The truth about Flarm Stealth and Competition definition...

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 9:31:58 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
"Given Flarm or similar equipment, the best solution, in my opinion, is a competition mode that presents no incentive to suppress Flarm output."

I love this logic. Let's suppress flarm output so no one suppresses flarm output.

Well, OK, Andrew, maybe I should have been more specific. Would you agree that not all the information coming from Flarm is relevant to safety? Some have suggested that a competition mode that does not present contest ID's and climb rate would do nicely to reduce the incentive to suppress or turn off Flarm. Is this not a reasonable compromise?

Wallace Berry
WB

Imagine trying to explain this to the FAA, or to your wife, or to a tort lawyer after an accident.

"Our contests were becoming too weak assed, so we found a way to make it more manly to stop people from finding out where other pilots were moving in 3 D at 100 mph until they were 60 seconds away... More or less,depending on their antenna location, how much metal was in their cockpit, etc etc.. Sometimes 90 seconds, sometimes 20 seconds, who knows? It's not like any of us really test how good each of our installations are. But I digress... We felt that the compromise in safety by reducing the device that let us know where everyone was by 75% was utterly worth the increased sense of manliness that we all felt. Oh, and apologies for your dead husband, he was a nice guy. For what it's worth, he felt like a total man just before he died, because he loved the testosterone laden sense of joy that comes from being a manly non follower".

Awesome.

Put differently, no, I don't agree.

Ok, truth be told, IF we could do that it'd be great. I get your point, and suppressing IDs and climb rates would be fine. Seems like a good compromise.... But, the authors of software like clearnav could write software to calculate a first derivative on height in about 3 minutes. Are we going to regulate that too?

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 10:33:32 PM UTC-6, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
Ok, truth be told, IF we could do that it'd be great. I get your point, and suppressing IDs and climb rates would be fine. Seems like a good compromise.... But, the authors of software like clearnav could write software to calculate a first derivative on height in about 3 minutes. Are we going to regulate that too?



You do have a point that tech can eventually outstrip regulation (and sometimes before the ink is dry on the reg).

Now that you mention it, I'm wondering why Clearnav and all the others have not added that feature. It could be a selling point.