Confessions of a Flarm Follower

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 2:47:38 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
XC(Sean) and all,

I can accept that a philosophical argument against PowerFlarm exists. It comes from the SSA's "anti-technology oligarchy." As usual, many disagree, some very strongly, with their opinions and strategy to reduce the situational awareness benefits of PowerFlarm. Those disagreeing with the competition mode mandate includes prominent members of the RC itself! The anti-technology, "spirit of the sport" argument and views are hypothesis at best, not fact. There is zero objective evidence, only theory and insecurity.

The "peanut gallery" has recently offered absurd accusatory explanations of how most (if not all) US pilots bought PowerFlarm (at incredible expense) as a pure leeching toy and that any safety value PowerFlarm advertised had zero weight in their purchase decision. In my opinion, these statements have taken the anti-technology argument to a new low. The philosophical argument against new technologies in soaring, for me, no longer has any credibility. These statements are out of line, unacceptable and unworthy of further serious consideration. These statements are also childish and reckless. If any member of the RC shares such opinions, they should not be representing me.

We need a straight vote by all US/Candian contest pilots on such decisions moving forward rather than SSA oligarch games. No more interpretation of a subjective poll. A simple, straight vote would leave no doubts. A vote would solve a lot of problems and end many arguments. We would know that vote represented the majority of our pilots wishes and not a crusade rammed thru by an over-empowered and over-dramatic minority.

Back to the real world of PowerFlarm and how it provides us safety. I have found myself (several times) wincing for the impending impact of a critical PowerFlarm warning (I have one embarrassing example on video) when I was entirely unable to ID the threat location. These are moments of sheer panic. In these moments, I have no idea if I am about to be hit from head on, behind, below or the side. I find myself occasionally waiting for these phantom collisions, completely unsure of why my Flarm is aggressively telling me to do something different. I desperately check my peripheral vision for wingtips, looking below the glider, etc. in a hope that I can avoid the worst case scenario. This has happened to me between 5-10 times.

The usefulness of the PowerFlarm system in proximity to other gliders, at current, is far from 100% comprehensive. A big part of the reason "close in" Flarm warnings are useful to us at all is THE ABILITY TO DETECT OTHER SAILPLANES BEFORE THEY GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO CAUSE A WARNING! You are not surprised! We know, at least generally (often very precisely), where the threat is located before the warning. Competition mode (or Stealth before it) removes all or most of this foreshadowing, situational awareness or knowledge. Terrifying, surprise warnings will increase. Even with the full capability of PowerFlarm (normal mode), as I have described above, situational awareness is far from guaranteed. I DO NOT LIKE THESE SURPRISE WARNINGS. I highly doubt anyone else does either. We are not dealing with a perfect system here, handicapping it makes it far less perfect as a safety tool. Is that worth the reward?

Reducing general situational awareness for pilots, in any significant way, or making a miscalculation in thinking thru the new "competition mode" requirements, or how pilots will respond to the new paradigm, or making incorrect assumptions about the range of likely antenna performance, or blind spots of situational awareness that allow more surprise collision warnings, is dangerous and unacceptable. In other words, the narrower the field situational awareness, the more chance there is that two gliders get close without detecting each other. When and if the warning comes, the pilots ability to identify the threat and react to the warning is reduced. That is my first point. This is basic statistics. We are far from having a perfect Flarm system. Monkeying with it could destroy most of the value.

I hear what is being proposed in Competition mode (at a very high level), I just doubt it will work as wonderfully as the fanboys are claiming. It's not a simple change. Are the almost fantasy world claims of not ever needing to think for oneself and winning contests via flarm radar worth the potential consequences? I believe this is going to be an utter disaster initially, just as POWERFlarm was in 2011, 2012. I believe the relatively few who are driving this are completely tunnel visioned and are completely ignoring the intrinsic situational awareness value that PowerFlarm provides. I also believe the new competition mode requirements are impractical and not fully thought out. There needs to be testing before implementation. Just as POWERFlarm had initial growing pains, this massive change to its governing dynamics and human interaction with Flarm will take time for pilots to RE-adjust to. This all assumes that the philosophical argument really justifies the downgrade and that there is significant majority consensus in the USA supporting it...which there is clearly not. Again, we are going competition mode before having the guts to make Flarm mandatory at contests in the first place. That makes me consider selling my Flarm. What's the point? I don't trust half the warnings already. Some are absolute surprises. Now the situational awareness will be chopped off at the neck without any serious study of the "cost/benefit" impacts within a purely philosophical context.

For example, if I visually acquire a glider (or small gaggle) at 3 miles (then cross check on Flarm) and see that they are transmitting a good signal as they approach or parallel, I can trust that they have a reasonably functioning Flarm. If a glider at 3 miles, that I see visually (I'm 20/10 in both eyes) has no corresponding signal on Flarm, I have to ask myself; does he/she not have Flarm or is it just a 1) poor angle or 2) an antenna problem. Regardless, I now have to spend a lot of time tracking them to see how reliable their Flarm signal is and pay more attention to them (or confirm that they are "flarmless"...the worst part of any contest). The guys without Flarm make Flarm nearly useless, in my opinion at a contest. There is no trust in the system because its usage is not 100%. That is just one of many practical examples of reality that nobody mentions. With competition mode, you will not have the ability to assess the function of gliders as they approach my airspace. Surprises will increase; general situation awareness will decrease significantly. The value of Flarm falls to near zero for me.

Next, I do not trust the RC with my safety or to be brilliant enough to consider all of the potential problems that may result from this radical change to Flarm this summer. The Flarm system, as it was before this debate, was FAR from perfect. It is moderately reliable, but that is a database you build as you get to know your competitors and how their Flarm behaves in proximity. The RC refuses to mandate Flarm in contests, but they will rapidly and significantly roll back its situational awareness value for somewhat unsubstantiated reasons that are so factually inconsequential to US contests results it borders on comedy. That is not a trivial thing they are messing with; it's CRITICAL to our collective safety. A dramatic change in situation awareness changes the balance of the whole system (PowerFlarm) that we spent years trying to promote and create. The fact that the RC, despite a strong argument from prominent members of the committee, has still chosen to rush forward with this change has dropped my confidence in their judgement to a new low.

I consider myself to be a glider pilot who cares greatly about contest safety. That is why I made the investment in Flarm way back in 2011 (despite what some have tried to insinuate here). I have owned and used a Flarm since the first day they become available in the USA. I see it as a last line of defence from the unthinkable accidental, fatal collision. It gives us a chance to avoid that collision THAT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY. Perhaps it has already prevented that accident and our RC (and IGC) is being quite complacent because there is no recent story of a fatal contest collision because of the situational awareness the PowerFlarm system has been providing? Hmmm? But the value of that investment in safety is reduced to little when so many refuse to make the same investment in our collective security. I try very hard to be a good citizen (not to scare anyone), give room in thermals, etc. For the most part, this is true of all of our fellow US contest pilots. But I also understand that this sport is inherently dangerous whenever we are in close proximity (5 miles) of numerous other gliders (Flarm or no Flarm) while hitting the same basic hot spots along the way. It's when you are competing at a high level (focusing carefully on clouds, birds, feeling for energy, etc that we are most vulnerable to not noticing a glider (or other aircraft) nearby. Now we will have less of a picture of where those choke points may be by intentionally placing blinders on situational awareness leading in and out of them

This whole conversation has a very real potential to mess with the safety value the system was finally beginning to provide. The manner in which this risk is flippantly dismissed by many shows me that "our leaders" have not fully thought this decision and timeline thru. They are driven mainly by emotion here. I find this very surprising, disturbing and unintelligent.

If someone is beating me because they have a better grasp of Flarm situational awareness (unfounded and unproven) I am willing to accept that if the safety is collectively higher because of it. Just as if someone is beating me at MAT, TAT or HAT task because their fancy flight glide computer does a better job of helping them manage critical decisions. That glide computer advantage is true! Just talk to the salespeople! Yet we don't ban them! Nor do we ban new gliders with perceived higher performance from competing in 15 or 18 meter. In fact, a massive list have gotten in line to enjoy the promise of that 1-3% advantage. Hmmm?

Where does this anti-technology insanity end?

Here is a bold statement. I think some seem to care far more about preventing slight, philosophical (at this point) and potentially imaginary competitive disadvantage (via the ability of some to better adapt to new technology, not unique technology) than improving or maintaining safety. In other words, if it comes down to insecurity or safety, ease my insecurities and screw safety. Ban that Flarm! Don't even test, do it now!!!! Rush, go, turn them damn things off!!! The insecurity and willingness to risk safety and hold ground against a good deal of valid concerns, is a sight to behold..

Happy New Year All!

Sean

Sean,
Happy New Year, too. How the hell did you complete that whole post in the time it took me to walk the dog?

How can you continue to describe the tactical use of FLARM as a philosophical fantom when we were all on the same frequency as you, I, and others marked Jerzy pre-start using FLARM at PAGC? The only reason I didn't go with you guys and follow him down the course line is that my partner was stuck low and I waited for him.

Later in the contest while pair flying neither I or my partner had any more ideas as to what to do as we glided along in smooth air. Luckily his FLARM display (his was better) showed MS climbing at 3 knots outside of visual range. We set sail for the dot on the screen and kept the flight going. No skill involved just antennae and radio waves.

So FLARM is being used as a tactical tool in contests. If folks don't use it as such, they will be at a disadvantage. It can be used to cover bad decision making. FLARM, along with visual tracking, can be used as the primary means some competitors choose to find thermals. It certainly is faster and easier than doing all that work on your own. It is leading us away from measuring a pilots soaring skills.

I bought FLARM to use as an anti-collision device, too. I used it stealth enabled at Harris Hill and found even the current stealth mode to be more than adequate. The audio warnings pointed out gliders all over the place, too many in fact. I could quickly pick them up visually. I could also see all the targets within the immediate area (2km) and their relative altitude which gave me plenty of SA on who was around.

I understand folks want to tweak the current stealth mode into a more practical competition mode that will address the concerns of head to head high speed flight, etc. Fine it shouldn't be that earth shatteringly hard to put in new parameters.

Perhaps you should try flying a competition in stealth or the new competition mode before getting so excited about bashing it. Pause and think back to 3 years ago. Were you spooked out of your wits flying in a contest that people would be running into you? No, you kept your head on a swivel and flew your flight. Now that we have these additional warnings this has all become terribly dangerous and if we don't display all gliders outside of 2 km (now going to 5 km) we are insane and negligent.

As P3 said in the initial post long ago, FLARM+stealth really works well and is an enjoyable way to race gliders.

XC

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:21:09 PM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
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



Now, now Sean, I never said "everyone". I said "hard core Flarm pushers". As I have said previously, I have flown with a Powerflarm in a couple of contests and numerous non-contest flights and find it to be useful. I have also stated in a previous post that I don't care about the whole issue of using Flarm for leeching. However, I stand by my assertion that the majority of those who are opposed to any type of "competition mode" for Flarm, AND who are not willing to discuss the possibility of negative safety effects of tactical use, do not have safety as their PRIMARY interest with regards to Flarm. I did not say they had NO interest in safety.

I'm at a loss to understand how my opinion was "dangerous, reckless...". We hear anecdotally that pilots have admitted to intentionally disabling their Flarm output to deny tactical information to their competitors. I think ignoring or attempting to stifle the discussion of the unintended consequences of unlimited tactical use of Flarm might be dangerous.

As for "factually pathetic", well, that is certainly a possibility. Wouldn't be the first time.

As for my apology to Andrzej, that was no joke. It was quite sincere.

WB

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:11:16 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:21:09 PM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
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



Now, now Sean, I never said "everyone". I said "hard core Flarm pushers". As I have said previously, I have flown with a Powerflarm in a couple of contests and numerous non-contest flights and find it to be useful. I have also stated in a previous post that I don't care about the whole issue of using Flarm for leeching. However, I stand by my assertion that the majority of those who are opposed to any type of "competition mode" for Flarm, AND who are not willing to discuss the possibility of negative safety effects of tactical use, do not have safety as their PRIMARY interest with regards to Flarm. I did not say they had NO interest in safety.

I'm at a loss to understand how my opinion was "dangerous, reckless...". We hear anecdotally that pilots have admitted to intentionally disabling their Flarm output to deny tactical information to their competitors. I think ignoring or attempting to stifle the discussion of the unintended consequences of unlimited tactical use of Flarm might be dangerous.

As for "factually pathetic", well, that is certainly a possibility. Wouldn't be the first time.

As for my apology to Andrzej, that was no joke. It was quite sincere.

WB

You don't need to apologize to me as I had no part in bringing PowerFlarm to US, but you can call me a PowerFlarm pusher anyway since I am advocating its use to the full extend for safety reasons. I also installed ADSB-out in my glider for safety reasons at great expense. If I did not see PowerFlarm improving my safety I would take it out of my glider.

Here is a fact, RC proposed (contrary to Flarm recommendation) compulsory use of Stealth mode without dealing with reduced safety issue. Then when RC finally figured out (thanks to RAS) that Stealth was not such a good idea they renamed it to the Competition mode without proper definition by the vendor of what it would be. This was less than 3 months before the first competition of 2016. Flarm does not have a Competition mode available at this time that RC is talking about.

I am sorry but this decision is a sign of RC incompetence at best. How can you mandate something that is not defined and it does not exist and then hope that maybe it shows up in time for the first contest?

Everyone reasonable can accept changes provided the change is clearly defined and tested to ensure safety is not compromised. Some discussion prior to making such a huge decision would be in order as well. I guess we already had that on RAS.

In the past RC stated that no major change can happen without being properly tested. What happened to that? I guess it was a different group of people back then, a little bit more restrained perhaps.

We don't want RC to become a knee jerk reaction group imposing their will on the rest of the pilots. What happened to a democratic process? The poll does not support this decision.

I have no issue with bringing a change as long as it is done with proper consultation and the technology is there to avoid negative safety impact. That is not the case now. Nothing is ready. It is time to give it up for 2016.

Let's do proper polling for 2017 to truly understand what pilots want and meantime figure out the technology puzzle.

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:23:21 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:


You don't need to apologize to me as I had no part in bringing PowerFlarm to US, but you can call me a PowerFlarm pusher anyway since I am advocating its use to the full extend for safety reasons. I also installed ADSB-out in my glider for safety reasons at great expense. If I did not see PowerFlarm improving my safety I would take it out of my glider.

Here is a fact, RC proposed (contrary to Flarm recommendation) compulsory use of Stealth mode without dealing with reduced safety issue. Then when RC finally figured out (thanks to RAS) that Stealth was not such a good idea they renamed it to the Competition mode without proper definition by the vendor of what it would be. This was less than 3 months before the first competition of 2016. Flarm does not have a Competition mode available at this time that RC is talking about.

I am sorry but this decision is a sign of RC incompetence at best. How can you mandate something that is not defined and it does not exist and then hope that maybe it shows up in time for the first contest?

Everyone reasonable can accept changes provided the change is clearly defined and tested to ensure safety is not compromised. Some discussion prior to making such a huge decision would be in order as well. I guess we already had that on RAS.

In the past RC stated that no major change can happen without being properly tested. What happened to that? I guess it was a different group of people back then, a little bit more restrained perhaps.

We don't want RC to become a knee jerk reaction group imposing their will on the rest of the pilots. What happened to a democratic process? The poll does not support this decision.

I have no issue with bringing a change as long as it is done with proper consultation and the technology is there to avoid negative safety impact. That is not the case now. Nothing is ready. It is time to give it up for 2016.

Let's do proper polling for 2017 to truly understand what pilots want and meantime figure out the technology puzzle.

UH Response:
I have worked quite hard when discussing this topic to be respectful of the views of others and speak in a manner that reflects my experience and opinions while trying to make it clear that they were just that.
I may stray a bit from that philosophy in responding to the message above.
Fact- The allegation that the RC has not considered the safety implications of use of Stealth or a follow on version(Competition)are simply not true. In our discussions 9B made a strong case for these concerns and they have been part of the continuing dialog among our group. The "competition" mode is not our relabeling of Stealth, but in fact is the label being used in discussions by members of the IGC and ourselves with Flarm wherein changes are expected to be made to address concerns that arose out of the implementation of the 2015 version of Stealth tested in the UK. Report that I have read is that version was well accepted by pilots, but that meaningful concerns were identified related to other glider users of Flarm and well as UK military users that have Flarm. As of this time, we do not have clarity as to the details of the coming revision.
Fact- RAS had not one thing to do with our understanding of the factors related to this process, with the exception of the level of passion it would raise from a few.
Fact- It is planned that the RC is to review the best information we have about the next version before proceeding with the rule as currently drafted. We have agreed that if the coming version does not meet the needs of our situation, we will not proceed.
Fact- The RC is on a rules schedule that requires us to complete changes before the winter board meeting. That may seem like a rush, and sometimes it is, but that is the process we live with.
Fact- The RC takes it's obligation to let affected parties know about actions that affect them in a timely manner so that they can plan accordingly.
The allegation of incompetence, with an implication of worse, is nothing less than insulting. The volunteers who work for all of us deserve better than this kind of public treatment.
Fact- This is not a major change and it has been tested at the national level with favorable results, though not without concerns voiced by some.
Fact - This is not a "knee jerk" reaction. Some action of this type has been under discussion literally from the initial introduction of Flarm. The experiences in Europe described in Russell Cheatham's paper reinforced these original concerns and led to consideration of action.
There is a very real likelihood that what will be developed by Flarm will not meet our expectations. I am sure that whatever is done will not satisfy everyone. Please rest assured that the US RC is doing the best we can to act in a responsible manner to address the wide variety of considerations related to this topic. If we do not believe that the next progression of Flarm will be acceptable, we will not proceed.
Respectfully
UH

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 2:53:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:23:21 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:


You don't need to apologize to me as I had no part in bringing PowerFlarm to US, but you can call me a PowerFlarm pusher anyway since I am advocating its use to the full extend for safety reasons. I also installed ADSB-out in my glider for safety reasons at great expense. If I did not see PowerFlarm improving my safety I would take it out of my glider.

Here is a fact, RC proposed (contrary to Flarm recommendation) compulsory use of Stealth mode without dealing with reduced safety issue. Then when RC finally figured out (thanks to RAS) that Stealth was not such a good idea they renamed it to the Competition mode without proper definition by the vendor of what it would be. This was less than 3 months before the first competition of 2016. Flarm does not have a Competition mode available at this time that RC is talking about.

I am sorry but this decision is a sign of RC incompetence at best. How can you mandate something that is not defined and it does not exist and then hope that maybe it shows up in time for the first contest?

Everyone reasonable can accept changes provided the change is clearly defined and tested to ensure safety is not compromised. Some discussion prior to making such a huge decision would be in order as well. I guess we already had that on RAS.

In the past RC stated that no major change can happen without being properly tested. What happened to that? I guess it was a different group of people back then, a little bit more restrained perhaps.

We don't want RC to become a knee jerk reaction group imposing their will on the rest of the pilots. What happened to a democratic process? The poll does not support this decision.

I have no issue with bringing a change as long as it is done with proper consultation and the technology is there to avoid negative safety impact. That is not the case now. Nothing is ready. It is time to give it up for 2016.

Let's do proper polling for 2017 to truly understand what pilots want and meantime figure out the technology puzzle.

UH Response:
I have worked quite hard when discussing this topic to be respectful of the views of others and speak in a manner that reflects my experience and opinions while trying to make it clear that they were just that.
I may stray a bit from that philosophy in responding to the message above..
Fact- The allegation that the RC has not considered the safety implications of use of Stealth or a follow on version(Competition)are simply not true.. In our discussions 9B made a strong case for these concerns and they have been part of the continuing dialog among our group. The "competition" mode is not our relabeling of Stealth, but in fact is the label being used in discussions by members of the IGC and ourselves with Flarm wherein changes are expected to be made to address concerns that arose out of the implementation of the 2015 version of Stealth tested in the UK. Report that I have read is that version was well accepted by pilots, but that meaningful concerns were identified related to other glider users of Flarm and well as UK military users that have Flarm. As of this time, we do not have clarity as to the details of the coming revision.
Fact- RAS had not one thing to do with our understanding of the factors related to this process, with the exception of the level of passion it would raise from a few.
Fact- It is planned that the RC is to review the best information we have about the next version before proceeding with the rule as currently drafted. We have agreed that if the coming version does not meet the needs of our situation, we will not proceed.
Fact- The RC is on a rules schedule that requires us to complete changes before the winter board meeting. That may seem like a rush, and sometimes it is, but that is the process we live with.
Fact- The RC takes it's obligation to let affected parties know about actions that affect them in a timely manner so that they can plan accordingly.
The allegation of incompetence, with an implication of worse, is nothing less than insulting. The volunteers who work for all of us deserve better than this kind of public treatment.
Fact- This is not a major change and it has been tested at the national level with favorable results, though not without concerns voiced by some.
Fact - This is not a "knee jerk" reaction. Some action of this type has been under discussion literally from the initial introduction of Flarm. The experiences in Europe described in Russell Cheatham's paper reinforced these original concerns and led to consideration of action.
There is a very real likelihood that what will be developed by Flarm will not meet our expectations. I am sure that whatever is done will not satisfy everyone. Please rest assured that the US RC is doing the best we can to act in a responsible manner to address the wide variety of considerations related to this topic. If we do not believe that the next progression of Flarm will be acceptable, we will not proceed.
Respectfully
UH

where can russell's paper be found?