Confessions of a Flarm Follower

Seems to me that increasing Flarm range will bring about an increase in head down time. Perhaps a very large increase, as more and more info is provided. We are increasing the head down workload especially if it turns out to have more tactical value than some claim. I think it's arguable that at some point the incremental benefit to safety is zero or negative. Maybe that point is 2 km.

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:19:46 AM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
Hank, you'll never get away with that! Not only is your post a reprised rebuttal in itself making your comment that no one need reply sorta funny, but your contention that reducing FLARM range is not anti safety is pretty dubious! That's exactly why this is being so hotly debated.

Sorry Andrew, I guess my writing was not clear enough. I was simply stating that I do not see an anti Flarm positions being brought forth. I do see some that want limitations to tactical Flarm radar.
I described my personal ideal view, but did not make and case for how it could or would be done. This is a complex issue that is far from black and white.
Cheers
UH

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:31:09 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:19:46 AM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
Hank, you'll never get away with that! Not only is your post a reprised rebuttal in itself making your comment that no one need reply sorta funny, but your contention that reducing FLARM range is not anti safety is pretty dubious! That's exactly why this is being so hotly debated.

Sorry Andrew, I guess my writing was not clear enough. I was simply stating that I do not see an anti Flarm positions being brought forth. I do see some that want limitations to tactical Flarm radar.
I described my personal ideal view, but did not make and case for how it could or would be done. This is a complex issue that is far from black and white.
Cheers
UH

Yes, this is a complex issue that requires time.

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 11:37:29 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
/snip/

If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).

The client service volume or "hockey puck" for TIS-B and ADS-R services is 15 nm radius and +/- 3,500' around the client aircraft. Still may be plenty entertaining with a few ADS-B Out equipped gliders amongst the contest fleet.

TIS-B relies on the ADS-B ground coverage and SSR coverage so in places won't work at low altitudes.

Yo get TIS-B for transponder equipped aircraft and only those not equipped with ADS-B Out (but obviously you get those with ADS-B direct or ADS-R which is even more accurate/better coverage) and you don't see ICAO codes for Mode A/C transponder equipped aircraft or those with UAT Out in anonymous mode.... so you won't necessarily be able to tell which glider/contest ID etc..

We have had serious safety issues in certain airspace and responsible pilots in those areas have equipped their gliders with transponders and a few with 1090ES Out as well. They don't get to decide to use those transponders or not in a contest if so equipped.

And I will not be surprised if mandatory transponder and ADS-B Out (or TABS) carriage is required for gliders in future, then it is even easier. With long range and no reliance on ground coverage.

The client/receiver side... Glider and body cavity searches for USB sticks....don't think that is going to work.

Yep the genie is out the bottle. Actually maybe several of them out of several bottles.

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:07:32 AM UTC-8, wrote:
SNIP to have it have absolutely no affect on the competition

Do you believe that about any new technology? So the RC should make the Ventus 3 and JS-1 illegal, for example? What is it about this new technology that makes you separate it, in your mind, from any others that have gone before and will come? A new sailplane with an improved polar is a measurable - not just theoretical - advantage. One thing that never changes about mechanized competition, is that it always changes. In this case, ADS-B is going to guarantee it will change.

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 9:58:40 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:07:32 AM UTC-8, wrote:
SNIP to have it have absolutely no affect on the competition

Do you believe that about any new technology? So the RC should make the Ventus 3 and JS-1 illegal, for example? What is it about this new technology that makes you separate it, in your mind, from any others that have gone before and will come? A new sailplane with an improved polar is a measurable - not just theoretical - advantage. One thing that never changes about mechanized competition, is that it always changes. In this case, ADS-B is going to guarantee it will change.

Exactly. And the miracle of this particular technological advance is that it comes to us absolutely free in the sense that all we are debating here is whether or not we should disable a capability this is present and working in already purchased equipment. It's kind of like having a debate now about whether or not to allow winglets on sailplanes. I guess we could all just remove our winglets (or saw them off) and we'd be able to dial back to them good old days of racing without all that stupid technology advancement stuff. Right?

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:51:19 AM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:

You get TIS-B for transponder equipped aircraft and only those not equipped with ADS-B Out (but obviously you get those with ADS-B direct or ADS-R which is even more accurate/better coverage) and you don't see ICAO codes for Mode A/C transponder equipped aircraft or those with UAT Out in anonymous mode.... so you won't necessarily be able to tell which glider/contest ID etc.


The point being that one ADS-B Out equipped glider will light up (within a 15 nm radius) all transponder-equipped contest gliders in range of SSR with pretty decent resolution (but no ICAO ID unless Mode S). They should be visible not just to the pilot with ADS-B out, but to anyone with ADS-B In-equipped PowerFlarm - so long as the glider with ADS-B Out is requesting 1090ES transmission for TIS-B traffic - which ought to be the case since I doubt gliders would equip with UAT In only.

A small number of gliders out on course so equipped and reasonably spaced ought to light up pretty much everyone on task equipped with a transponder and within a 7,000' altitude band.

Not sure what the percentage of racing gliders equipped with transponders is - but I suspect a lot.

9B

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 1:06:43 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:

The point being that one ADS-B Out equipped glider will light up (within a 15 nm radius) all transponder-equipped contest gliders in range of SSR with pretty decent resolution (but no ICAO ID or aircraft type information unless Mode S). They should be visible not just to the pilot with ADS-B out, but to anyone with ADS-B In-equipped PowerFlarm - so long as the glider with ADS-B Out is requesting 1090ES transmission for TIS-B traffic - which ought to be the case since I doubt gliders would equip with UAT In only.

*** Clarification - it needs to be confirmed that PowerFlarm will show TIS-B traffic lit up by someone else with ADS-B Out. Otherwise you are looking at needing a $100 USB stick (or serial, or WiFi - and preferably dual-band) ADS-B In module - which would be useful in seeing power traffic as well as gliders. The home-brew units seem to see TIS-B traffic just fine.

Looks like a conundrum. But we haven't seen it in action yet so stay tuned....

9B

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 1:14:44 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 1:06:43 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:

The point being that one ADS-B Out equipped glider will light up (within a 15 nm radius) all transponder-equipped contest gliders in range of SSR with pretty decent resolution (but no ICAO ID or aircraft type information unless Mode S). They should be visible not just to the pilot with ADS-B out, but to anyone with ADS-B In-equipped PowerFlarm - so long as the glider with ADS-B Out is requesting 1090ES transmission for TIS-B traffic - which ought to be the case since I doubt gliders would equip with UAT In only.

*** Clarification - it needs to be confirmed that PowerFlarm will show TIS-B traffic lit up by someone else with ADS-B Out. Otherwise you are looking at needing a $100 USB stick (or serial, or WiFi - and preferably dual-band) ADS-B In module - which would be useful in seeing power traffic as well as gliders. The home-brew units seem to see TIS-B traffic just fine.

Looks like a conundrum. But we haven't seen it in action yet so stay tuned...

9B

Andy,

I have seen it in action. A power plane Cirrus at Siskiyou Co has an ADS-b out. I see them taxi out and takeoff head south on my Powerflarm.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 5:56:01 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 10:31:15 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:

When I race, I want to RACE (see definition in another excellent post).
And IMO, in the perfect race, everyone would use the same thermals, on the same task, and finish within seconds of each other. That would be a test of soaring skill, not of luck, weather guessing, and local knowledge.


From my perspective, this is a fairly narrow view of what racing means. As presented above, it would be primarily a contest of stick skills. Same start, same thermals, same course... He/she who flies better, wins. sort of like the recent contest in Dubai.

I prefer the concept of racing to include tactical and strategic decision making, the pilots understanding of weather; picking optimal turn points; knowing when to "go deep"; selecting the best start time for the day; using knowledge of the competitors ships, habits, strengths and weaknesses; when to lead, when to follow, when to leave the pack. And yes, using FLARM info to my best advantage (as well as glide computers, moving maps, and polarized sun glasses, etc.)

Both perspectives are valid of course. I just prefer the latter

Matt Herron

i agree with you for the most part, although i would like to see more assigned tasks rather than MAT's, and the grand prix concept is a really intriguing element of this relative to everyone being on a level playnig field with the start. i think we should all fly the same course (I.E. AST) but its the deviations, the routes, and the decisions that makes the difference.