm raises the potential for degradation of safety. Do we know that the current stealth mode, or a future "competition" mode will reduce safety more than increased head-down time or intentional suppression of antennas, or..?

I am not against Flarm. I have flown with Flarm in contests for it's stated purpose as a collision avoidance tool and found it useful.

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 6:44:35 PM UTC-8, wrote:
SNIP when what they really care about is tactical advantage.
Perhaps you can explain to me how it is a tactical advantage to have exactly the same information as everyone else?

Sure, if you refuse to use it then you put yourself at a tactical disadvantage. The same can be said about your variometer, GPS, and altimeter. There is no tactical advantage to Flarm if all contestants have them.

In fact the same arguments used against Flarm (replaces pilot skill with technology) is at least as true of every other instrument in the panel. It is becoming increasingly clear that the detractors of Flarm are simply technophobes. If they believed what they said, they would also be advocating the banning of variometers, altimeters, GPS, compasses, laminar flow airfoils, etc. What are these after all, but attempts to apply technology to gain an advantage, and far more effective ones than Flarm? The really good pilots can fly without them.

To be clear, I like my variometer, GPS, altimeter, and compass because I am at an advantage compared to not having them. To a lesser extent, I like my Flarm for the same reason.

In fact the same arguments used against Flarm (replaces pilot skill with technology) is at least as true of every other instrument in the panel. It is becoming increasingly clear that the detractors of Flarm are simply technophobes. If they believed what they said, they would also be advocating the banning of variometers, altimeters, GPS, compasses, laminar flow airfoils, etc. What are these after all, but attempts to apply technology to gain an advantage, and far more effective ones than Flarm? The really good pilots can fly without them.

you have one part of it wrong. no one is "afraid" of flarm. i wouldn't call detractors of flarm technophobes at all. most of those dudes (and ladies) have installed a TV screen front and center in their panel. i think labeling them as technophobes is a dismissive negative generalization that is viewed as hard to contest. well i'm contesting it. "oh... they're just technophobes, tsk tsk that won't do."

i don't agree with that at all. the truth is that they place a high value on the skill associated with keeping visual tabs on competitors, and that they also see that automating that cockpit task as negative.

you can't fault them for their opinion. it's theirs and they are entitled to it. i accept yours, regarding GPS, Vario, et cet. as a valid viewpoint.

the tactical advantage of flarm DOES come when everyone has it. but only when some start dicking with it by putting tin foil hats over the antennae. that's criminal if you ask me.

In fact the same arguments used against Flarm (replaces pilot skill with
technology) is at least as true of every other instrument in the panel.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the detractors of Flarm are simply
technophobes...

I wouldn't call detractors of flarm technophobes at all. Snip... I think
labeling them as technophobes is a dismissive negative generalization that
is viewed as hard to contest. well i'm contesting it. "oh... they're just
technophobes, tsk tsk that won't do."

I don't agree with that at all. the truth is that they place a high value
on the skill associated with keeping visual tabs on competitors, and that
they also see that automating that cockpit task as negative.

you can't fault them for their opinion. it's theirs and they are entitled
to it. i accept yours, regarding GPS, Vario, et cet. as a valid viewpoint.

The reply above beat me to the draw...

As someone with no dog in the contest-centric portion of this fight - but with
a genuine interest in listening to others' thoughts on "the whole FLARM
discussion," I 100% agree that the word "technophobe" in the claim, "It is
becoming increasingly clear that the detractors of Flarm are simply
technophobes..." can too easily be taken as a dismissive attempt to stifle
open discussion. I think we can do better.

By personal choice, I XC-soared for ~2 decades sans electrical system and
electric vario, many years of that without even a handheld radio.
Work-concurrently, I also spent some years developing and supporting
production processes for hard disk heads (which "fly" on individual molecules
of air; ever wonder why they're not spec-ed to work at high altitudes?) and
mass production of the ever-miniaturizing hard disk drives most of us use
without giving 'em a second thought...tooling tolerances in the low-singles of
4 non-metric decimal digits. Regardless of my choices of what technology to
use or not to use, a technophobe I am not. I suspect many others feel
generally similarly about their own technology choices.

Bob W.

P.S. I could've simply replied "B.S.!" as a form of shorthand to the
"technophobe" claim, but then shorthand is so easily mis-interpreted. :-)

What an absolutely ridiculous statement. I won't stand by and listen to this passively anymore. It's time to slap this stupidity down.

Powerflarm provides a moderately reliable, 2-3 mile (and a very reliable 1-2 mile) situational awareness "radar" with an advanced collision algorithm which automatically alerts any pilots involved in a potential collision well in advance of any calculated conflict possibility. This alert could come at the beginning of a slight turn or climb or descent by one or both gliders while gliders are at relatively close range. If you are entirely unaware of the other glider when you get the warning (this could suddenly be a critical warning), it's often quite a panic to locate where the threat is, especially when in close proximity. Powerflarm is carefully designed not to beep (annoy) unless there is a potential glider collision "solution." This can mean that gliders can get incredibly close without any alert or warning whatsoever. Say 100 meters side to side, etc. Not a sound is made by the POWERFlarm if both gliders are not, at that moment, tending course towards the other. Parallel courses is not a problem. Suddenly one pulls aggressively towards another and bang. The POWERFlarms alert or warning event alone is simply not sufficient to achieve truly improved safety environment in any glider contest or busy flying area (say a club flight of 2,3,4...). This is the whole point of Powerflarm vs gen 1 Flarm (simple lights O'clock above, level, below). This is also THE EXACT REASON POWERFLARM DOES NOT RECOMMEND STEALTH MODE. Many other dangerous scenarios are possible without simultaneous situational awareness and an occasional scan of the Flarm radar picture (telemetry is useless and needs less in this scan). It's about has anything new appeared nearby and it will be completely lost with stealth or competition mode.

A HUGE part of the "safety equation" POWERFlarm "used to provide" us is a much higher level of basic situational awareness. This fact is IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE US RC STEALTH MANDATE (now called "competition?" mode and currently pure untested vaporware). Flarm is exactly the same debate as ADSB vs traditional ATC flight following with transponders or nothing at all (the SSA argument). Transponders are all but useless in a busy environment. TCAS was a band aid on this vastly flawed system, but even that has failed us miserably (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Über...air_collision). GPS based data linked radar, on the other hand is very powerful improvement for aviation safety. Gliders are not the only aircraft that matter in this discussion of course. Enter ADSB (Flarms technology "big brother"). Bottom line, regardless of statistical arguments claiming we have very few collisions in glider contests, gliders hitting each-other, even once more, is unacceptable in any gliding or general aviation environment, ever again, P E R I O D. Sacrificing safety for philosophical traditionalism is unacceptable. We cannot let our safety guard down, for a second, ever. Yet here we are having this discussion...and facing an RC almost immediate US RC mandate of said POWERFlarm SA lobotomy.

Anyone who has seriously competed with a POWERFlarm (several years experience over 15+ flarm equipped contests, from a few gliders at first to most or all in 2015 contests, or a thermal at a World Championships, etc) would fully understand that a POWERFLARM is PRIMARILY (and by far) a "safety device" which may occasionally help alert its owner (and the potential conflict owner) to a dangerous collision threat which they may have otherwise been entirely unaware of without POWERFlarm. Again, the "warning" itself is very small piece of the total safety value.

A huge part of value this SAFETY DEVICE creates is the natural capability to generally "notice" another glider in the immediate area (2-3 miles, or less) which otherwise would be completely unknown (back to the Stone Age, or with Stealth or Comp mode). This problem happens ALL THE TIME in starting areas for example. It also happens approaching or departing thermals, ridges, etc.

The idea of "killing" the situational awareness value of this obvious and clear SAFETY DEVICE in such a rapid, untested and unnecessary philosophical "technology jihad" has been awe inspiring to behold. The almost childlike comments from the peanut mob are equally amazing. These two campaigns are in direct conflict. Let's be honest. One philosophically says position data and telemetry is unfair (even though all have equal capability, and zero objective evidence of value has been provided) and it must all be struck down and lobotomized entirely, immediately, with angry accusations about pilot cheating motives for purchase (not safety at all) and the other saying that situational awareness is important to the safety environment, tech is OK, there is no real evidence, everyone has the same view, it's not a big deal competitively, calm down, breath, etc. I'm starting to lean back to to stand with this group on general principle.

Without the situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm, we are absolutely and considerably debilitating the basic safety elements of the POWERFlarm system by removing the pilots ability to notice other yet visually undetected gliders around them. A main cause of recent most collisions in the USA (Uvalde, Minden?).

There are absolutely going to be unintended consequences by lobotomizing POWERFlarm situational awareness, depending on the specific and entirely unreleased technical requirements of the "competition mode" that Flarm is supposedly working on for the US rules committee. I wonder who is paying them for this work, this testing? At this point, committing to the promise of its safe function is reckless and hard to imagine.

The 1-2 or 2-3 mile situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm instrument and its basic display is critical to the overall safety process POWERFlarm provides. This is an absolute fact and I will argue as necessary to substantiate it by citing numerous personal videos (never before shown) and corresponding SeeYou examples, etc.

Finally, I find the ridiculous statements in this topic that everyone bought POWERFlarm to track competitors (leech) and not as a safety device to be absolutely unacceptable. The person saying this, is out of order. No apology is sufficient. Such statements are dangerous, reckless and factually pathetic.

The recent "apology" was a joke and hopefully is not accepted.

Sean

Sean,
Happy New Year. Hope your having a beer some place nice.

Doesn't the 5 km radius plus enhancements for head to head described UH's post give us the same SA as the 2-3 miles you are talking about. What is missing is contest ID and climb rate. It seems to me these are not needed for collision avoidance.
p
Also, Reading the Flarm spec it specifically calls for manufacturers of display devices to NOT draw the eyes of the pilot back into the cockpit. This business of using contest Id's to coordinate evasive action seems unwise. Better to use the right of way rules to take smooth course correction in a timely manner, always looking for that second and third aircraft.

The often quoted manufacturers recommendation to not enable stealth is taken out of context. They are cautioning that leaving the Flarm in stealth when not at a contest will, of course, limit what is displayed on your Flarm and others. This designed feature is for use at contests not general flying.

XC

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:16:08 PM UTC-8, wrote:

The often quoted manufacturers recommendation to not enable stealth is taken out of context. They are cautioning that leaving the Flarm in stealth when not at a contest will, of course, limit what is displayed on your Flarm and others. This designed feature is for use at contests not general flying.


Hey Sean,

I've read the spec over and over. I've read other Flarm-produced documentation and I've spoken at one point or another to most of the Flarm leadership team, including spending a day with Urs in his California office. Without putting specific words in anyone's mouth it was made pretty clear to me that the recommendation against using Stealth specifically includes contest use. They have said (in writing) that the only reason to use it (and implied that the only reason it was developed) was to forestall people turning their units off altogether. You can speculate that this was due to liability concerns, but no one ever said that to me and the way people talked about it just reinforced the sense that the main consideration is that they thought using it was a bad idea on technical grounds - second only to not using Flarm at all.

We can talk about the (small) probabilities of glider midairs and merits of a bit less situational awareness against the (still to be described in a quantifiable way) reduction in "tactical use", but it really is a line drawing exercise that makes many of us pretty uncomfortable - since the costs are some small increment in a horrific outcome versus a benefit that can't be adequately described, let alone quantified or demonstrated as to how it decreases the accuracy to which contest scores represent soaring skills.

Take John's confessional and unpack it a bit into the real implications. There are two main tactical use cases he describes:

Use Case 1: Knowing where other gliders are and to some extent how they are progressing - a different line, a different thermal, etc. Knowing where a handful of other pilots are some of the time - maybe where they made their turn in the cylinder - give you a sense of whether you are gaining or losing. In other words, it give you a sensation that you are racing - which a lot of pilots seem to enjoy. You have tactical information that you are, for instance, losing ground to another glider - instead of waiting until dinner time and the scores to figure this out. At three miles distance it gives you almost no useful information about what to do about it. Three miles laterally is a hard gap to close on a leg - you just give up too much to make a sharp deviation and if you do it with a gradual course change it's equally pointless as whatever is happening differently will likely be totally changed 10 miles or more down the course line. As prior data analysis - and experience - has demonstrated, following someone from 3 miles behind is generally a recipe for getting 4 miles behind unless you find your own, better thermals - that is, fly you own flight.

Use Case 2: Having some confidence under marginal conditions when there are other gliders about that you will have a decent shot at finding a thermal if there is one to be had. This reduces the chances that you will miss the saving climb that prevents a landout (or being stuck for a long time) when climbs (and particularly good climbs) are few and far between. From looking at the names on the list of landouts on days like this, it seems that there is more luck than skill involved, but it is possible that there is some skill, some local knowledge and some risk tolerance involved (e.g. willingness to drive down to 300', fly over unlandable terrain, into tight canyons, etc). Are these the types of soaring skills we want to value? Is having more landouts a desirable way to ensure these skills are tested? Does it really make the sport more attractive to new pilots to know we specifically want them to not have the information that could have gotten them home on a marginal day or when they are low and desperate? Landouts are the enemy of fair scoring - they scramble the scoresheet and we can't even come to a stable view of how to score miles versus miles per hour. The points we grant for landing out have come up and up over the years specifically because we realize landouts are mostly an indication of bad luck more than lack of skill. We devalue days with lots of landouts (luck factor). We've increased landout scores to the point that slow finishers are starting to complain that they don't get enough points. Why is it a good idea to deny pilots useful tactical information to avoid a landout? In addition to the basic fairness and values issues, it is a question the tort lawyers will be interested to address the next time we have a landout fatality in a contest - all the IGC files will be analyzed to see if there were any climbing gliders in range to avoid the tragedy. The next question will be "who is to blame for deliberately denying the pilot this potentially life-saving information". At that point what actually would have happened in the alternate case won't matter.

I wouldn't describe all opponents of Open Flarm as technophobes - some are (and have admitted to me that they are "not computer people"), other like technology just fine but seem to feel that some skill they have (perhaps risk-tolerance is one) will be diluted with new and better information. But denying people all external information hardly seems like a fundamental principle of glider racing - if it were we would do separate time trials or all MAT format to maximize the separation of gliders so you can't use any visual cues. We would have leeching penalties that are quite easy to calculate with IGC files. We don't, and no one seems to be interested in going down that path.

9B

I am away from my computer and celebrating New Year's Eve. If I take time to give full response my wife is going to kill me. I'll comment on only part of your post.

Your stance on land outs is part of the east v west divide on this issue. The possibility of landing out is part of the drama of the sport. Talk to someone interested in the sport and they soon ask you, "have you ever had to land in a field?" In the west this is viewed as much more a huge deal. In the east it is part of the game. So is taking yourself out of the race by making a rash decision which leads to a landout. In this way, the sport simulates life. People's personalities seep into the pilot decision making. You see it is the characters that make the sport interesting to new people. Otherwise, the race is just about fying around. FLARM potentially masks this and other key elements of sailplane racing making the sport more dull.

I am away from my computer and celebrating New Year's Eve. If I take time to give full response my wife is going to kill me. I'll comment on only part of your post.

Your stance on land outs is part of the east v west divide on this issue. The possibility of landing out is part of the drama of the sport. Talk to someone interested in the sport and they soon ask you, "have you ever had to land in a field?" In the west this is viewed as much more a huge deal. In the east it is part of the game. So is taking yourself out of the race by making a rash decision which leads to a landout. In this way, the sport simulates life. People's personalities seep into the pilot decision making. You see it is the characters that make the sport interesting to new people. Otherwise, the race is just about fying around. FLARM potentially masks this and other key elements of sailplane racing making the sport more dull.