Confessions of a Flarm Follower

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?

where can russell's paper be found?

http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/FlarmStealth