The truth about Flarm Stealth and Competition definition...

However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?


12.2.5 Contest penalty categories
12.2.5.1 Unsafe operation (including all phases of flight and ground operation) (Rule 10.9.1.4, Rule 10.9.4.4): maximum penalty = disqualification.
12.2.5.3 Unsportsmanlike conduct (including falsification of flight documentation) (Rule 6.3.3.6, Rule 6.6.5, Rule 10.7.1.1, Rule
10.8.8.4): maximum penalty = disqualification from the contest and ineligibility for Sanctioned competitions for a period of 5 years.

The examples you postulated above fall under the above penalty categories. IMO, contest management tends to be the "nice guy" and won't go down this road. Perhaps it's about time to enforce the rules.

On Monday, 4 January 2016 16:19:52 UTC-7, Craig Reinholt wrote:
However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?


12.2.5 Contest penalty categories
12.2.5.1 Unsafe operation (including all phases of flight and ground operation) (Rule 10.9.1.4, Rule 10.9.4.4): maximum penalty = disqualification..
12.2.5.3 Unsportsmanlike conduct (including falsification of flight documentation) (Rule 6.3.3.6, Rule 6.6.5, Rule 10.7.1.1, Rule
10.8.8.4): maximum penalty = disqualification from the contest and ineligibility for Sanctioned competitions for a period of 5 years.

The examples you postulated above fall under the above penalty categories.. IMO, contest management tends to be the "nice guy" and won't go down this road. Perhaps it's about time to enforce the rules.

SO Craig, how can this 'blockage' be automatically detected?

On Monday, 4 January 2016 16:19:52 UTC-7, Craig Reinholt wrote:
However, in the real world, there will be those pilots who are going to find ways to block their Flarm output to deny tactical information to competitors. Even worse, but less likely, I hope, folks might even find ways to broadcast misinformation. Plenty of history of folks using coded info and misinformation over the radio to mislead competitors in glider contests. Tactics always provoke countermeasures. When, in the course of history has it not been so? Should we not consider that an appropriately designed "contest mode" might remove the incentive to "spoof" Flarm and actually result in an overall safer situation than a purely "open" Flarm setup?


12.2.5 Contest penalty categories
12.2.5.1 Unsafe operation (including all phases of flight and ground operation) (Rule 10.9.1.4, Rule 10.9.4.4): maximum penalty = disqualification..
12.2.5.3 Unsportsmanlike conduct (including falsification of flight documentation) (Rule 6.3.3.6, Rule 6.6.5, Rule 10.7.1.1, Rule
10.8.8.4): maximum penalty = disqualification from the contest and ineligibility for Sanctioned competitions for a period of 5 years.

The examples you postulated above fall under the above penalty categories.. IMO, contest management tends to be the "nice guy" and won't go down this road. Perhaps it's about time to enforce the rules.

So Craig, how can this 'blockage' be automatically detected?

Well, I would certainly consider anti-Flarm countermeasures to be unsportsmanlike in the extreme. However, unless Flarm use is mandated in that contest, then supressing one's Flarm signal or turning it off altogether would not be actionable under the rules. And, as Ron said, how would we know with certainty that someone was screwing around with their Flarm signal?

I know we gotta have rules, and situations arise where mandates are justified, but the idea of more rules and mandates generally sets my teeth on edge..

On Monday, 4 January 2016 17:42:19 UTC-7, WB wrote:
Well, I would certainly consider anti-Flarm countermeasures to be unsportsmanlike in the extreme. However, unless Flarm use is mandated in that contest, then supressing one's Flarm signal or turning it off altogether would not be actionable under the rules. And, as Ron said, how would we know with certainty that someone was screwing around with their Flarm signal?

I know we gotta have rules, and situations arise where mandates are justified, but the idea of more rules and mandates generally sets my teeth on edge.

Craig, aas Bill points out even if FLARM is mandatory is it mandatory that logs from the PF unit is turned in? Not every PF unit is able to produce a valid IGC file and many folks have other primary loggers. Even if a scorer gets all PF generated files how are they checked to determine if blockage has occurred? Scoring programs such as SeeYou Competition and SSA WINSCORE automatically determines if a airspace violation has occurred so are you advocating that these solution be upgraded to check PF files? Or do pilots turn in perceived blind gliders?