FLARM in Stealth Mode at US 15M/Standard Nationals - Loved It!

FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition Mode), there have always been and will always be leeches. I am still completely unconvinced that a pilot can take advantage of a supposed strong thermal (or gaggle) identified solely by FLARM and outside of visual range. I would love to see some SEEYOU evidence of that (I would be impressed with even ONE example). So far, astonishingly after the dramatic statements up and down this thread, I have seen nothing in terms of a replay example. I just honestly do not believe that one can leech effectively outside of visual range. This is simply overhyped in my mind until I see real examples.

This debate comes down to people who don't like/want tech and people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation) into the mix. I don't mind Flarm or competitors seeing me on their screen. Its fun to see how other pilots are doing around me to be honest. Its fun when I notice them being there when I had missed them visually. This experience is much like Condor (highly competitive by the way) with the visual range setting. Condor racers turn it off in the big races (Stealth Mode), but leave it on for the easier going nightly events (last I checked). For beginner and advanced Condor pilots alike, it is simple fun to see how the race is progressing (at least within mile or two) in real time (racing) rather than being alone and "sneaking around" by yourself all day only to see what happens in the evening (after calculating scoring for AAT, HAT's...you know the drill).. We are also talking on "the radio" with TeamSpeak (program for gaming chat).

My ONLY problem with FLARM is that an arms race may (has) develop(ed) with special antennas, amplifiers, tin foil hats (antenna covers intended to block signal), etc. The game is to maximize an unfair advantage for yourself and to maximize the disadvantage for competitors. As with all games, there will be prodigies (tech savvy) at this new variable (skill). No other soaring technology really allows such a large of a variance in the usability of the available information. A GPS logger works or it does not. Varios are, for the most part, all the same. There is really not much difference between a smart phone with XC Soar (free) and an LX 9000 ($5000). While I am still unconvinced that the information FLARM provides is highly actionable (tactical), you CAN modify level of value to you to your competitors. This is quite unique, quite unsportsmanlike and quite sad.

With FLARM, I have done some more research and there are some clear, inexpensive and easy methods to "stacking the deck" in ones favor. In other words, FLAT OUT CHEATING! This is a big red flag. All the little intangibles such as IDing competitors in the start area or tracking them add up. One can easily exploit this advantage. If necessary, we would all simply have to learn how to manage and eventually master these "techniques." No big deal, but unfortunate to people who don't want to manage another variable. For these reasons, I support Stealth Competition Mode.

That said, if assurances could be made that the potential of each Flarm was the same (impossible), I would be fine with leaving it alone and accepting the new technology. Its fun and fairly harmless if equally available. In general, I think it is dangerous to let the RC ban or limit anything more than they already have.......BUT...this one makes good sense.....for the 3-4 years before ADSB :-). Then it will be weapons free electronic "vision" again and we will not be able to "ban" it.

This is a another very difficult decision for the RC. Do we accept it now or hold out a few years? I will vote for COMPETITION MODE. I also vote for strict rules against tin foil :-) and any non approved equipment (antennas, amplifiers, trained pets with excellent vision, etc) in the cockpit.

As a non-contest-participating but
thoroughly-enamored-with-just-about-all-facets-of-soaring sailplane pilot, I'm
enjoying this particular thread for multiple reasons.

By way of trying to more clearly illustrate a point I'll make below, I've
taken the liberty of rearranging (and editing for brevity's sake) the order of
the two posts below, because the rational engineer in me kinda choked on what
seems to me a gross misrepresentation/oversimplification of a reasoned and
thoughtfully expressed point of view. So count me as someone who has no
problem with agreeing to disagree, but who does have a problem with
misrepresentation of a another's view along the way to expressing one's own
opinion.

On 8/20/2015 12:08 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4,
wrote:
I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If tactical
use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it -

I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions (with
glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and
judgement. EXACTLY!

The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit
I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in
contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs
very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around
course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to
vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying
anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring
competition.

We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then
mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.

Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest
levels?
Major snip

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to
safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals
and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests
(New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to
compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.

Chip Bearden ASW 24 "JB" U.S.A.

FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition Mode),
there will still be leeches.
Snip

This debate really comes down to people who don't like/want change and
people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation) into
the mix.
Snip

Sean

For the record, I've never met either of the above posters (and after this
whiny post, both may hope to keep things that way!)...

Geez Louise, Sean, do you REALLY imagine JB's argument comes down to his view
on change? (I, for one, don't. Were I to attempt to put words in JB's mouth
I'd probably say something like: "This debate really comes down to people who
wish to limit the use of FLARM to the vision 'sold to the gliding community by
FLARM's creators,' and those who would like to use ALL of its
presently-perceived capabilities.")

Respectfully,
Bob W.

Bob, eh...where to begin?

If you look carefully...I was not quoting anyone else. It was not in response to any other comments. My post stands alone as my personal opinion. TALK ABOUT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND PUTTING WORDS INTO ONES MOUTH!

Honestly, nice try. Cute. But unfortunately entirely ineffective.

Allow me to suggest that you have a drink, relax I think you are wound a little tight today.

I too am thoroughly enamored with the mind of the soaring pilot. Entertaining for sure but often making literally no sense and adding literally no value.

Sean

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 3:40:35 PM UTC-4, Bob Whelan wrote:
As a non-contest-participating but
thoroughly-enamored-with-just-about-all-facets-of-soaring sailplane pilot, I'm
enjoying this particular thread for multiple reasons.

By way of trying to more clearly illustrate a point I'll make below, I've
taken the liberty of rearranging (and editing for brevity's sake) the order of
the two posts below, because the rational engineer in me kinda choked on what
seems to me a gross misrepresentation/oversimplification of a reasoned and
thoughtfully expressed point of view. So count me as someone who has no
problem with agreeing to disagree, but who does have a problem with
misrepresentation of a another's view along the way to expressing one's own
opinion.

On 8/20/2015 12:08 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4,
wrote:
I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If tactical
use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it -

I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions (with
glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for skill and
judgement. EXACTLY!

The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I admit
I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict: whether in
contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function it performs
very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of getting around
course as fast as possible. Many have expressed opinions, which seem to
vary according to how "traditionalist" we are and--without implying
anything negative either way--how serious we are about soaring
competition.

We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and then
mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight logging.

Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest
levels?
Major snip

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to
safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals
and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests
(New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to
compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.

Chip Bearden ASW 24 "JB" U.S.A.

FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition Mode),
there will still be leeches.
Snip

This debate really comes down to people who don't like/want change and
people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation) into
the mix.
Snip

Sean

For the record, I've never met either of the above posters (and after this
whiny post, both may hope to keep things that way!)...

Geez Louise, Sean, do you REALLY imagine JB's argument comes down to his view
on change? (I, for one, don't. Were I to attempt to put words in JB's mouth
I'd probably say something like: "This debate really comes down to people who
wish to limit the use of FLARM to the vision 'sold to the gliding community by
FLARM's creators,' and those who would like to use ALL of its
presently-perceived capabilities.")

Respectfully,
Bob W.

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 8:56:06 AM UTC-7, wrote:

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider as a valid parameter.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

I have been away from soaring for almost 13 years, just started soaring again this last March. I was pleasantly surprised how the instrumentation has changed, including PF and unpleasantly surprised that two of my favorite places to fly were shut down and now where I do fly from only a hand full of pilots fly on any given weekend instead of the 20 plus. Just a thought but Chip has an important point, making it easier to to compete. I know there is another thread on this matter, but the cream always raises to the top, stealth mode or not, GPS or not. Maybe the rules committee should consider in the rules process anything that induces more pilots to fly competitions and thus fly with great pilots, learning from them. This way we feed and seed our sport.

I wonder when do we hit critical mass on the downside, where glider ports cannot make enough to stay in business, contests only have a few pilots and manufacturers move on to making other things.

On 8/20/2015 1:56 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
Bob, eh...where to begin?

If you look carefully...I was not quoting anyone else. It was not in
response to any other comments. My post stands alone as my personal
opinion. TALK ABOUT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND PUTTING WORDS INTO ONES MOUTH!

Honestly, nice try. Cute. But unfortunately entirely ineffective.

Allow me to suggest that you have a drink, relax I think you are wound a
little tight today.

I too am thoroughly enamored with the mind of the soaring pilot.
Entertaining for sure but often making literally no sense and adding
literally no value.

Sean

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 3:40:35 PM UTC-4, Bob Whelan wrote:
As a non-contest-participating but
thoroughly-enamored-with-just-about-all-facets-of-soaring sailplane
pilot, I'm enjoying this particular thread for multiple reasons.

By way of trying to more clearly illustrate a point I'll make below,
I've taken the liberty of rearranging (and editing for brevity's sake)
the order of the two posts below, because the rational engineer in me
kinda choked on what seems to me a gross
misrepresentation/oversimplification of a reasoned and thoughtfully
expressed point of view. So count me as someone who has no problem with
agreeing to disagree, but who does have a problem with misrepresentation
of a another's view along the way to expressing one's own opinion.

On 8/20/2015 12:08 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4,
wrote:
I like the idea of a tool to help me have a better flight. If
tactical use of Flarm helps me get home I am all for it -

I hope we use FLARM as intended which was to avoid collisions
(with glider or obstacles) and not as an electronic substitute for
skill and judgement. EXACTLY!

The two most recent postings in this overly long thread (yeah, I
admit I've contributed my share) perfectly illustrate the conflict:
whether in contests to limit FLARM to collision avoidance (a function
it performs very well) or to allow using it to ease the challenge of
getting around course as fast as possible. Many have expressed
opinions, which seem to vary according to how "traditionalist" we are
and--without implying anything negative either way--how serious we
are about soaring competition.

We faced a similar question a few decades ago: whether to allow--and
then mandate the use of--GPS devices for navigation and flight
logging.

Did that decision change what was necessary to excel at the highest
levels?
Major snip

One thing hasn't changed: I'm still clearly in the "limit FLARM to
safety" camp. But as I consider the small fields at the Elmira
Nationals and the shorter current entry lists for my two favorite
fall contests (New Castle and Fairfield), I wonder if making it
easier for pilots to compete is something we should at least consider
as a valid parameter.

Chip Bearden ASW 24 "JB" U.S.A.

FLARM or no FLARM (or Stealth Mode current or proposed Competition
Mode), there will still be leeches.
Snip

This debate really comes down to people who don't like/want change and
people who can accept another variable (natural technology innovation)
into the mix.
Snip

Sean

For the record, I've never met either of the above posters (and after
this whiny post, both may hope to keep things that way!)...

Geez Louise, Sean, do you REALLY imagine JB's argument comes down to his
view on change? (I, for one, don't. Were I to attempt to put words in
JB's mouth I'd probably say something like: "This debate really comes
down to people who wish to limit the use of FLARM to the vision 'sold to
the gliding community by FLARM's creators,' and those who would like to
use ALL of its presently-perceived capabilities.")

Respectfully, Bob W.

I'm prolly gonna regret this, but the anal part of me insists I not let this
slide into silent oblivion, since it reasonably appears I'm being accused of
putting words in someone else's mouth...

So, OK, your reply to my post raised a smidgen of doubt in my mind...had I or
had I not seen a post from you, where a rather lengthy response was top-posted
to another rather lengthy post from JB? (That dual-input post was the post to
which I replied by changing the order and then editing-by-snipping.) Turns out
I had, both on nntp.aioe.org and news.eternal-september.org as read via
Thunderbird. I went back and looked in those places because where I first
looked for archival material - Google's archives - showed only a single,
sans-JB post from you in this thread...though it also shoes a recently deleted
post, which I'm guessing is the one from which I edited?

I'm not asking for an explanation, simply attempting to set my little part of
this particular record straight.

If I seem to have put words in your mouth that you feel are unwarranted, I
apologize.

Bob W.

Since you asked. Last day of Dannsville 2014 (avaialbe on the SSA Website). If you pick my file, UH, SM, XC, MS, and W3 at minimum, you can see that I made two critical decisions thanks to FLARM. First, I was able to see where a few guys were out of the gate and headed in that direction. Note: It was a very unusual task (don't go there - we know your feelings on MATs). There was a choice of 3 or 4 waypoints as the first turn. It was also very hazy with a crazy mixed cloudbase with some climbs going up much higher than the surrounding cloudbase. When I started, I was out of visual range of the others who had chosen Loon Lake as the first turn. So, that made Decision #1 easy (where to go first). I then picked up MS climbing via FLARM and made a beeline for him. Good climb, but wasn't happy where he was going after that. Good news - several gliders off to the right per FLARM. I'll go there since I already have tactical advantage (i.e. I won the Start Gate). Decision #2 helped by FLARM. From there, SM, XC, and I made up a very nice working group that did EXACTLY what good working groups do - one guy would lead out and the other would spread out. SM and I were in 18M span with XC in 15, so all XC had to do was to stay with us and not get dumped. He's way too good a pilot to get dumped, and he ended up winning the day (as he should).

So, there's a real-world example of where FLARM helped make some critical early decisions that got me connected with the pack and then helped me get connected with a good working group. The 4-5 minutes I gained put me in second for the day, just out of first.

Not earth-shattering stuff, but shaving off a few minutes several times in a contest is usually the difference between 1st and "just out of podium range."

P3

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:

Took a look at this - thanks. Observations in-line.

Since you asked. Last day of Dannsville 2014 (avaialbe on the SSA Website). If you pick my file, UH, SM, XC, MS, and W3 at minimum, you can see that I made two critical decisions thanks to FLARM. First, I was able to see where a few guys were out of the gate and headed in that direction. Note: It was a very unusual task (don't go there - we know your feelings on MATs). There was a choice of 3 or 4 waypoints as the first turn. It was also very hazy with a crazy mixed cloudbase with some climbs going up much higher than the surrounding cloudbase. When I started, I was out of visual range of the others who had chosen Loon Lake as the first turn.

(It looks like everybody was in a thermal together, some headed out and you went back and too a couple of turns in another thermal and left three minutes later. When the others (UH, XC, SM) set course for the first turn you were 0.22 miles away, so you probably had a decent idea where they were headed - or could have known - without Flarm. On a hazy day whether you'd have been able to spot them visually (or get within the requisite 1.25 stealth miles) is not clear).

So, that made Decision #1 easy (where to go first). I then picked up MS climbing via FLARM and made a beeline for him. Good climb, but wasn't happy where he was going after that.

(Well, it was a good climb for MS, who was the first one in the thermal - 3..3 knots. The second glider in the thermal was SM, less than a mile in trail who got 3.8 knots. After that was 44, 1.7 miles behind MS, who only got 2..6 knots. You were 4.25 miles back and got there 4 minutes later. For your Flarm leeching prize you were awarded...1.4 knots and 269 feet of climb (this is all per SeeYou). You also made a 90-degree left turn to get to the next thermal that MS found 3.5 miles away. He got a 2.8 knot climb. 44 was Stealth mode leech distance behind and was awarded 2.4 knots. You were a full 3.75 miles behind and by the time you got to this thermal you were alerted to by the magic of Flarm you were able to achieve...1.4 knots. Had you gone straight and run into the same thermal as UH, XC and SM who knows what you'd have gotten - they achieved 1.4-1.6 knots, so a little bit better that you got with your Flarm-inspired deviation. It's not clear if the deviation was off course, or you just turned early - I didn't load the waypoints, or your flight claim).

Good news - several gliders off to the right per FLARM. I'll go there since I already have tactical advantage (i.e. I won the Start Gate). Decision #2 helped by FLARM.

(You had about 7 miles separation when you set out from the prior thermal. From that point on, you and the other three were on a converging course (does your Flarm get 7 miles or was that just happenstance? It was more or less the course you were on already). It looks like you deviated more steeply to meet up with them from about two miles apart, which probably cost you a fraction of a mile. It's not clear that Flarm did you any good on this as you would have met up anyway - at least with Stealth mode - if it was pea-soup hazy maybe you wouldn't have ever gotten an actual eyeball on anyone.)


From there, SM, XC, and I made up a very nice working group that did EXACTLY what good working groups do - one guy would lead out and the other would spread out. SM and I were in 18M span with XC in 15, so all XC had to do was to stay with us and not get dumped. He's way too good a pilot to get dumped, and he ended up winning the day (as he should).

(Loose team flying out on course has been common practice for generations, not really related to Flarm. We could invoke penalties for "team flying" anytime any gliders take two or more thermal in a row together - per their IGC files. It would be pretty easy. However, despite the "cheaty" nature of it, I think people kind of enjoy it. The "stay with the group and win on handicap" is harder than it seems, but even so there have been occasional calls to"legislate" it away).

So, there's a real-world example of where FLARM helped make some critical early decisions that got me connected with the pack and then helped me get connected with a good working group. The 4-5 minutes I gained put me in second for the day, just out of first.

(I'd have to load all the waypoints and the task, but it appears that the Flarm-related activities actually hurt you slightly (slower climbs that the non-leechers, by a good margin. It seems from the flight data that you actually earned your second by flying better on the non-leechy parts of your flight.

BTW, as I go through the "leechy" contest days people have sent me to look at, this is becoming a common theme. The first glider in a thermal pretty consistently gets the best climb. OTOH, followers - particularly as they get more than a mile or two behind - pretty consistently get substantially poorer climbs. I won't claim it as a universal truth but if you think for a minute how pilots decide whether to stop for a thermal they found versus one someone else is already climbing in you can start to see how the performance statistics would get skewed. Chasing someone else's thermal from more than a mile or two out is often a sucker's bet, and the worst part is you don't even know you were snookered until the flight is over and you can look at all the logs.

Veeery interestink.

9B

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
Good news - several gliders off to the right per FLARM. I'll go there since I already have tactical advantage (i.e. I won the Start Gate).

(Also, you didn't really catch them from your late start - they all flew three miles further to pick up a different first turn and you cut the corner off. For sure you got to see other pilots on Flarm and make decisions and that left the impression of gaining an advantage, but most of the Flarm-induced temptations you went for seem to have had a neutral to negative effect on overall performance. It's a bit hard to tell between neutral and negative because the part of the flight you didn't fly together as a working group had a different first turnpoint and the end result was different by only +/- 11 points - less than 1 mph).

9B

It seems that this discussion about whether FLARM should part of contest flying has been turned into a discussion of leeching where leeching is following one pilot or one group of pilots.

Beyond that, FLARM can be used to unnaturally jump from one group to another or find that thermal you desperately need. By unnaturally I mean seeing beyond visual range, detecting and selecting climb rates of others with electronically enhanced capabilities. FLARM also help see where pilots are heading leaving a MAT turn point and how many gliders are going that way.

So it is more than just tailing a guy. A lot more information is presented to the decision making pilot taking full advantage of FLARM.

Where do you draw the line? If you believe there should be no line, okay, then we are talking about a sport where all the information possibly gathered through the internet or people on the ground also become part of the race..

Sailplane racing is a sport not an unlimited frontier. It is motor-less flight after all. From the very first day there have been limits set to define the sport.

Let's proactively determine what we want our sport to be. What kind of sport would fishing be if anything were allowed? If baseball players were allowed to hit with any kind of bat, the stadiums would have to be expanded every few years and the cheap seats would have to be 550 yards away.

XC

Hi Andy,

I think you missed the forest for the trees with your fine-grained analysis.. There were two or three very important decisions I made based on FLARM. Two of them worked out. Getting to the start gaggle (I'd been behind a wall of cloud a couple of miles away) and seeing where the start gaggle went (come fly NY in August some time - you'll understand what it means to "lose" somebody 3 miles out of the gate). The second was deviating very distinctly toward MS (90 degrees off my original course line). Again, whether it worked out better or worse doesn't matter - it put me into the general area of the other glider and I was able to bounce two climbs from/with him. That altitude is what let me hook back up with the rest of the fleet later on down track.

Everything after the above was pure visual/classic gaggle flying. It was wonderful. No FLARM required for that. I love a "good working group" of 3 or 4 gliders, but it's not clear that I would've been in that group if I hadn't had FLARM in the first place.

Sean asked for an example where someone used FLARM to achieve tactical results. Given that it was only my 5th day ever flying with it, I'm pretty happy that I was able to get any information out of it.

Off to sit in the back of a 2-33 in the sweltering heat for a few hours for some instructing duty. Yay.

P3





On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 2:19:19 AM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 4:13:42 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:

Took a look at this - thanks. Observations in-line.

Since you asked. Last day of Dannsville 2014 (avaialbe on the SSA Website). If you pick my file, UH, SM, XC, MS, and W3 at minimum, you can see that I made two critical decisions thanks to FLARM. First, I was able to see where a few guys were out of the gate and headed in that direction. Note: It was a very unusual task (don't go there - we know your feelings on MATs). There was a choice of 3 or 4 waypoints as the first turn. It was also very hazy with a crazy mixed cloudbase with some climbs going up much higher than the surrounding cloudbase. When I started, I was out of visual range of the others who had chosen Loon Lake as the first turn.

(It looks like everybody was in a thermal together, some headed out and you went back and too a couple of turns in another thermal and left three minutes later. When the others (UH, XC, SM) set course for the first turn you were 0.22 miles away, so you probably had a decent idea where they were headed - or could have known - without Flarm. On a hazy day whether you'd have been able to spot them visually (or get within the requisite 1.25 stealth miles) is not clear).

So, that made Decision #1 easy (where to go first). I then picked up MS climbing via FLARM and made a beeline for him. Good climb, but wasn't happy where he was going after that.

(Well, it was a good climb for MS, who was the first one in the thermal - 3.3 knots. The second glider in the thermal was SM, less than a mile in trail who got 3.8 knots. After that was 44, 1.7 miles behind MS, who only got 2.6 knots. You were 4.25 miles back and got there 4 minutes later. For your Flarm leeching prize you were awarded...1.4 knots and 269 feet of climb (this is all per SeeYou). You also made a 90-degree left turn to get to the next thermal that MS found 3.5 miles away. He got a 2.8 knot climb. 44 was Stealth mode leech distance behind and was awarded 2.4 knots. You were a full 3.75 miles behind and by the time you got to this thermal you were alerted to by the magic of Flarm you were able to achieve...1.4 knots. Had you gone straight and run into the same thermal as UH, XC and SM who knows what you'd have gotten - they achieved 1.4-1.6 knots, so a little bit better that you got with your Flarm-inspired deviation. It's not clear if the deviation was off course, or you just turned early - I didn't load the waypoints, or your flight claim).

Good news - several gliders off to the right per FLARM. I'll go there since I already have tactical advantage (i.e. I won the Start Gate). Decision #2 helped by FLARM.

(You had about 7 miles separation when you set out from the prior thermal.. From that point on, you and the other three were on a converging course (does your Flarm get 7 miles or was that just happenstance? It was more or less the course you were on already). It looks like you deviated more steeply to meet up with them from about two miles apart, which probably cost you a fraction of a mile. It's not clear that Flarm did you any good on this as you would have met up anyway - at least with Stealth mode - if it was pea-soup hazy maybe you wouldn't have ever gotten an actual eyeball on anyone.)


From there, SM, XC, and I made up a very nice working group that did EXACTLY what good working groups do - one guy would lead out and the other would spread out. SM and I were in 18M span with XC in 15, so all XC had to do was to stay with us and not get dumped. He's way too good a pilot to get dumped, and he ended up winning the day (as he should).

(Loose team flying out on course has been common practice for generations, not really related to Flarm. We could invoke penalties for "team flying" anytime any gliders take two or more thermal in a row together - per their IGC files. It would be pretty easy. However, despite the "cheaty" nature of it, I think people kind of enjoy it. The "stay with the group and win on handicap" is harder than it seems, but even so there have been occasional calls to"legislate" it away).

So, there's a real-world example of where FLARM helped make some critical early decisions that got me connected with the pack and then helped me get connected with a good working group. The 4-5 minutes I gained put me in second for the day, just out of first.

(I'd have to load all the waypoints and the task, but it appears that the Flarm-related activities actually hurt you slightly (slower climbs that the non-leechers, by a good margin. It seems from the flight data that you actually earned your second by flying better on the non-leechy parts of your flight.

BTW, as I go through the "leechy" contest days people have sent me to look at, this is becoming a common theme. The first glider in a thermal pretty consistently gets the best climb. OTOH, followers - particularly as they get more than a mile or two behind - pretty consistently get substantially poorer climbs. I won't claim it as a universal truth but if you think for a minute how pilots decide whether to stop for a thermal they found versus one someone else is already climbing in you can start to see how the performance statistics would get skewed. Chasing someone else's thermal from more than a mile or two out is often a sucker's bet, and the worst part is you don't even know you were snookered until the flight is over and you can look at all the logs.

Veeery interestink.

9B