Flarm in 2011 USA Contests

Peter said:

In Germany we get rebates of 5% / 10% / 15% for group orders of 6+ / 10+
/ 20+ FLARM units. You don't have to be *a formal group like a club, an
informal group of individuals will do fine.

Normally, someone puts a small ad on the website of segeflug.de, seeking
for other people wanting to join in to get a better rebate.

This works well since several years, and by this method I got my FLARM
for my newly purchased glider for a reasonable price.

The FLARM company recognizes the device only works best when all
gliders in a group (club) are equipped with the device. A small
percentage of gliders and towplanes equipped with FLARM defeats the
intended anti-collision safety features. In order to encourage as many
aircraft as possible within a local group to be equipped with FLARM,
they offer a graduated discount for the group. Groups should consider
FLARM as a "safety system" to help prevent collisions in the flying
space where they fly the most.

As a FLARM dealer, I am trying to encourage as many individuals to
equip with FLARM so they are protected when they fly at our soaring
site (lots of gliders flying from different soaring sites on our
ridges.) These same FLARM equipped aircraft fly the most hours at
their local club, and for many (most?) this means in thermal
conditions. Thermalling is another midair high risk arena, and gliders
as well as towplanes will benefit - probably during more flying hours
each year than when visiting a ridge/wave site, or flying in contests
during the year.

FLARM dealers will have no way to enforce the intent of the company
policy, however, those who are trying to save what amounts to only a
few dollars, should consider the goals of the anti-collision "system."
The largest discount incentive is to place your order before the first
of the year, and we dealers are encouraged by the number of pilots who
are placing their orders now.

Tom Knauff

wow! ... very nicely done!

.... I have not heard (or maybe missed) discussion on the use of FLARM
feedback for practical thermal leeching. That should be an
interesting debate ... curious how much more "heads-down" would result
from monitoring nearby pilot climb rates .. ie. "should I go to that
thermal? or that one?"

Curt Lewis - 95

"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only
the PDA output is degraded.
But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
nearby traffic. It is well thought.

The other concern is that the requirement is un-enforcable. FLARM is an
open technology and while it is possible to check an instrument installed
in the glider it is not possible to check and undeclared FLARM unit
carried by the pilot, searching pilots before they get into their glider
is not likely to ever be acceptable. It is comparatively easy to have a
non--stealth unit available. A rule that cannot be enforced should never
be made.

Flarm is not open technology. It is proprietary technology, and no company
except FLARM in switzerland can do it.
All other companies on the market bought licences from flarm. No US company
will be allowed to market its own traffic advisor,
unless they buy it from flarm. It is called monopoly , and in this case it
is about your safety.
A couple of years ago, the IGC had decided to adopt a public protocol for
traffic informations, but nothing happened so far.

paolo

On Nov 17, 5:05*pm, "PCool" wrote:
"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel et...

At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

Paulo explains this is not correct below. In the case of powerFlarm
some of that data normally shown on a PDA is shown on the display and
that is also dithered in the same way (or it would make no sense- and
the Flarm folks are not stupid). One observation is there also seems
to be lots of confusion about Stealth, Contest, Nearest and Collision
modes. The best thing to do there is to read the operation manual for
a current Flarm unit on Flarm's website (http://www.flarm.com/support/
index_en.html) and see their guide for contests as well.

No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only
the PDA output is degraded.
But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
nearby traffic. It is well thought.

The other concern is that the requirement is un-enforcable. FLARM is an
open technology and while it is possible to check an instrument installed
in the glider it is not possible to check and undeclared FLARM unit
carried by the pilot, searching pilots before they get into their glider
is not likely to ever be acceptable. It is comparatively easy to have a
non--stealth unit available. A rule that cannot be enforced should never
be made.

And that undeclared non-stealth unit would be visible to and recorded
by nearby Flarm units. So one possibility is just the risk of
detection would be enough to prevent carrying one. We do not strip
search pilots today at contests so I am not sure enforcement like that
would ever be needed. But again it is a non issue now as the rules
seem to be let's just see how things go without any stealth
requirement. And all this is a concern about something we just do not
have to face at the moment.

The major problem with all this is there is really nothing to complain
about :-) The USA rules commitee has actually looked at the issues,
looked at the technology coming in PowerFLARM and actually made a very
sensible decision given where we are and they took the time to explain
their thoughts. Thanks guys.

Flarm is not open technology. It is proprietary technology, and no company
except FLARM in switzerland can do it.
All other companies on the market bought licences from flarm. *No US company
will be allowed to market its own traffic advisor,
unless they buy it from flarm. It is called monopoly , and in this case it
is about *your safety.
A couple of years ago, the IGC had decided to adopt a public protocol for
traffic informations, but nothing happened so far.

paolo

Related muddled thinking around UAT technology by the SSA has probably
helped Flarm feel less than excited about entering the USA market.
Luckily PowerFLARM is not too far away...

Darryl

From my crystal ball.

A picture says a thousand words:

http://www.bmapper.com/VIRA.jpg

Dale Kramer
No Title anymore

On Nov 17, 7:08*pm, DaleKramer wrote:
From my crystal ball.

A picture says a thousand words:

http://www.bmapper.com/VIRA.jpg

Dale Kramer
No Title anymore

Dale

I am not sure why you seem pessimistic that contest pilots won't rent
PowerFLARM if available--especially to help make up their own minds
how well this technology works and whether they should purchase a unit
(should be pretty convincing).

I would hope that especially with rental units available then
preserving one's own ass, and if that fails then peer pressure, would
achieve a very high adoption rate. And even if that does not work then
trying that route before approaching this as something that needs to
be mandated seems to make a lot of sense. The contest community will
have vast amounts of experience with this by next year and able to
have a much more informed discussion--which might well change things.
And if things need a push or an experiment makes sense then the option
is still open to make a contest Flarm mandatory.

Darryl

Choice 1: Rental FLARMs left on the ground while we have FLARMless
gliders in the air = ??% FLARM usage in contests
Choice 2: Require FLARM usage if they are available = 100% FLARM usage
in contests

Choice 1 was chosen by the Rules Committee.

I will not take that chance so I will not participate, this has been a
very steadfast position I have taken all along.

This leaves a situation where I can only hope that I am wrong while
the RC can only hope that they are right.

Dale

On Nov 17, 8:50*pm, DaleKramer wrote:
Choice 1: Rental FLARMs left on the ground while we have FLARMless
gliders in the air = ??% FLARM usage in contests
Choice 2: Require FLARM usage if they are available = 100% FLARM usage
in contests

Choice 1 was chosen by the Rules Committee.

I will not take that chance so I will not participate, this has been a
very steadfast position I have taken all along.

This leaves a situation where I can only hope that I am wrong while
the RC can only hope that they are right.

Dale

Dale,

Not sure why you are so upset. You were asking the rules committee to
require the use of vapor-ware without any trial period. If the
SuperFLARM units arrive in time for the next contest season and they
work properly I would guess we will see them required in 2012. It is
a stretch to require something that is continually pushed back on
delivery dates and has not been tested yet.

I would guess that if we have a rental set in the country we will see
them used during the 2011 contest season. I look forward to using it
in the future.

Tim

We can argue all day about how vapor-ware they really are but that
does not matter.

When they come, they will work or the plan was that they would not
have been offered for rent.

There was no reason NOT to have the rule in place prior to that time.

Dale

At 01:05 18 November 2010, PCool wrote:

"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
Well done.

The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of
an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is
fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very
dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find
me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only

the PDA output is degraded.
But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
nearby traffic. It is well thought.


See http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

The warnings you may receive, and the data transmitted giving others
warning are degraded, maybe not by much but they are degraded. The
document above talks about 2 seconds. Would a jury understand this? The
documentation accepts that the warnings that might be transmitted and
received are degraded with some information unavailable. While we as
glider pilots might understand that the effect is small a non glider
pilot, especially a lawyer, might argue that any degredation is
unacceptable. While individual pilots might make the decision by
themselves, mandating a requirement puts the responsibility on the
organisation/directors of competitions. Having a unit designed as a safety
aid and then deliberately restricting it is any way is not likely to win
favour in legal circles. Who is going to get sued if it all goes wrong?