No FLARM log equals Unsafe Operation? (USA)

On Oct 10, 9:09*pm, Andy wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell wrote:

The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.

Yes Paul that's clear. *What is not clear is the consequence of not
being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.

Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed to produce a log?

Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed?

No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
event outside his control.

Andy

I am strongly in favor of mandatory use of flarms in contests -
ultimately (and soon). And I am a strong believer that a pool of
rental units will speed the adoption.
That said, the devil (as usual) is in the details of how to get there
safely.

I don't think we can say "the only valid log for a contest flight is a
Flarm log" which is what the suggested rule effectively does. Even
though Flarm is a proven technology, the PowerFlarm is a new box and
needs a track record. I also don't want to see the workload of the
scorer increased by having to process two logs per flight. While
organizers can require impact activated ELTs, there is no requirement
for contestants to prove they are working correctly and I don't see
the clear necessity for this WRT Flarm.

There are also a couple of (to me) worrisome safety details to work
out related to the introduction of rental/loaner/borrowed units:

1. The position of the transmitting antenna is important, especially
so in carbon ships. If you don't get this right, you effectively
don't have the device on board making it useless to both you and
others. There will need to be a knowledge base of what works and what
doesn't developed (and adopted from European experience).

2. I am not comfortable with the idea of pilot having a new piece of
equipment on the first contest day that they have never seen before
and are trying to learn and that is making noises/visual cues at
them. This problem goes away over time, but it is a serious concern
to me in seeing the technology introduced without unintended negative
safety consequences. Any you can't just say "turn down the volume and
put it in the back out of sight because that creates the problem of
(1).

Keep the discussion going.
John Godfrey (QT)
US Rules Committee

On Oct 10, 6:09*pm, Andy wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:39*pm, Paul Cordell wrote:

The rule as discussed is to address proof of the mode the unit was
operating in during the flight. *It must be in Competition mode so as
to not provide an unfair advantage to the pilot.

Yes Paul that's clear. *What is not clear is the consequence of not
being able to prove that FLARM was operating during the flight.

Do you believe that a competitor should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed to produce a log?

Do you believe that a contestant should be disqualified from a contest
because his FLARM failed?

No other US contest rule so harshly penalizes a contestant for an
event outside his control.

Andy

Andy,

I believe in not jumping to conclusions before all the facts and
details are in. The rules as currently written do not address the
needs of a new technology. They didn't when GPS was introduced and
I'm sure that with a sensible discussion the rules with adapt. Maybe
allowing the capabilities of the Flarm to be used by all is an easier
solution.