RC madness

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 10:22:32 AM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
From Rules Committee:

"This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):

1. For National Contests:
* Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
* Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"


I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.

You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.

Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.

Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

I don't subscribe to the big sky theory of collision avoidance on the whites. If there is a cloud base, everyone is at it, so altitudes are usually the same. Because it is a long ridge line, everyone tends to fly the best line, so the flight corridor tends to be very tight. Speeds can be near Vne in both directions. Head-on glider profiles are nearly impossible to see until the last minute. That's why procedure Alpha was developed. FLARM is helpful, but not sufficient. not everyone has it. If I collide with one of the few guys that still hasn't installed it, my day is still AFU.

Matt

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

If you're that afraid, why not give it up?

On 12/23/2015 9:41 AM, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 8:23:24 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
No agreed to scenario?



14 CFR 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.



(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are
approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each
aircraft shall alter course to the right.



Some people are writing their own rules when the rules are already
in effect. So if one of you turns to the left because that seems
the best course, and the other turns to the right because that's
what the FARs require, what happens?



Winter seems the time for everyone to come up with outrageous
scenarios. And BTW, it's snowing here, too.




On 12/22/2015 5:15 PM, Andy Blackburn
wrote:



On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:



Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.


Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.



Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.


I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.

Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.

9B





--

Dan, 5J
And if there is already an aircraft to your right?

--
Dan, 5J

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 7:50:19 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
SNIP Not trying to be difficult but I must be missing something. If they're that close to you (i.e., within 2 km), they're visible even with Stealth.


From the Flarm documents, V6.0 page 19 (maybe this has changed?):

"Targets with enabled “Stealth Mode� are only displayed..... if they meet at least one of the following requirements:

- target is a threat

- target is within 100m horizontal and 50m vertical
- target is within 2000m horizontal and 300m vertical and within ±45° of own flight track."

So the guys going your way - the ones ND is going to pull up sharply into - you don't even know are there. They aren't a threat because they are paralleling your course. Even if they are close enough to appear, their relative altitude is intentionally wrong.

Now I am going to repeat for the 20th time or so, I don't believe Flarm is a huge increase in safety. It is a big sky and most accidents are spin/stall, not head on. I don't even call my Flarm an anti-collision device, I call it an in-flight entertainment system. But certainly beyond a doubt, it improves situational awareness always, and particularly in the scenario described. On The White Mountains and the Sierra convergence lines, I don't think there have been any head-ons than I can recall. Its a big sky. But plenty of people have had to change their underwear at the end of the day, I can assure you. It was enough of a concern that a rather elaborate procedure was devised in the area, reserving a radio frequency and involving reporting points etc., all of which seemed pretty ineffective, while non-stealth FLARM pretty much solves the problem completely and with no distraction.

From your experience, at about what distance does Flarm give conflict alert in a high speed head on situation? I understand that some gliders show on display at "long" range, presumably before alarms go off by some amount. I'm trying to get a practical understanding of the best case sensing and how it compares with alarming.
Anyone with real world experience, please ring in.
Thanks
UH

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 12:16:50 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

If you're that afraid, why not give it up?


We all flew for half a century with big sky/little glider. The odds are low, but the outcome ruins your day. It's a matter of degree. People made the exact same argument agains transponders - arguably with a better fact base to support it since there has never been a collision between a glider and a commercial airliner. Why be afraid? It's never happened - the odds are demonstrably low. Plus airliners are easier targets to pick up visually.

On head-to-head conflicts at speed, limiting the pilots' situational awareness to a last-seconds alarm with a crude indication of direction is a needless producer of anxiety since the action you take is generally not well informed (you likely won't be able to check the collision display orient your gaze, pick up the traffic in time to do something useful). You may as well close your eyes and pray - that will work just fine most of the time - just like before Flarm.

I just don't get why we want to go back to that. Even most advocates of stealth don't want that one.

9B

From your experience, at about what distance does Flarm give conflict alert in a high speed head on situation? I understand that some gliders show on display at "long" range, presumably before alarms go off by some amount. I'm trying to get a practical understanding of the best case sensing and how it compares with alarming.
Anyone with real world experience, please ring in.
Thanks
UH

UH this is pretty easy to go back and look at using the Flarm range analysis tool. Just use the IGC file for a good ridge day where everyone is doing laps back and forth on the same ridge. My Flarm range is usually around 10km directly out front. I will say it is very nice to get a short beep alert and have the time to look at the target's direction and relative altitude well before getting surprised by a radar warning and having much less time to visually acquire the glider if you don't have them yet (which also happens regularly even while attempting to maintain a good visual scan) Ridge days are where I see a possible issue with the stealth rule here in the east.

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 7:50:19 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
SNIP Not trying to be difficult but I must be missing something. If they're that close to you (i.e., within 2 km), they're visible even with Stealth.


From the Flarm documents, V6.0 page 19 (maybe this has changed?):

"Targets with enabled “Stealth Mode� are only displayed..... if they meet at least one of the following requirements:

- target is a threat

- target is within 100m horizontal and 50m vertical
- target is within 2000m horizontal and 300m vertical and within ±45° of own flight track."

So the guys going your way - the ones ND is going to pull up sharply into - you don't even know are there. They aren't a threat because they are paralleling your course. Even if they are close enough to appear, their relative altitude is intentionally wrong.

Now I am going to repeat for the 20th time or so, I don't believe Flarm is a huge increase in safety. It is a big sky and most accidents are spin/stall, not head on. I don't even call my Flarm an anti-collision device, I call it an in-flight entertainment system. But certainly beyond a doubt, it improves situational awareness always, and particularly in the scenario described. On The White Mountains and the Sierra convergence lines, I don't think there have been any head-ons than I can recall. Its a big sky. But plenty of people have had to change their underwear at the end of the day, I can assure you. It was enough of a concern that a rather elaborate procedure was devised in the area, reserving a radio frequency and involving reporting points etc., all of which seemed pretty ineffective, while non-stealth FLARM pretty much solves the problem completely and with no distraction.

From your experience, at about what distance does Flarm give conflict alert in a high speed head on situation? I understand that some gliders show on display at "long" range, presumably before alarms go off by some amount. I'm trying to get a practical understanding of the best case sensing and how it compares with alarming.
Anyone with real world experience, please ring in.
Thanks
UH

I have never had an unexpected head on warning. The expected ones seem to happen about as claimed, around 12 - 15 seconds prior to impact. The reason I have never had an unexpected warning is that any glider with non-stealth Flarm shows up on the tactical display many miles out - at least 5 and often 10 or more. Most gliders flying in this area fly with non-stealth Flarm. I consider unexpected warnings to be a direct result of loss of situational awareness, after which one should evaluate what he/she is doing wrong.

Prior to Flarm, flying a very fast narrow street like the White Mountains, it was not at all uncommon to have a glider flash by going the other way maybe a few wing spans apart, with 2 - 3 seconds from visual recognition to passing. You are looking for a nose-on white glider against a white cloud background. No doubt there were others that I never saw. With Flarm, you see MANY more gliders that you never would have seen, and close crossings are easily avoided.

Now I will pre-empt the responses about head down time. I consider the Butterfly and other dedicated Flarm displays to be quite deficient for tactical, situational, and collision avoidance use. I don't have one. Flarm targets appear on the moving map tactical display at all times, and are emphasized on that display if the get close. A one second glance is more than enough to evaluate the whole fleet. The vario has voice warnings for collision threats of both gliders and GA aircraft. It does not add to heads down time.

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 10:27:22 AM UTC-8, ND wrote:
On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:41:38 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 8:23:24 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
No agreed to scenario?



14 CFR 91.113*Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.



(e)*Approaching head-on.*When aircraft are
approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each
aircraft shall alter course to the right.



Some people are writing their own rules when the rules are already
in effect.* So if one of you turns to the left because that seems
the best course, and the other turns to the right because that's
what the FARs require, what happens?



Winter seems the time for everyone to come up with outrageous
scenarios.* And BTW, it's snowing here, too.




On 12/22/2015 5:15 PM, Andy Blackburn
wrote:



On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:14:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:



Almost everybody, when faced with the head on scenario will likely do what you mentioned. Sooooo- a better scenario is to push and no banking as it likely will increase your projected cross section.


Literally it's no different than if we just flipped coins at the start of the contest and divided into "pull" pilots and "push" pilots. Your odds are 50-50. If you could get everyone else to agree to push it would be good - for you.



Matching the other guys bank is best obviously.


I'm pooping my pants just thinking about that one! Thanks goodness it happens rarely.

Seriously, there is no agreed to procedure for head-to-head because there are too many scenarios where doing something by rote only makes matters worse. You should assume that in this situation you will not see anything until it is too late. The closer to collision course the less likely you will be able to pick it up. That's just the biology of the human eye. Best to not rely on panic maneuvers if you can avoid it.

9B





--

Dan, 5J

And if there is already an aircraft to your right?

then i will beg our father for mercy and forgiveness in my remaining moments for being a dumbass who didn't give myself an out....

i told you, i am done arguing about hypothetics. remember this from my last post? "you can't win at hypotheticals, because the antagonist can always say, "ok that's fine, but what if..."

so i wont respond next time bruh.

Not a response to you, but to Dan who said the FARs say turn right. Sometimes that is the right thing to do. Sometimes not. If we are arguing technology we ought to also argue about the EXTREMELY antiquated technology of his discussion board. Very last century. Often can't tell who is responding to whom.

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 1:19:41 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:


Now I will pre-empt the responses about head down time. I consider the Butterfly and other dedicated Flarm displays to be quite deficient for tactical, situational, and collision avoidance use. I don't have one. Flarm targets appear on the moving map tactical display at all times, and are emphasized on that display if the get close. A one second glance is more than enough to evaluate the whole fleet. The vario has voice warnings for collision threats of both gliders and GA aircraft. It does not add to heads down time.

What map display and vario are you using?

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:41:26 AM UTC-8, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 10:22:32 AM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
From Rules Committee:

"This is where we are as of today for 2016 FLARM-related rules that will be recommended to the SSA BOD (note that rules are proposed by the RC and approved by the SSA BOD - this year at the Greenville convention):

1. For National Contests:
* Organizers may request a waiver to require the use of FLARM, otherwise carrying a FLARM is at the pilots' option
* Regardless of whether a FLARM is mandatory or optional in a National Contest, if a FLARM is used it must be operated in Competition (i.e. the expected derivative of the current Stealth mode)"


I simply can not believe that RC would propose to use technology that does not exist. You have no clue what it takes to create and test software.

You guys would not survive in a corporate world a month.

Thank God, there is SSA BOD to stop this madness. It would have been a different story if the technology already existed and it was proven and field tested.

Have a Marry Christmas, Andrzej

I don't subscribe to the big sky theory of collision avoidance on the whites. If there is a cloud base, everyone is at it, so altitudes are usually the same. Because it is a long ridge line, everyone tends to fly the best line, so the flight corridor tends to be very tight. Speeds can be near Vne in both directions. Head-on glider profiles are nearly impossible to see until the last minute. That's why procedure Alpha was developed. FLARM is helpful, but not sufficient. not everyone has it. If I collide with one of the few guys that still hasn't installed it, my day is still AFU.

Matt

Matt, my experience is that Flarm is FAR more effective than procedure Alpha. Its sole drawback is the few gliders that don't have it installed. By comparison, procedure Alpha requires constant attention and distraction, relies on (unreliable) pilot reporting, rapidly aging altitude reports, fast mental calculations to determine crossing times and altitudes. Better than nothing perhaps. But universal Flarm usage would be vastly superior.

The "Big Sky" theory is proven to be an invalid theory with each collision and each near miss. We tend to fly along lift lines. Have had too many close calls!

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 11:41:26 AM UTC-8, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:

I don't subscribe to the big sky theory of collision avoidance on the whites. If there is a cloud base, everyone is at it, so altitudes are usually the same. Because it is a long ridge line, everyone tends to fly the best line, so the flight corridor tends to be very tight. Speeds can be near Vne in both directions. Head-on glider profiles are nearly impossible to see until the last minute. That's why procedure Alpha was developed. FLARM is helpful, but not sufficient. not everyone has it. If I collide with one of the few guys that still hasn't installed it, my day is still AFU.

Matt