The truth about Flarm Stealth and Competition definition...

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 12:01:54 AM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
OK, let's just handle your major point, Sean - the heads down problem. When would you prefer someone to be heads down - 4 minutes before smacking into you, or 60 seconds before smacking into you?

I don't understand your question. I'd rather people not be heads down trying to read the screen and interpreting when a collision alert is active and the audio warning is telling them where to look. I'd rather people not be looking at the screen when in and out the turn point. Same is true of the looking at the flight computer too much.

Of course, I would rather there be no smacking.

XC

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:03:31 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:57:50 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
"I feel that the "current proposed SSA RC competition mode" is a decent compromise for the peeps that want more safety, but also limits some of the possible tactical advantage of "full open Flarm". "

Can you point me to specifications of this so called "competition" mode? What vapor ware are you talking about? The only thing that was voted on was "stealth" mode.

Let's stick to facts not wishes.

In other posts, opening up the range to 5KM, looks like most other items of "US Stealth" are kept. This keeps within some of "current" (March 2015 by Flarm, unlike undated document linked by Sean Fidler regarding "competition mode") Flarm info regarding "under optimum range, 5KM is OK" but "may" exceed that in optimum conditions.

If you've kept up on a bit of this discussion (spread all over RAS), you would have seen this more than once......

I did......

So once again, where is the specification?

At 03:15 04 January 2016, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Hey Sean,

Wasn't trying to goad you particularly. It was more philosophical - but I
k=
now you're always up to the philosophical challenge.

My vision for the sport. Okay, pressure's on...

I think soaring competitions (or contests - note that I don't say "race",
w=
hich is an important sub-part of the skills needed in soaring
competition,
=
but not the whole) should test a number of skills, all of which are
related=
to the ability to make distance over the ground, primarily in a minimum
am=
ount of time, all without benefit of propulsion by means of stored energy
(=
gasoline, electrons, rubber bands, nuclear reactors, etc.) and without
prop=
rietary assistance from others (that is, it needs to be your performance
(p=
hilosophy on two-seaters will need its own thread).=20

While there are a wide array of skills that contribute to being good at
ach=
ieving the above objective, I think the paramount skill is the ability to
m=
ake optimal strategic and tactical decisions with complex information
input=
s under uncertainty. This boils down to two basic tenets. Tenet 1: Don't
pi=
ck sub-par climbs and, Tenet 2: Don't get so low that you can't pick the
th=
ermal you want. Fundamentally, we are testing pilots' abilities to trade
of=
f these two tenets. In flight this boils down to two types of decisions,
1)=
which line will have the best energy and 2) should I stop and climb here
o=
r press on in hope of finding better lift (BB has written quite
eloquently
=
on the latter item in his "A little faster please" article - if you
haven't=
, read it. It includes a lot on decisions about altitude and thermal lift
d=
istribution versus the "stop to climb" decision and
upwind/downwind/crosswi=
nd starts and turnpoint decisions). In general, the more complex and
varied=
the information inputs involved in testing that ability, the better and
mo=
re accurate the test of soaring skills.=20

In constructing soaring competitions, they need to be subject to a
constrai=
nt of fairness, which is: every pilot needs the same opportunity to make
th=
e same in-flight tradeoff decisions. Note that this does not necessarily
me=
an that every pilot needs to make the exact same flight in a giant bomber
f=
ormation. Now, some people will argue that if every glider isn't flying
in
=
exactly the same air at exactly the same time random and unpredictable
diff=
erences in weather can make all the difference and that's all luck. I can
s=
ympathize and understand this perspective and agree that some poorly
though=
t through logic can end up looking pretty clever if the unexpected
happens
=
weather-wise, but generally I think better pilots are better at reading
the=
weather and integrating macro and micro level forecasts and weather
clues
=
into their decision-making. This to me is an important skill that comes
int=
o play whether your rage of course line flexibility is 5 miles or 50
miles.

There is an element of risk tolerance that figures into all of this that
I
=
personally think needs to go so far but no further in terms of contests
enc=
ouraging or accepting "bet your life" or "bet your glider" decisions. A
sig=
nificant amount of risk is inevitable, but I don't see willingness to
take
=
on risk - or belief that you can pull off risky decisions when others
can't=
or won't - as a skill set we want to test for its own sake. I don't
think
=
we should try to eliminate every landout or risk of landout no matter
what.=
There is plenty of time to be lost just by taking a 2 knot thermal
instead=
of a 4-knot thermal and pilots will press for the better climb as their
co=
mfort-level dictates. But ensuring that a pilot at 1000' desperate for a
cl=
imb has to put into a field doesn't do anything to improve how we judge
soa=
ring performance, in fact every landout just complicates matters because
we=
have to translate miles to miles per hour (or more exactly translate
both
=
to points with formulas that arbitrarily weight the two metrics
differently=
). If we can't compare performance exactly then it undermines the
validity
=
of the results. We tolerate this because we have to - landouts are
inevitab=
le but the ideal goal would be to challenge pilots' decision-making
skills
=
to the maximum without having to figure out how many points a mike is
worth=
..=20

So what are the skills we want to test? My view (in order of importance):

1) Ability to make decisions about the optimal path to fly to achieve the
b=
est speed over the course - this can include small deviations to maximize
e=
nergy, places to look for lift based on terrain, clouds or other
indicators=
(like gliders or raptors climbing) and macro decisions about where to go
w=
hen task flexibility is greater (as in AAT and MAT formats). =20

2) Ability to best estimate how to make use of the available lift in
terms
=
of when to climb, when to press on, when to cruise or dolphin.

(I go back and forth on the priority order between 1 and 2)

3) Ability to understand weather and how it affects likely task
performance=
at the micro-level and macro-level both in terms of forecast weather and
w=
eather dynamics over the course of the day, including the ability to
integr=
ate new information as weather changes. Note that 3) interplays with 1)
on
=
many days.

4) Ability to extract the most energy out of lift sources. This includes
th=
ermalling technique, search technique, etc.

5) Stick skills - the ability to fly at the right speed, right flap
setting=
, right bank angle, judge the final glide, not crash into a ridge, etc. I
s=
ee these as table-stakes for flying, but not something we are trying to
tes=
t explicitly. Leave that to the Red Bull racing pilots.

I'm sure there are other things I am forgetting so I reserve the right to
r=
evise my list.

So, how does this vision for the sport affect philosophy for technology
lik=
e Flarm and ADS-B? They are at the simplest level another source of
inform=
ation that needs to be balanced against and integrated with other
informati=
on inputs. More information puts more pressure on good decision-making
("go=
for the cu on course or the glider climbing a mile off course in the
blue?=
" is a more complex decision than "go for the cu on course - it's all
you'v=
e got").=20

Sure, some pilots may decide that they can latch onto others decisions
and
=
more Flarm range may give them more opportunity to try, but all the
evidenc=
e is that if you are borrowing someone else'd decisions without even
knowin=
g what they are deciding it's very hard to perform well, except in some
ver=
y narrow scope. There are just too many variables and they change way too
d=
ynamically to blindly follow and win most of the time. Even if it were
poss=
ible to use more information about other gliders I don't believe this
funda=
mentally changes the sport - other gliders are just more information. If
it=
is true that you can win just by following then we are all fools not to
fl=
y the gaggle all the time, regardless of technology enablers. If we don't
l=
ike the gaggle, we should change how we score and set up tasks (and maybe
p=
enalize leeching - it's pretty easy) rather than scapegoating technology.
T=
hese practices pre- and post-date every technology shift. It's not about
te=
chnology and technology doesn't significantly alter the balance - I
looked
=
for it.

I feel the same way about weather data - so long as we confirm that it is
r=
easonably available to all at affordable cost. It gives more information
fo=
r complex tradeoff decisions rather than flying blindly. Why flying
blindly=
is viewed as a skill totally escapes me. Guts to press into a
thunderstorm=
without knowing what's ahead? It's not a "skill" I think soaring
contests
=
should be testing.

Hope that's a decent start at a reply.

9B
Andy Blackburn
RC "Revolutionary"


Well reasoned Andy. Do you mind if I use it in my lectures?

Whilst I agree with pretty much all of what you say the reality is somewhat
different. My experience over 15 years of racing is that handicapped
regional competitions do generally reward the pilot with the best XC
skills. #1 XC skill here is not landing out!

In single class Nationals however the principal skill is different. I have
observed two types of winning pilot he

The 1st type has immense XC skill and does their own thing. They win
sometimes but usually have a day or two where they lose out big time.

The other, and more successful type, stays religiously in the leading
gaggle. The group think of the gaggle generally stays airborne and finishes
near the top. Several days near the top puts you within a few points of a
championship win.

Often there is one outstanding pilot who ends up dragging the gaggle around
all week. They usually win, but I have seen them usurped by the friendly
follower who starts 10 seconds later and hits the line at the same time
again and again.

When I moved from regionals to nationals I missed this point for a couple
of years!

To win an international today you have to team fly and use the gaggle.
Intelligence from the ground using live weather and tracking information
seems to be an increasing part.

Whilst I prefer to use stealth mode I fear that this technology cat is out
of the bag and we shall have to embrace it sooner or later.

Jim

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:57:50 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
"I feel that the "current proposed SSA RC competition mode" is a decent compromise for the peeps that want more safety, but also limits some of the possible tactical advantage of "full open Flarm". "

Can you point me to specifications of this so called "competition" mode? What vapor ware are you talking about? The only thing that was voted on was "stealth" mode.

Let's stick to facts not wishes.

Clarification to avoid a misunderstanding I may have caused.
UH described in an earlier message some attributes that I believe would meaningfully address Stealth in a manner that could provide a variant that would provide a version very close to current open mode while at least partially addressing the concerns of pilots who want the tactical aspects reduced.
It was not comprehensive, nor complete and does NOT represent the opinion of the RC.
These comments were for consideration by those who read this forum. I believe it is possible to come up with and improvement that most pilots can accept. That remains to be seen. It has been intended to foster constructive dialog.
UH

My -29 was in a mid-air at Uvalde (before I owned it). The first thing I bought for my Antares 20E was a PowerFlarm. To me this issue is about decreasing the abilities of a safety device.

I run a helicopter emergency service. We have changed the safety culture of our industry by agreeing that "safety is not proprietary". Could our competitors gain an advantage with some of the information shared? Absolutely, but the greater benefit of safety out weights the small risk of losing a few flights.

Does this sound familiar?

Tom 2N0 / TK

Can someone please explain why RC is pushing this position at this time? There is no "competition" mode software available. ADS-B is four years from making all this teeth gnashing pointless, as far as I know the top ten finishers in each national are not loudly complaining about Flarm leeching (we already have visual leeching), Leeching is not illegal via the rules anyway ( how many times does the top pilot leech the second place pilot on the last day of a competition) and the number one...RC will not make FLARM mandatory, but they will mandate FLARM be hobbled by software not available that reduces the anti-collision information and distance. ALL THIS WILL BE MOOT IN FOUR YEARS, and possibly sooner due to early adopters of ADS-B out! Wouldn't a better use of resources be to attempt to get 100% acceptance of FLARM? Just saying....

No dice - if you think there's a possible conflict it's incumbent upon
you to alter your course, not to tell someone else to get out of your way.

I can see it now... There's the leader up ahead and it looks like he's
climbing. I'll transmit, "9B, turn right immediately for collision
avoidance!" There now... I'll just move into the thermal he's just
vacated. Gee, look how quickly I can overtake him.

The second paragraph is obviously for comic relief to this interminable
squabble.

On 1/3/2016 1:49 PM, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Ideally you'd like ID available at minimum for traffic with an active alarm so you can say "9B turn right" at a safe distance. Relative altitude data allows some sense of climb rate - with a little math.

--
Dan, 5J

Some good points Andy. I disagree with much of it, but I'm sure that you are not surprised by this. ;-).

I have to call US tasking "philosophy" out again. This will be a nice intermission from the Flarm fantasy discussion.

In a word, US tasking SUCKS! And, it's getting worse all the time. First, the idea that an assigned task does not "test" weather skill (but a HAT, MAT or TAT does) is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard within the sport of soaring.

The more variability or "vagueness" in a given tasks requirement to "consolidate" and get back to a defined point along a set race course, via your skills (weather knowledge, pilot skill, tactical efficiency, puzzle solving skills) while flying down a "leg" of a task, the EASIER the task is. This ranges from timed, area tasks of up to 60 miles in diameter (2800+ sq. miles) to 1 mile assiged turns. The more tightly defined the task is, the better it is. It's that simple. PERIOD.

We (SSA/US) fly almost exclusively "easy tasks" (75% TAT last I checked), and have created whole new types of even easier tasks in the USA (see one or even zero "turn" MAT, i.e. OLC, i.e. HAT). Easy, vague and by definition very prone to being lucky in the broad randomness that results in an individual score via the formulas of our US scoring program, WinScore.. Some call the ability to wander around only flying the best weather, skill. Sure, but it requires LESS SKILL when you don't have to bring it back to an assigned turn, several times throughout the task. Sadly, many seem to love this randomness. They somehow see an objective measurement in it. We do area tasks roughly 75% of the time in the USA, so someone must be happy. I for one am continuously disgusted by it. Less variables, less luck (racing tasks). More variables, more luck (go wherever the hell you wish, tasks). 2000 words describing what elements you wish to "TEST?" is a waste of time, but you do write very well Andy!

I want to test how fast a pilot can get around a race course. Pure, simple, no bull ****. Right now, we do this only a few times a year within the USA, that's it. At World Championships, they do it 50% of the time. I say that's not enough!

Example. You're flying down an 80-mile leg of a real racing, assigned task.. All the while, you must carefully adjust your strategy and tactics to find the most efficient means of getting yourself back to the assigned turn point. This is an entirely more difficult game than managing an area task. First of all, you have the same exact race track (not really in the USA, but for the sake of time) for every pilot. Imagine that! If you choose to waiver way off course during an assigned task, for a good weather reason of course (you know, the superior weather knowledge) that deviation must always be tempered by the need to pay it back and get back to the turn point at some point. A far more complex puzzle. In area tasks, you only have the find the fastest way to keep going "that a way" and towards the easiest weather available in that huge range. You are never "boxed in" and forced to suffer from a poor weather decision on that leg (having to pay back the extra distance), or to cross difficult spots more efficiently than your competitors.

Going down a "leg?" (one can't really define any leg of an Area task, can they?) of an Area "task?" which can be 30 miles or 90 miles in length (for example), or vary up to 60 miles laterally depending on said pilots superior weather knowledge (ROTFL). This sure sounds like racing to me! Seriously, should the word "racing" even be used in SSA descriptions of contests any more? Its almost fraud to call our tasks, "races." In fact, it IS fraud! See definition of "race."

We should instead start call our tasks...

"Mileage/time=speed calculations of flight traces over a series of (up to) 2800 square mile weather variability assessment tests, aided by our clearNav that basically does all the time/distance stuff for us (Frank Sinatra music optional)." How is this really different from OLC already? Anyone?

Boy, ESPN must be kicking down our doors to get the rights to cover this "sport!" Sailplane racing! Im sure they will have color commentary of the scoring process as well. Multiple camera angles, mood lighting, elevator music, commercial free, etc.

Anyway, these area "tasks" are, by definition, designed to allow our pilots to choose what weather is "easiest" to fly so they do not land out! Area tasks allow the pilot to pick and choose the best clouds to follow into a huge general area of THEIR OWN choosing. You can turn back anytime you wish if you get into trouble. For example, I'm low now on an upwind Area task "leg", NO PROBLEM! You can just choose to turn at this HIGHLY CONVIENENT point and go downwind. Hell, it doesn't matter. It's all based on the concept of a minimum time! Get out of jail free! You might even time to change to a new Sinatra CD!

Now, compare that to the developed skills of an assigned task pilot. Getting low on an upwind leg is a real problem. You have to figure it out and complete the race course, and lose real time around a REAL RACE TRACK vs. your smarter competitors. Oh, the humanity of that. How terrible! How uncivilized. I won't have time to make a new gin and tonic!

Area tasks are, quite literally, infant tasks in comparison to assigned (real racing). They are the favorite task type of tourists who also want OLC to be considered a real form of meaningful "competition?" Some clowns want "no" racing tasks in the USA. None! 3% racing is too much! Hey, I've got a new word to describe area tasks! Let's call them weak-assed tasks! Thanks Sean! WATs!

Assigned tasks are "grown up" tasks. For true racing sailplane pilots. The task real glider pilots WANT to fly each day. Nobody really wakes up in the morning and wants to fly an area task at a contest. Do they? If so, I mourn for you! Assigned tasks force real consequences for strategy and tactical mistakes and require resilient, brilliant pilots to win consistently.. I, for one, have more respect for the winner of an assigned task, then I do for a huge area task. Assigned tasks are tasks of complete racing champions. Champions who are, IMO, better sailplane pilots in literally every form of measure. Stick and rudder skills, WHAT A BUNCH OF ABSOLUTE CRAP. Anyone who says this is what makes a good assigned task competitor has zero understanding of the sport of sailplane competition.

Look at Sailplane Grand Prix. Let's see how pilots who only fly WATs, you know, with their superior weather skills, do in Grand Prix for example. They will get destroyed. On the other hand, how will the top SGP pilots do when they must fly area tasks. Answer, they still win. They are complete pilots. Tougher mentally. Precision matters. Decision making and puzzle solution skills matter.

Furthermore, the reason everyone runs out and buys the fancy computers (I passed by the way) is to allow the computer to help MAKE THE TURN AREA DECISION for them! Those decisions are critical to being successful in the very vague, very obtuse Area tasks. These computers are designed to much better tell you if you (for example) can turn now or if you need to try make a few more miles is less than perfect clouds (oh the humanity...). I'll call the fancy computers that are great at making decisions for their pilots in US tasks, weak-assed technology! ;-) You know, unlike PowerFlarm (where all pilots have the same data), when you buy a fancy flight computer, you have SUPERIOR technology than your competitors! This ADVANTAGE helps you make better decisions while flying complex tasks (every single timed task type in fact). What a horrible, HORRIBLE, unfair, awful thing.......right? RC that just voted to limit FLARM (perhaps risking safety)? Right?

You know, I have just realized something. I need to accept it. We really are going to only run OLC "tasks" in the SSA 10 years. OLC tasks will be formally introduced as an actual task by the SSA this year (next year at the latest), and without specific guidance and an overlying policy that prevents it, most regionals will immediately begin calling OLC as tasks 80% of the time. I can see it now! In 5 years, nearly 100% of our regional tasking will be OLC (many will still argue that OLC is racing) and 50% of our nationals tasks will be OLC "racing." And so on... An area task will be voodoo then! LOL!

I'll be running a US Grand Prix racing league and will not even bother with SSA contests by this point. 3% (or less) is not going to keep my attention.

For me, the only form of competition that I am truly interested in involves one simple measured element, speed around a set RACING track. The other stuff is a compromise when the weather is bad, except in the USA of course. Times tasks are the main course here, but I digress. Assigned tasks require only stopwatch. They do not even require an elaborate scoring program (or an experienced, scorer!) and its highly subjective formulas (see Andys post) trying to "best assess" what elements of "racing" sailplanes are most important to you as a person. For example, leeching penalties. WOW. Like little economist attempting to plan economies, our RC tries to plan what soaring competition "should be" for us. And it is becoming ANYTHING but racing. What a complete disaster this has become.

Remember, in assigned tasks, pilots are free to go anywhere they want in between the set turn points. That alone provides nearly infinite variables by itself, by itself. The difference is, they have to always bring it back to a specific turn point that may not be at the end of a magical line of puffy white clouds. Simple.

The only reason to run a TAT is when the weather is in question or the class that must account for broad handicap range (sports). Times, area task are, by definition, "compromise tasks!" HATs and MATs are, in comparison, huge compromise tasks. I'm honestly amazed we still make our pilots come back to a 2 mile finish cylinder. Why not a 60 mile finish "area?" Sometimes it's hard to come back to that small point in space. Its too hard! Right?

Sean

Andrew, you rock! Well said. Great point.

Even though I am willing to consider a "reduced SA...mode" for PowerFlarm, safety (at all levels of competitiveness) seems to overwhelmingly outweight any potential, philosphical tactical benifit. If I was on the RC I would have to understand that 50% of the pilots (at least) are of this viewpoint. I am concerned that they are blinded by pure emotion in many ways.

Sean

The point is simple. Situational awareness. Say it slowly, sound it out ;-).

4 minutes of knowledge knowing a glider is out there, or 60 seconds, or 10?

Cant get much simpler than that. This is not a difficult concept.

The more SA, the safer it is for all, period. This is enitirely independent of any insecurity some feel about potentially giving out actionable BVR leeching info to dozens of gin and tonic siping, sinatra listening leeches who have been stealing medals from you for the past 5 years. ;-) You know, the ones who pass you inverted on final glide, giving your the bird. ;-)

"Fly me to the moon....and let me dance among the stars....!"

Sean (7T)