Flarm in 2011 USA Contests

On Nov 17, 11:14*pm, DaleKramer wrote:

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

Dale

Other than the fact that you cannot herd cats.

I'm okay with the RC position. Clearly, so are others.

The rental idea and the support you've gotten for it is brilliant. I
could be wrong on this, but I don't think the support was exclusively
based on MIRA. Before you go scorched earth, I hope you give someone
else the opportunity to take over the project.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Hi Don,

I agree.

Paul Remde

"Don Johnstone" wrote in message
...
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?

Am 18.11.2010 11:45, Don Johnstone wrote:
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?


Don,
there is a difference between "Competition Mode" and "Stealth Mode". I
guess the wording could be better, but fact is that only Stealth Mode
was in question to be mandatory in competitions. Stealth mode has in
fact effects not only on your FLARM unit but also on others in
obfuscating your height and climb rate, except for warnings.

Competition Mode on the other hand is a setting that only affects the
FLARM unit where it is set, resulting in less (and/or later) alarms. It
only affects the pilot that choose to set that mode, either via
FLARM-Tool Software or via the config file on th SD-Card. Alternativly
you could turn the sound off or down if you get annoyed by too many
alarm signals.

I tried this mode during some days in a competition, but then turned it
off again in favour of reducing the warning level when a gaggle
situation lead to too many signals that were not a real threat.

I can assure you that much of the confusion will go away once you have
flown with FLARM for several days in different situation. In fact I am
sure most of you will love it. It is a great enhancement for security.
--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Evan,

Because I have acted on this report so quickly, there is nothing on
the earth to scorch. I would never do that anyway.

I have done the honorable thing and withdrawn when I feel that I can
no longer support the direction that this has taken.

I have been completely up front and open about my intentions and
everything that has happened.

The only thing withheld has been the specific terms of the tentative
agreement with FLARM Technology at their request.

Everything relevant to the program has been published and the next
volunteer can easily proceed.

I wish everyone the best but I choose not to participate.

Dale

Give us a break. What do you expect when you try shoving Flarm down our
throats and want it to be mandatory immediately. The RC made several
good points. Give us time to aborb the issue and gain experience with
Flarm
once it gets here.
GL






At Ll13:54 18 November 2010, DaleKramer wrote:
Evan,

Because I have acted on this report so quickly, there is nothing on
the earth to scorch. I would never do that anyway.

I have done the honorable thing and withdrawn when I feel that I can
no longer support the direction that this has taken.

I have been completely up front and open about my intentions and
everything that has happened.

The only thing withheld has been the specific terms of the tentative
agreement with FLARM Technology at their request.

Everything relevant to the program has been published and the next
volunteer can easily proceed.

I wish everyone the best but I choose not to participate.

Dale

On Nov 18, 6:54*am, DaleKramer wrote:
Evan,

Because I have acted on this report so quickly, there is nothing on
the earth to scorch. *I would never do that anyway.

I have done the honorable thing and withdrawn when I feel that I can
no longer support the direction that this has taken.

I have been completely up front and open about my intentions and
everything that has happened.

The only thing withheld has been the specific terms of the tentative
agreement with FLARM Technology at their request.

Everything relevant to the program has been published and the next
volunteer can easily proceed.

I wish everyone the best but I choose not to participate.

Dale

Like virtually all US competition glider pilots, I think the
introduction of PowerFlarm will result in a significant improvement in
safety and I look forward to getting one myself. Even though I live in
free-wheeling regulation-free Arizona, where I can drive a motorcycle
without a helmet and carry a concealed firearm without a permit, I
encourage colleagues here also to acquire a PowerFlarm.

However, on mandatory use in 2011 I am with the committee on this
one. To mandate the use of a device which has yet to be fully tested
and receive FCC approval is premature. All complex electronic devices
like this require a learning curve in their introduction and usage and
a period of time to eliminate glitches and upgrade firmware. I would
be extremely surprised if the first units to arrive work seamlessly
from the get-go. I'll buy mine from the second batch to arrive here
after my colleagues have done the trouble-shooting!

I also have some concerns about a rental program requiring the
temporary installation of a unit. I like stuff bolted to my panel and
I like to be fully familiar with electronics before I fly in a
demanding contest. I am not sure that having a significant number of
pilots in a contest with a loose device Velcroed or duck-taped to the
glider and having them read the user manual in a gaggle is the best
way to proceed.

No criticism intended to those who tried to get the program going -
just my perspective on a difficult issue.

Mike

Hi,

I applaud Dale for his efforts to get a rental fleet of FLARMs going. I'm
sorry to hear that due to the decisions of the contest committee he has
decided to completely abandon the idea. It would be wonderful to have
rental units available so that people could try them before buying them. Or
pay a reasonable rental fee for the one week of the year they need it the
most.

However, I must admit that I had my doubts that a rental system could work.
I envisioned it requiring hundreds of hours per year of volunteer work to
ship units, take in rental fees, receive units back, replace missing or
damaged parts, make phone calls and send e-mails begging people to please
return their rental unit soon, etc. While it would be extremely nice to
have them, I wouldn't volunteer to do the job.

As a soaring related business owner I imagine I would need to charge
$495/week to make it profitable. I don't think too many pilots that are
undecided about the usefulness of FLARM would pay that much. And that rate
would assume that I didn't have to pay for the inventory - that people would
donate units to the cause. But I should clarify that I'm not volunteering
to do this.

I'd much rather see people jump in and buy one and get to know it well
before they come to a contest - and use it every time they fly at the home
gliderport as well.

But of course, I'm biased because I sell them.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

"DaleKramer" wrote in message
...
Evan,

Because I have acted on this report so quickly, there is nothing on
the earth to scorch. I would never do that anyway.

I have done the honorable thing and withdrawn when I feel that I can
no longer support the direction that this has taken.

I have been completely up front and open about my intentions and
everything that has happened.

The only thing withheld has been the specific terms of the tentative
agreement with FLARM Technology at their request.

Everything relevant to the program has been published and the next
volunteer can easily proceed.

I wish everyone the best but I choose not to participate.

Dale

Mike,

See the mount design I came up with at http://www.FlarmFund.org/flarm_fund_003.htm

Dale

Greg,

That is exactly what I am giving you, a break.

Please do not let this thread deteriorate further, it is too
important.

Dale

Paule,

I am aware that the scope of what I volunteered to do was enormous.

I think the level of support that I received was partly because enough
people knew that I would have been able to accomplish what I started
if I had just received the RC support the way that I received popular
support from the silent majority.

Dale