If You've Flown a FLARM Stealth Contest, Vote Here

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 6:29:43 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Actually, sane pilots have been afraid of midairs, west and east, for a long time. In my time on the rules committee, concern over midairs has been most pilots' number one safety worry. The owens valley pilots developed a whole protocol about high speed oncoming traffic.

Then flarm came along, offering some - -not perfect -- help on this topic.. Wise pilots should still be very "afraid" of midairs.

Now it is proposed to force all pilots to intentionally degrade flarm. You can't argue that this does not have some safety implications. The question is simple: how much safety degradation it has, how much you care about that, how much loss of enjoyment it has (knowing where your buddies are, etc..) vs. how much doing so improves (or not) the quality of contest soaring. Once everyone has gotten used to the technology (see the GPS wars)

John cochrane BB

The pilot doth protest too much - mewonders?

From http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011FlarmUSA.pdf - authored primarily by BB:

"We are not in a crisis.

Each midair is a tragedy, but overall midairs are not very high on the list of statistical causes of damage, injury or fatality.

No change in the contest environment has made midairs more likely in the next year than they have been in the past.

Flarm is an improvement on a system that has worked reasonably well
for many years, not a response to a suddenly greater danger.

The pilot community has not embraced similarly draconian steps to address the statistically much larger dangers of landouts, crashes into terrain, and low energy final glides.

Safety issues should be handled on a consistent and objective basis."

It is distressing that the pilots who ADAMANTKY want all FLARM data to be available to them to leverage for competitive advantage actively stoke the fires of "we are all going to die if we don't get this" to achieve their end..

The issue of the safety implications of using FLARM in "son of stealth" mode and the issue of whether electronic tactical information should be part of the sport are separate issues. Obfuscating is a disservice to the dialog.

Dear Sir:

I hate to point out the obvious, but the unfounded conclusion you draw, is a bias toward open dialogue.

While you make some sound arguments for not requiring Flarm (in any mode) you have concluded with bias, that those who do not want stealth mode are trying to use Flarm data to gain a competitive leverage.

Their are many undercurrents in the argument for not mandating stealth, legal liability is one, the fact that Flarm recommends against it is another, plus limiting and suppressing technology advancements is another, more enjoyment, that tactical information is not really of any use and if it were it would only affect the middle the score sheet. ...etc. The only argument for Stealth is maintaning "the spirit" of the sport. Same argument against GPS.

As others have pointed out perhaps more of a priority, until the FAI, BGC and Flarm come up with a better stealth protocol, should be more effort spent on trying to get all pilots to fly with Flarm.

Two maxims that do come to play, (i) the creme always raises to the top and (ii) you can really only fly on your own decisions.


On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:44:53 PM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 6:29:43 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

It is distressing that the pilots who ADAMANTKY want all FLARM data to be available to them to leverage for competitive advantage actively stoke the fires of "we are all going to die if we don't get this" to achieve their end.

The issue of the safety implications of using FLARM in "son of stealth" mode and the issue of whether electronic tactical information should be part of the sport are separate issues. Obfuscating is a disservice to the dialog.

I wonder if it isn't time to play Devil's advocate in this very polarized political debate? Donkey's vs. Elephants ;-)
Everyone is working with the notion that REGULAR FLARM mode = LEECHING = CHEATING (or at least "bad racing form").
I could postulate that leeching = tactical flying, it is part of sailplane racing, and we should embrace and practice it. NASCAR, long distance track events, Tour de France, Motorcycle Grand Prix, and a plethora of other racing sports all incorporate some form of "leeching". Look at our WGC events.. We try to leave a smidge later than, catch up to, and then at least follow the leader. The definition of leeching! Why shouldn't we endeavor to structure our races to practice what the rest of the world does a boatload better than us?
Craig Reinholt

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 5:10:02 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Dear Sir:

I hate to point out the obvious, but the unfounded conclusion you draw, is a bias toward open dialogue.

While you make some sound arguments for not requiring Flarm (in any mode) you have concluded with bias, that those who do not want stealth mode are trying to use Flarm data to gain a competitive leverage.

Their are many undercurrents in the argument for not mandating stealth, legal liability is one, the fact that Flarm recommends against it is another, plus limiting and suppressing technology advancements is another, more enjoyment, that tactical information is not really of any use and if it were it would only affect the middle the score sheet. ...etc. The only argument for Stealth is maintaning "the spirit" of the sport. Same argument against GPS.

As others have pointed out perhaps more of a priority, until the FAI, BGC and Flarm come up with a better stealth protocol, should be more effort spent on trying to get all pilots to fly with Flarm.

Two maxims that do come to play, (i) the creme always raises to the top and (ii) you can really only fly on your own decisions.


On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:44:53 PM UTC-8, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 6:29:43 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

It is distressing that the pilots who ADAMANTKY want all FLARM data to be available to them to leverage for competitive advantage actively stoke the fires of "we are all going to die if we don't get this" to achieve their end.

The issue of the safety implications of using FLARM in "son of stealth" mode and the issue of whether electronic tactical information should be part of the sport are separate issues. Obfuscating is a disservice to the dialog.

I certainly did not claim that all pilots advocating open FLARM want to use it for tactical benefit. What I claimed is that (through personal knowledge) some of the pilots who want open FLARM want it primarily for tactical benefits and are advancing their position by stoking the safety fires.

As Craig rightly points out, the use of FLARM for tactical benefits should be debated on its own terms.

If you want open FLARM for possible tactical benefit, take the position openly and own it.

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 6:03:33 PM UTC-5, Craig Reinholt wrote:
I wonder if it isn't time to play Devil's advocate in this very polarized political debate? Donkey's vs. Elephants ;-)
Everyone is working with the notion that REGULAR FLARM mode = LEECHING = CHEATING (or at least "bad racing form").
I could postulate that leeching = tactical flying, it is part of sailplane racing, and we should embrace and practice it. NASCAR, long distance track events, Tour de France, Motorcycle Grand Prix, and a plethora of other racing sports all incorporate some form of "leeching". Look at our WGC events. We try to leave a smidge later than, catch up to, and then at least follow the leader. The definition of leeching! Why shouldn't we endeavor to structure our races to practice what the rest of the world does a boatload better than us?
Craig Reinholt

I do not consider "tactical following", maybe a nicer term for leeching to be cheating. It is part of the sport and will remain so. What I do not like about Flarm radar is that it can provide the ability to enhance this tactic and arguably make it even more important and useful that is now and has been.
I, for one, do not want to see this progression, nor do many others I know.
Obviously some others have a different point of view.
I would note that your examples all are of taking advantage of drag reduction associated with drafting and not the gathering of tactical information.
I'd ask you what you would think of a pilot that won the Nationals and never had to find a thermal during the contest? Some may think that brilliant. Others likely would not be as positive.
Oh by the way- it has happened here.
My point of view.
UH

I would note that your examples all are of taking advantage of drag reduction associated with drafting and not the gathering of tactical information..
I'd ask you what you would think of a pilot that won the Nationals and never had to find a thermal during the contest? Some may think that brilliant.. Others likely would not be as positive.
Oh by the way- it has happened here.
My point of view.
UH

Only partially accurate Hank. Drafting for drag reduction is only one aspect. You can add to that: positional awareness, conserving your mental resources & energy, studying your opponent, pressuring / adding stress to your opponent, etc. Others better versed in those types of sports can add to the list.
Personally, I don't care either way. I do commend someone who takes full advantage of the racing rules we fly by (I knew of the person you wrote about). I take issue with rules that can not or will not be enforced. If there is a flight scenario (leeching?) that is not acceptable to contestants, then it should be put in the rules, determine penalties, and enforce them. Otherwise, it is a mute point.
Craig

The US has a policy of very "open" timed tasking and almost zero assigned tasks. Zero and one turn MATs are FAR more common than assigned tasks. Area tasks are the vast majority of US tasks and the average cylinder size is just shy of 20 miles! See: OLC.

We don't do Grand Prix in the US (wildly popular in the rest of the world) and I have not heard of anyone trying to run a Grand Prix task even though the rules now allow it. Assigned tasks are, again, as rare as a purple unicorn with a golden horn in the USA.

On that basis alone, the opportunity and value of utilizing Flarm to leech is significantly less important in the USA vs countries with IGC rules (all other countries other than Canada). These US only tasks are specifically intended to break up the field as much as possible by giving pilots significant "freedom" to take risk and try something different. That said, it's sometimes amazing how much the heard stays together. The gaggle is strategic safety in soaring much as the front of the Peloton is strategic safety in road cycling. The US mix of tasks are supposed to allow individual "creativity" (sigh, I call it luck or an "uncontrolled general variable") and reward weather planning and the ability to read changing weather conditions as much as individual flying skills (climb, cruise efficiency). US tasking is supposed to provide the CD the tools necessary to avoid land-outs by not boxing pilots into challenging (or impossible) situations. The US plays a broad strategic version of soaring. The IGC plays a bit more of a tactical version in which Flarm might be more valuable. Personally, I prefer IGC rules. I want to be the same as the rest of the world here in the US.

That said, again, I think we are over-rating the value of Flarm leeching in the USA. It's usually incredibly difficult for two competent glider pilots to fly an area task with 20 mile cylinders and not drift apart relatively soon seeing the options ahead very differently. 5 pilots often take 5 lines, and so on. This is the American way. We spend the majority of our tasks competely alone!

Flarm does allow value in terms of spotting the gaggle outside visual range ahead after the start and aiding in the ability to catch up. Example, you start alone but soon notice a gaggle ahead that you could not see visually yet. Aha! Let's try to catch them as I know exactly where they are. Funny thing is that chasing directly after them is rarely the best line. So you take a different line. But at least I can see if I am gaining. Flarm also might find you a "lifeboat" in survival moments.

Assigned tasks still result in many different lines. If as UH says someone has won big hardware souly due to their ability to fly their FLARM around....I think we should all know more about it and the details of that accomplishment. It is legal at current if this did occur. So congrats to this winner. Obviously it's a very worthwhile datapoint in this debate. Why the secret? I personally don't believe this statement at current but I am open to the possibility if someone would provide evidence of it. Perhaps that would help us better understand the strong concern behind the Flarm stealth mode movement.

This is a very broad philosophical argument for sure. Various, GPS, Smart phones and now FLARM data. I personally think we have to much OLC and not enough real racing. I personally want to look out the window and try to get ahead of my friends and know that it has value if I do. That said, I'm fine without FLARM radar as long as it's 100% as safe.

In sailing, we generally favor "one design." All the boats in a class have exactly the same equipment (even the sails are identical). There are limits in certain sailboat classes on the kind of electronics and computers you can use. This may strongly influence what class a person invests in or doesn't invest in. Many allow no electronics. If it's a level playing field, it's generally more fun, better racing and more rewarding to the competitors. Others on the other hand want the "arms race" and the ability to put engineer or out spend their opponents. See Ventus 3. Often the best racing comes from the smallest, simplest boats which have a smallest number of critical variables. This keeps the range of performance more equal and creates closer racing and less cost. More variables tend to spread out the field. A variable such as the ability to master Flarm usage as a leeching tool is a significant one for sure. I'm still not sure that I buy it however. But as a matter of policy, being a sailor, less variables mean closer, better racing (a stretch to call US contest soaring, at this point, "racing" for sure.)

Flarm definitely has the potential to "become" important enough that we all need to buy ClearNAVs and become proficient with leveraging the radar tactically to compete. But I don't think the US has as much at stake as the IGC rule countries. I still support Stealth Mode but think we need to be absolutely certain the core value of Flarm (anti-collision) is 100% intact.

I am enjoying the debate. I think it's very interesting.

Sean

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 7:42:10 PM UTC-8, Craig Reinholt wrote:
I would note that your examples all are of taking advantage of drag reduction associated with drafting and not the gathering of tactical information.
I'd ask you what you would think of a pilot that won the Nationals and never had to find a thermal during the contest? Some may think that brilliant. Others likely would not be as positive.
Oh by the way- it has happened here.
My point of view.
UH

Only partially accurate Hank. Drafting for drag reduction is only one aspect. You can add to that: positional awareness, conserving your mental resources & energy, studying your opponent, pressuring / adding stress to your opponent, etc. Others better versed in those types of sports can add to the list.
Personally, I don't care either way. I do commend someone who takes full advantage of the racing rules we fly by (I knew of the person you wrote about). I take issue with rules that can not or will not be enforced. If there is a flight scenario (leeching?) that is not acceptable to contestants, then it should be put in the rules, determine penalties, and enforce them. Otherwise, it is a mute point.
Craig

The problem with writing a rule against leeching is that it cannot be defined. Everybody does it to some extent, a few apparently do it to a greater extent. To eliminate leeching you would need to put blinders on every canopy.. As in religious philosophy, the moderates take issue with the radicals for believing what they believe, but believing it too much.

The argument for stealth mode is an argument to temporarily limit an otherwise useful tool, for fear that it might be used by others to go down a road further than the proponents are themselves willing to go. But we are all on the road.

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 9:12:58 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
I am going to have to strenuously disagree. I prefer PHRF racing, as racing on Oyster 54 rather than something like a J24 has many benefits. Chicks for one.

In sailing, we generally favor "one design." All the boats in a class have exactly the same equipment (even the sails are identical). There are limits in certain sailboat classes on the kind of electronics and computers you can use. This may strongly influence what class a person invests in or doesn't invest in. Many allow no electronics. If it's a level playing field, it's generally more fun, better racing and more rewarding to the competitors. Others on the other hand want the "arms race" and the ability to put engineer or out spend their opponents. See Ventus 3. Often the best racing comes from the smallest, simplest boats which have a smallest number of critical variables. This keeps the range of performance more equal and creates closer racing and less cost. More variables tend to spread out the field. A variable such as the ability to master Flarm usage as a leeching tool is a significant one for sure. I'm still not sure that I buy it however. But as a matter of policy, being a sailor, less variables mean closer, better racing (a stretch to call US contest soaring, at this point, "racing" for sure.)

Flarm definitely has the potential to "become" important enough that we all need to buy ClearNAVs and become proficient with leveraging the radar tactically to compete. But I don't think the US has as much at stake as the IGC rule countries. I still support Stealth Mode but think we need to be absolutely certain the core value of Flarm (anti-collision) is 100% intact.

I am enjoying the debate. I think it's very interesting.

Sean

Isn't there some guy in the upper midwest who's running a grand prix
task? Wonder who that could be...

On 12/13/2015 10:12 AM, Sean Fidler wrote:
We don't do Grand Prix in the US (wildly popular in the rest of the world) and I have not heard of anyone trying to run a Grand Prix task even though the rules now allow it. Assigned tasks are, again, as rare as a purple unicorn with a golden horn in the USA.

--
Dan, 5J