Is FLARM helpful?

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.

But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.

John Cochrane BB

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.

But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.

John Cochrane BB

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may unreasonably think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:02:23 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
I find it interesting that the FAA has selected 15 nautical miles as the appropriate range for TIS-B aircraft target situational awareness yet on this forum, there are folks who want to argue that 2 km is all that is needed.. Providing that 15 NM range comes at a square law cost in terms of data signaling requirements; that number would not have been the choice if it were not deemed to be needed and useful.

As has been pointed out, the fact that a glider pilot perceived some sort of competition related anti-leeching benefit from intentionally reducing their detection range would be one hell of a tough sell in a US court if the worst were to happen. And then there's the question of what might be the insurance response be in that situation? It seems to me that even if you happen to believe the leeching nonsense, you should not want to have anyone in the organization setting themselves up for increased liability. Seems like race organizers are rationally compelled to specifically disallow stealth so that nobody is permitted to use it for perceived advantage.

We, as an organization have set a 500' margin to airspace above and 30 minute margin to official sunset time -- conservative safety standards for sure. It is incongruous that we might condone intentionally dialing back PowerFlarm to 2km range and obscuring Aircraft identification information when the instrument is capable of better.

This is a great point Steve.

The reason I installed ADS-B out/in is because I want to be around for my family. I like flying in contests but if it means degrading my safety I will rather go for a soaring vacation instead.

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.

But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.

John Cochrane BB

Technology can be defined as the application of human ability of affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.

The stealth mode feature of stealth is such an application of technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.

But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.

John Cochrane BB


Technology can be defined as the application of human ability of affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.

The stealth mode feature of FLARM is such an application of human ability or technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Well, as long as we're being sticklers, stealth mode is discouraged by the designers. They put it in reluctantly in response to a previous long winter's worry-warting about too much technology in the cockpit by a different set of racing rule makers, and they discourage its use.

But point well taken. Let's agree on "limiting technology" in this case.

John Cochrane BB


Technology can be defined as the application of human ability to affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.

The stealth mode feature of FLARM is such an application of human ability or technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.

XC

Dear XC:

With all due respect life is more worthwhile than what YOU deem "the spirit of the sport" while flying a glider costing over $100,000 made of the the most advanced composite materials and utilizing the most advance low speed aerodynamics on the planet. Your glider or those also in "the spirit of the sport" have flight computers that can keep track of arrival hight and l/d to arrive for all airports, those computers tell you how fast to fly between thermals, will tell you the time to complete a task given the McCready setting, will tell you where airspace is both in the vertical and horizontal plane. These computers will warn you if your airbrakes or open, if you forget to lower your landing gear, they will show you photos of the airport you have selected they can tell you your height both in AGL and MSL... Some of these gliders that by your argument still have the correct "spirit of the sport" have engines, some have jet engines, other can launch themselves, this is still in the spirit of the sport but anti-collision not muted to 2 km takes away the spirit? Your "spirit of the sport" idea is seriously warped and does not stand to simple logic. Advanced computers fine, advanced aerodynamics fine, engines fine, seeing all the traffic that can kill you bad.

Maybe the 1-26 association and the vintage glider association would better provide the spirit you want to preserve.

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 2:22:52 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Technology can be defined as the application of human ability to affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.

The stealth mode feature of FLARM is such an application of human ability or technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 6:57:03 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Dear XC:

With all due respect life is more worthwhile than what YOU deem "the spirit of the sport" while flying a glider costing over $100,000 made of the the most advanced composite materials and utilizing the most advance low speed aerodynamics on the planet. Your glider or those also in "the spirit of the sport" have flight computers that can keep track of arrival hight and l/d to arrive for all airports, those computers tell you how fast to fly between thermals, will tell you the time to complete a task given the McCready setting, will tell you where airspace is both in the vertical and horizontal plane. These computers will warn you if your airbrakes or open, if you forget to lower your landing gear, they will show you photos of the airport you have selected they can tell you your height both in AGL and MSL... Some of these gliders that by your argument still have the correct "spirit of the sport" have engines, some have jet engines, other can launch themselves, this is still in the spirit of the sport but anti-collision not muted to 2 km takes away the spirit? Your "spirit of the sport" idea is seriously warped and does not stand to simple logic. Advanced computers fine, advanced aerodynamics fine, engines fine, seeing all the traffic that can kill you bad.

Maybe the 1-26 association and the vintage glider association would better provide the spirit you want to preserve.

I'm curious sir as to what dog you have in this fight. It would help me to better appreciate your perspective.
UH