A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is FLARM helpful?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old November 30th 15, 08:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 608
Default Is FLARM helpful?

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 10:09:44 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Ugh - typos fixed.

My considered opinion on this is fivefold:

1) You can do most of this today without use of Flarm or a data connection to the ground. WinPilot has offered aggregate heat maps of thermal locations and strengths based on any number of uploaded IGC tracks, filtered for time of day, time of year, sun angle, wind direction, etc. for a decade or so.. Nobody I know uses it. You also can - with a little effort - upload BlipMap data to your flight computer to see where you are versus forecasted weather patterns (not historical weather, which is generally far less helpful when things are changing through the day). I've been doing it on paper for years. Once in a while it helps on convergence days.

2) The incremental benefit of seeing gliders in the local area outside a mile or two - all the way out to the entire contest area - doesn't matter very much at all and it won't in the future - probably not ever. Most of the time, trying to track and use Flarm thermals hurts your speed. Traditional leeching is hard enough to do, and is of limited, mostly defensive, value. The data strongly suggest that the further back you trail the less value there is and it pretty quickly turns negative. As previously mentioned - an analysis of thermal leeching shows consistently weaker climbs for gliders trailing more than a few minutes behind. You could maybe get a super-computer to try to come up with an estimate of thermal locations and strengths but subtle differences in the scene out the window (clouds, ripples on ponds, tree leaves turning up and showing a different color on a ridge line, haze domes, dust devils, cloud shadows, cirrus decks, sun on rocks, wind changes, prior experiences with all of the above) all matter so much more and don't make it into the hypothetical heat map. It is mostly out of date a minute after it is produced. Everything I ever learned about analytics, optimization and feedback systems and every single contest day I've scrutinized tells me this problem has way too little signal and way too much noise for anyone to benefit - even if you know every thermal in use or recently in use over the entire course.

3) Even a God-map of previously used thermals over the entire course did provide useful information that made more than a handful of points difference in a race it doesn't materially change the role of the pilot - which is to make tactical decisions about what course to fly and what thermals to take versus pass up - all based on highly variable, uncertain and time-sensitive information about not what is going on right now but what is likely to be going at some time and place in the future that you can actually get to in time for it to matter. More information is just information - more historical information, particularly about choices pilots made about which course to fly or thermal to take is mostly irrelevant but I see no harm in pilots trying to use it. It doesn't turn glider flying into a video game any more than a variometer or GPS do. The decision-making maybe gets a little richer, certainly not more robotic. The "head in the cockpit" argument is also bunk. Any pilot who doesn't understand how to do an instrument scan shouldn't be flying no matter what - but in particular looking at a display that is filled with a radar scope of where all the other gliders are hardly seems worse than looking outside trying to pick up maybe half or less of them with the naked eye.

4) For the odd situation where situational data does provide useful information, it mostly evens out what most pilots I know think of as luck or unfair advantages - and outcomes that the current scoring formulae devalue for that reason. On a ridge day, you will be able to discover that - well - the ridge is working, and on a wave day you'll maybe be able to discover the location of the wave so that the one or two pilots who stumble into it or have local knowledge won't run away with the day when everyone else gets stuck or slow, unless of course we want more random variation and local knowledge to determine the order of the scoresheet. I'm more for an even playing field but I know others hold local secrets close and lobby to have Nationals held where they fly a lot - at least in part so they can gain some edge.

5) More pilots report that they prefer having more situational awareness - both for enjoyment and peace of mind - than pilots report they want less - by about 2 to 1. Pilots who don't fly contests report that having information about other pilots' locations makes them more likely to race, and the reverse is also true without this information they are less likely to try racing - OLC becomes too appealing. Given that, I'm much more in favor of waiting to see if some dire miscarriage of justice results from all of these new innovations. Innovations that mostly can be available on pretty inexpensive mass-produced consumer devices that most of us already carry in our pockets.

I realize change is disquieting, particularly if you think you have some advantage under the status quo, but I don't think that's inherently a reason to try to hold back the tides of change.

My 2c.

9B
  #122  
Old November 30th 15, 08:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Is FLARM helpful?

I think that the Stealth mode vs not Stealth mode argument is just complete nonsense. If Flarm (not in Stealth mode) does provide a tactical advantage, then all pilots with Flarm equipped gliders have the same advantage. Therefore, no Flarm equipped pilot has any advantage over another Flarm equipped pilot. Assuming Flarm does provide a tactical advantage, the only people who lose are those who do not use Flarm.

P9
  #123  
Old November 30th 15, 11:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default Is FLARM helpful?

Yeah, they made rules for checkers too not just golf! However, checkers and golf have zero correlation to gliding. You can get killed flying a glider. Plus you fly in a dynamic three dimensional space that is moving at a relative speed between 0 and 250 knots. There is weather, wind, lightening, thunderstorms, microbursts, other maneuvering gliders, fast moving aircraft, airspace ad terrain... It obvious that situational awareness is a valuable safety feature.


On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 11:48:53 AM UTC-8, XC wrote:

I'm reminded of the Rodney Dangerfield character in the movie "Caddy Shack"and his laser guided putter. Funny movie but insightful in this instance, too. Think of all the technology that could be put to use to sink a put. Indeed, there have been tons of improvements in putters over the years. There is a huge market as golfers are desperate to improve their game and be as good as the pros. (What they really need to do is practice more but who has the time.)

Luckily, the golfers got together and set boundaries to preserve their sport. Some technologies were okay and some were determined to potentially change the spirit of the game. Market forces were held back.

Someone saw that not only would youth golfers be unable to afford a $50k putter, they would never become youth golfers because what's the point of it all. Who wants to grow up to be like Rory McIlroy (had to look that one up) when Rodney Dangerfield can buy himself some technology and is now 90% as good?

I feel unlimited use of FLARM to indicate climb rates and contest ID's in contests changes the spirit of the game. Likewise, with some of the additional FLARM enhancements which are on the way.

And guys, come to think of it, we have got to start dressing more fashionably like the golfers.

XC

  #124  
Old December 1st 15, 03:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Springford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 320
Default Is FLARM helpful?

Andy,

Thank you for your insights on this, I completely agree with all your points. I am hearing rumours that the rules committee is already planning to implement stealth mode for Nationals in 2016. How can this be when more pilots (point 5) want full flarm allowed than stealth mode?

  #125  
Old December 1st 15, 04:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tim Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Is FLARM helpful?

Dave,

It is not rumor, they already did it to the 15M, Open and Std Nationals. The contest asked for a waver to make Flarm mandatory and the rules committee told them it would allow that if stealth mode was required as well. It appears the rules committee once again knows what is best for pilots even though the last survey does not support requiring stealth mode in contests.

This has left the contest organizers between a rock and a hard place. They can either not require Flarm or must use stealth mode. It is sad because the group at Nephi has been a leader in requiring Flarm and have been champions of the technology. Now the racing committee is using this to push an agenda that does not appear to have widespread support among pilots.
  #126  
Old December 1st 15, 04:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Koerner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 430
Default Is FLARM helpful?

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 7:39:20 PM UTC-7, Dave Springford wrote:
Andy,

Thank you for your insights on this, I completely agree with all your points. I am hearing rumours that the rules committee is already planning to implement stealth mode for Nationals in 2016. How can this be when more pilots (point 5) want full flarm allowed than stealth mode?


I agree. Andy wins this argument hands down! I'd certainly be annoyed if Stealth becomes a rule or a norm. Stealth is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate. As well, it is less fun.
  #127  
Old December 1st 15, 04:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default Is FLARM helpful?

they already did it to the 15M, Open and Std Nationals. The contest asked for a waver to make Flarm mandatory and the rules committee told them it would allow that if stealth mode was required as well. ...

This has left the contest organizers between a rock and a hard place. They can either not require Flarm or must use stealth mode.


Tim (and others in the same boat):

In my past experience at RC, waivers are a negotiation, not a hard answer. If Nephi organizers want mandatory flarm and no stealth mode, write back and say this is unacceptable. If the RC says no, and you remain unhappy, appeal to the SSA board, which is the ultimate arbiter.

Nephi is in a strong position, as the bid for the contest was made and accepted, and pilots signed up (me) with no mention of stealth mode.

It's also in a strong position, as your fallback is the heck with nationals, we'll just run a camp again. Have fun finding someone else to run three nationals.

You could also survey your pilots and see how they feel about it.

If the organizers do not want to shoulder responsibility for what they regard as compromises on safety, it is strange for the RC to force them otherwise.

When there is a midair, if any deliberate degradation of a safety device is on, be sure that whoever commanded that fact will be sued. (Leaving aside the more important tragedies of such an event.) This isn't alarmism. The Uvalde midair resulted in a suit against organizers, and the Tonopah takeoff accident did as well.

Down the pike, in the end, rule 9.0 allows the CD to make safety decisions. And the CD decides how to enforce rules, if you get my drift.

I will be interested to see what decisions the RC has made regarding stealth. The minutes should be out on the ssa website soon, which ought to put some fact behind these rumors.

John Cochrane BB (Signed up for Nephi, stealth off.)
  #128  
Old December 1st 15, 10:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 668
Default Is FLARM helpful?

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 05:49:27 UTC+2, John Cochrane wrote:
The Uvalde midair resulted in a suit against organizers, and the Tonopah takeoff accident did as well.

John Cochrane BB (Signed up for Nephi, stealth off.)


What? Seriously?
  #129  
Old December 1st 15, 12:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default Is FLARM helpful?

Interesting discussion. We've been through it in Italy 10 years ago, when Flarm was made mandatory in competitions. Lots of negative opinions, based on monopoly by the manufacturer, high cost (debatable), negative impact on "looking out" etc. Nevertheless, a vast majority adopted it also for local flying. There was also some resistance from the club fleet managers and instructors, fearing a change in the traditional way of teaching and of flying. Some said "not relevant to local flying, as we have radio and we are on local frequency" (dumb statement: I will not call a glider I have not seen).
By the way, Flarm is so widespread that it is now recommended, not compulsory equipment in italian competitions. Which is OK with me, as competition airspace is definitely open to non-Flarm traffic, including large birds, balloons, airplanes, helicopters etc.

Occasionally, the dispute comes out again, as is happening in these days.
Usually triggered by the press releases on the Flarm website. The latest is the sum of Flarm's suggestion we should add the Flarm device to the sailplane's official equipment list, have the installation approved by producing the (expensive) "Minor Change Approval" document, and by introducing Flarm firmware update in the annual inspection list.
So far, these facts infer that Flarm may be tempted, in the not-so-distant future, to ask for an annual fee, which of course most people would adverse.. A majority would welcome an alternative to Flarm, in the form of an OGN device or similar.

In conclusion, at the moment, if Flarm is installed inside a sailplane, the glider manufacturers insist that no MCA is necessary. However, if you install an antenna on the sailplane body (practically, that includes external antennas), then an MCA is required by european rules. The cost for the individual MCA is at the moment 99euros (under the definition of "special offer" for gliders (much more for aircraft), so it may well increase in the future.

aldo cernezzi
www.voloavela.it
  #130  
Old December 1st 15, 04:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default Is FLARM helpful?

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 6:05:49 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Interesting discussion. We've been through it in Italy 10 years ago, when Flarm was made mandatory in competitions. Lots of negative opinions, based on monopoly by the manufacturer, high cost (debatable), negative impact on "looking out" etc. Nevertheless, a vast majority adopted it also for local flying. There was also some resistance from the club fleet managers and instructors, fearing a change in the traditional way of teaching and of flying. Some said "not relevant to local flying, as we have radio and we are on local frequency" (dumb statement: I will not call a glider I have not seen)..
By the way, Flarm is so widespread that it is now recommended, not compulsory equipment in italian competitions. Which is OK with me, as competition airspace is definitely open to non-Flarm traffic, including large birds, balloons, airplanes, helicopters etc.

Occasionally, the dispute comes out again, as is happening in these days.
Usually triggered by the press releases on the Flarm website. The latest is the sum of Flarm's suggestion we should add the Flarm device to the sailplane's official equipment list, have the installation approved by producing the (expensive) "Minor Change Approval" document, and by introducing Flarm firmware update in the annual inspection list.
So far, these facts infer that Flarm may be tempted, in the not-so-distant future, to ask for an annual fee, which of course most people would adverse. A majority would welcome an alternative to Flarm, in the form of an OGN device or similar.

In conclusion, at the moment, if Flarm is installed inside a sailplane, the glider manufacturers insist that no MCA is necessary. However, if you install an antenna on the sailplane body (practically, that includes external antennas), then an MCA is required by european rules. The cost for the individual MCA is at the moment 99euros (under the definition of "special offer" for gliders (much more for aircraft), so it may well increase in the future.

aldo cernezzi
www.voloavela.it


WRT 9B let me add some more "lies, damn lies and statistics":

With respect to pilots who reported (on the annual poll) flying in a National contest in 2015 (63), 43% want "stealth" to be mandatory by rule. 10% want stealth to be prohibited by rule. 27% want it to be the pilot's choice, 13% the organizer's.

Again, among pilots who reported flying in a National, 34% say stealth-off "adds enjoyment" and 35% say "decreases enjoyment."

Btw, consider that when a pilot puts a tin foil hat over the FLARM antenna so as to become invisible (yes, it happens), it effectively negates any "FLARM mandatory" mandate and negatively impacts the benefits FLARM is designed to provide.

The RC is waiting for the revised definition of "Competition" mode to be released by FLARM before making a final recommendation to the SSA BOD.


QT
RC Chair
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FAA Actually being helpful! Steve Leonard[_2_] Soaring 3 September 15th 12 02:57 PM
Helpful controller Ridge Piloting 3 July 12th 07 11:57 PM
Ode to the Helpful Homebuilder [email protected] Home Built 13 November 10th 06 09:37 AM
Helpful Aviation DVD's Kobra Piloting 0 October 27th 05 02:10 AM
Which rating would be more helpful? Jeffrey LLoyd Piloting 2 July 17th 03 07:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.