The truth about Flarm Stealth and Competition definition...

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 12:38:20 PM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:
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)

Is there really a benefit of tracking a glider on your FLARM display for 4 minutes? Take a situation where there are 4 other gliders in your proximity.. Keeping track of them all continuously with FLARM is a lot of heads down time. A lot of the gliders are more than 1000 feet difference in altitude and are no collision threat. Having all that displayed clutters the important info so is really only of tactical benefit.

Now that I think of it - a good competition mode may be unlimited range and just not show targets greater that 1500 differential altitude. Just a thought.

Anyway, the concept is more complex than you are stating. (Is sarcasm-ing a word? Any noun can be verbed I suppose.)

Since you used my name in the post about tasking, want to state that I agree with you that more AT's are a good thing. I like them. When AAT's are called due to possible CB's or the like, I prefer smaller radius turns like 5 nm for the FAI classes.

XC

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:01:47 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:
SNIP Is there really a benefit of tracking a glider on your FLARM display for 4 minutes? Take a situation where there are 4 other gliders in your proximity. Keeping track of them all continuously with FLARM is a lot of heads down time. A lot of the gliders are more than 1000 feet difference in altitude and are no collision threat. Having all that displayed clutters the important info so is really only of tactical benefit.

You need a better tactical display. No one I know tracks gliders for 4 minutes. You take a one second glance at the display and notice that there are 4 gliders the direction you are headed. A minute later another one second glance shows that one has headed off so there are still three. 2 minutes later another 1 second glance confirms that the 3 gliders are now pretty close, headed the opposite direction, and you should be looking for them that direction. You opt to alter course slightly right. A minute later a one second glance shows that your course alteration put the 3 other gliders safely to your left with no possibility of a conflict or Flarm alert. Situational awareness is only useful if you use it. You now have 4 seconds total heads down time spent over 4 minutes to completely eliminate any conflict with 4 other gliders with no other tactical benefit.

You need a better tactical display. No one I know tracks gliders for 4 minutes. You take a one second glance at the display and notice that there are 4 gliders the direction you are headed. A minute later another one second glance shows that one has headed off so there are still three. 2 minutes later another 1 second glance confirms that the 3 gliders are now pretty close, headed the opposite direction, and you should be looking for them that direction. You opt to alter course slightly right. A minute later a one second glance shows that your course alteration put the 3 other gliders safely to your left with no possibility of a conflict or Flarm alert. Situational awareness is only useful if you use it. You now have 4 seconds total heads down time spent over 4 minutes to completely eliminate any conflict with 4 other gliders with no other tactical benefit.

I am not believing you when you say you are looking at your display 4 seconds out of every 4 minutes.

The level one warnings begin to go off 13-18 seconds before a collision would happen. They are independent of the any stealth mode setting. That's a long time to make the small flight path adjustment necessary to avoid another glider. They are really pretty good but not perfect. Layer on top of that 2 km radius (going to 5 km now) and plus or minus 300 meters and you have all the situational awareness that is necessary.

The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC

"The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC "

Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.

You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?

What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?

Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 7:02:55 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
"The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC "

Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.

You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?

What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?

Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.

Not speaking for XC, but I'll take you at your word that you are sincerely interested in Flarm for the safety aspects. So am I. And, I'll say again, for me, I do not care about leeching, regardless of whether it's good 'ol visual leeching or Flarm enabled. As hard as I have tried, I can't making leeching work for me, and god help anyone who follows me. However, it is known, or at least strongly suspected, that pilots are turning off or suppressing Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Imagine someone being just out of reach of the podium on the last day by just a point or two. Inbound to the last turn, that pilot sees a chance to break from the pack and maybe grab a win. However, our pilot knows everyone and his brother will see him on their Flarms and rush in to exploit our intrepid pilot's good fortune. How tempting to just turn off the Flarm and zoom away for the win, but putting fellow competitors are risk. You and I, holding safety paramount, would never do such a thing. However, there will always be those who will (or are already doing it) for the sake of a win.

Limiting the tactical use of Flarm is at least worth exploring IF it will contribute to safety.

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 8:57:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 7:02:55 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
"The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC "

Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.

You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?

What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?

Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.

Not speaking for XC, but I'll take you at your word that you are sincerely interested in Flarm for the safety aspects. So am I. And, I'll say again, for me, I do not care about leeching, regardless of whether it's good 'ol visual leeching or Flarm enabled. As hard as I have tried, I can't making leeching work for me, and god help anyone who follows me. However, it is known, or at least strongly suspected, that pilots are turning off or suppressing Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Imagine someone being just out of reach of the podium on the last day by just a point or two. Inbound to the last turn, that pilot sees a chance to break from the pack and maybe grab a win. However, our pilot knows everyone and his brother will see him on their Flarms and rush in to exploit our intrepid pilot's good fortune. How tempting to just turn off the Flarm and zoom away for the win, but putting fellow competitors are risk. You and I, holding safety paramount, would never do such a thing. However, there will always be those who will (or are already doing it) for the sake of a win.

Limiting the tactical use of Flarm is at least worth exploring IF it will contribute to safety.

Since most of our antennas are on glare-shields it would be quite visible to competitors if someone tries to cheat by putting a hat over an antenna. If found cheating penalty should be disqualification.

I doubt if any of our top pilots would resort to that. Can you imagine the shame associated with such an action? We can argue here all day I just don't believe that 99% of contest pilots in the USA would do such a thing. The 1% that would do will probably not achieve much in a long run anyway if he needs to cheat to succeed. Somehow the top pilots can win no matter what. They were winning before Flarm and they are winning with Flarm. Some, I will not name don't have Flarm and they still win.

Maybe we should look for a solution and stop this back end forth.

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 9:08:41 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 8:57:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 7:02:55 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
"The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC "

Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.

You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?

What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?

Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.

Not speaking for XC, but I'll take you at your word that you are sincerely interested in Flarm for the safety aspects. So am I. And, I'll say again, for me, I do not care about leeching, regardless of whether it's good 'ol visual leeching or Flarm enabled. As hard as I have tried, I can't making leeching work for me, and god help anyone who follows me. However, it is known, or at least strongly suspected, that pilots are turning off or suppressing Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Imagine someone being just out of reach of the podium on the last day by just a point or two. Inbound to the last turn, that pilot sees a chance to break from the pack and maybe grab a win. However, our pilot knows everyone and his brother will see him on their Flarms and rush in to exploit our intrepid pilot's good fortune. How tempting to just turn off the Flarm and zoom away for the win, but putting fellow competitors are risk. You and I, holding safety paramount, would never do such a thing. However, there will always be those who will (or are already doing it) for the sake of a win.

Limiting the tactical use of Flarm is at least worth exploring IF it will contribute to safety.

Since most of our antennas are on glare-shields it would be quite visible to competitors if someone tries to cheat by putting a hat over an antenna. If found cheating penalty should be disqualification.

I doubt if any of our top pilots would resort to that. Can you imagine the shame associated with such an action? We can argue here all day I just don't believe that 99% of contest pilots in the USA would do such a thing. The 1% that would do will probably not achieve much in a long run anyway if he needs to cheat to succeed. Somehow the top pilots can win no matter what. They were winning before Flarm and they are winning with Flarm. Some, I will not name don't have Flarm and they still win.

Maybe we should look for a solution and stop this back end forth.

Let me fix my writing. I need to stop drinking wine while writing.

Since most of our PF antenna installations are on glare-shields it would be quite visible to competitors if someone tried to cheat by putting a hat over an antenna. If think cheating penalty should be disqualification.

I doubt if any of our top pilots would resort to that. Can you imagine the shame associated with such an action? We can argue here all day I just don't believe that 99% of contest pilots in the USA would do such a thing. The 1% that would do will probably not achieve much in a long run anyway if that person needs to cheat to succeed. Somehow the top pilots can win no matter what. They were winning before Flarm and they are winning with Flarm. Some, I will not name here don't have Flarm and they still win.

Maybe we should look for a solution and stop this back end forth.

A random check on flarm files, as we currently do for weights, would fix that.

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 8:02:55 PM UTC-5, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
"The ongoing overstatements about degraded safety are folks who want to use open FLARM tactically (or, for the fun/learning of watching what others are doing.) Let's talk about that if you want to but let's not continue turn that into a safety argument.

XC "

Sean, this is just complete crap. This is ONE folk that doesn't want this for tactical advantage, this is a folk who wants to maximize safety.

You are, in essence, calling me and others liars. Based on what evidence?

What evidence do you have that I want farm to leach?

Just stop this bull****, Sean. On the offside that uppercase gets your attention, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE. Simple. One of the scariest and most off putting aspects of competitive flying is the continuous proximity of other pilots. I and many others think it asinine, foolish and cavalier to compromise safety to make the sport more manly.

it's 8 am and that's enough internet for me today already..... i get what you both (VW / XC) are saying and i'm not getting ****ed. i want to put something in perspective though; i don't have a flarm and you happily fly in my vicinity all summer. things get blown out of proportion on the internent. how about you two discuss it over a beer at the hill, eh? the internet makes people lose their **** unnecessarily. and andrew, this is NOT pointed directly at you at all. i think the entire discussion is getting a little too heated.

it's 8 am and that's enough internet for me today already..... i get what you both (VW / XC) are saying and i'm not getting ****ed. i want to put something in perspective though; i don't have a flarm and you happily fly in my vicinity all summer. things get blown out of proportion on the internent.. how about you two discuss it over a beer at the hill, eh? the internet makes people lose their **** unnecessarily. and andrew, this is NOT pointed directly at you at all. i think the entire discussion is getting a little too heated.

What can I say? Every time Sean goes off and accuses anyone disagreeing with him as either a wimp or a liar, my blood pressure goes up about 20 points! But I'll shut up on this... for now. And I hope you get a FLARM this year