Confessions of a Flarm Follower

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 2:53:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:23:21 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:


You don't need to apologize to me as I had no part in bringing PowerFlarm to US, but you can call me a PowerFlarm pusher anyway since I am advocating its use to the full extend for safety reasons. I also installed ADSB-out in my glider for safety reasons at great expense. If I did not see PowerFlarm improving my safety I would take it out of my glider.

Here is a fact, RC proposed (contrary to Flarm recommendation) compulsory use of Stealth mode without dealing with reduced safety issue. Then when RC finally figured out (thanks to RAS) that Stealth was not such a good idea they renamed it to the Competition mode without proper definition by the vendor of what it would be. This was less than 3 months before the first competition of 2016. Flarm does not have a Competition mode available at this time that RC is talking about.

I am sorry but this decision is a sign of RC incompetence at best. How can you mandate something that is not defined and it does not exist and then hope that maybe it shows up in time for the first contest?

Everyone reasonable can accept changes provided the change is clearly defined and tested to ensure safety is not compromised. Some discussion prior to making such a huge decision would be in order as well. I guess we already had that on RAS.

In the past RC stated that no major change can happen without being properly tested. What happened to that? I guess it was a different group of people back then, a little bit more restrained perhaps.

We don't want RC to become a knee jerk reaction group imposing their will on the rest of the pilots. What happened to a democratic process? The poll does not support this decision.

I have no issue with bringing a change as long as it is done with proper consultation and the technology is there to avoid negative safety impact. That is not the case now. Nothing is ready. It is time to give it up for 2016.

Let's do proper polling for 2017 to truly understand what pilots want and meantime figure out the technology puzzle.

UH Response:
I have worked quite hard when discussing this topic to be respectful of the views of others and speak in a manner that reflects my experience and opinions while trying to make it clear that they were just that.
I may stray a bit from that philosophy in responding to the message above..
Fact- The allegation that the RC has not considered the safety implications of use of Stealth or a follow on version(Competition)are simply not true.. In our discussions 9B made a strong case for these concerns and they have been part of the continuing dialog among our group. The "competition" mode is not our relabeling of Stealth, but in fact is the label being used in discussions by members of the IGC and ourselves with Flarm wherein changes are expected to be made to address concerns that arose out of the implementation of the 2015 version of Stealth tested in the UK. Report that I have read is that version was well accepted by pilots, but that meaningful concerns were identified related to other glider users of Flarm and well as UK military users that have Flarm. As of this time, we do not have clarity as to the details of the coming revision.
Fact- RAS had not one thing to do with our understanding of the factors related to this process, with the exception of the level of passion it would raise from a few.
Fact- It is planned that the RC is to review the best information we have about the next version before proceeding with the rule as currently drafted. We have agreed that if the coming version does not meet the needs of our situation, we will not proceed.
Fact- The RC is on a rules schedule that requires us to complete changes before the winter board meeting. That may seem like a rush, and sometimes it is, but that is the process we live with.
Fact- The RC takes it's obligation to let affected parties know about actions that affect them in a timely manner so that they can plan accordingly.
The allegation of incompetence, with an implication of worse, is nothing less than insulting. The volunteers who work for all of us deserve better than this kind of public treatment.
Fact- This is not a major change and it has been tested at the national level with favorable results, though not without concerns voiced by some.
Fact - This is not a "knee jerk" reaction. Some action of this type has been under discussion literally from the initial introduction of Flarm. The experiences in Europe described in Russell Cheatham's paper reinforced these original concerns and led to consideration of action.
There is a very real likelihood that what will be developed by Flarm will not meet our expectations. I am sure that whatever is done will not satisfy everyone. Please rest assured that the US RC is doing the best we can to act in a responsible manner to address the wide variety of considerations related to this topic. If we do not believe that the next progression of Flarm will be acceptable, we will not proceed.
Respectfully
UH

where can russell's paper be found?

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:37:29 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 12:33:41 PM UTC-8, Greg Delp wrote:
What if the NPRM that came out this past summer goes through and gets rid of the glider exceptions to transponder and thus ADS-B mandates? Almost all contests in the west that get above 10,000' will now have gliders that must be equipped with transponders and ADS-B out compliant with the FAA's TSO specifications. This will also be true for some areas in the east where glider transponder exceptions are currently used. How will FLARM be able to filter out ADS-B reported gliders while using stealth/competition mode and not other ADS-B traffic? This will require another completely new FLARM system to be able to transmit and filter ADS-B out signals. Is the RC going to be able to force FLARM or anyone else to design and build a device that will be compliant with all of the FAA mandates transponder and ADS-B out in addition to the FLARM functions we need for the types of operation gliders typically perform? Or are we going to paint ourselves in a corner waiting to fly a contest while hoping for that future device. ADS-B out for us is coming soon whether we like it or not. I for one think out and in is a good thing for everyone who shares our skies.

I agree with the high level point/concern, but lets be careful on details here. Transponder and ADS-B carriage mandates are entirely separate regulations, getting rid of the transponder exemptions does not necessarily mean the ASD-B Out carriage exemption would go as well. But if anything I personally expect both to exemptions will be removed, and hope that at least TABS device carriage will be able to effectively met both requirements in modified regulations.

FLARM does not transmit ADS-B Out. And the chance of FLARM doing a ADS-B Out device I would say are zero--they don't play in the expensive to develop for and already crowded regulated avionics market. Anything the FAA mandates for transponder or ADS-B *Out* carriage is really orthogonal to FLARM products, except that (the appropriate model) PowerFLARM can receive 1090ES In direct

Nobody will get to "filter ADS-B Out signals, if your aircraft is mandated to require ADS-B Out you transmit the position and other data once ~every second. Even if not mandated and you want to do something differently I'll be happy to provide a personal introduction to an FAA employee.

But as I've pointed out here before. ADS-B Out or TABS requirements for gliders (e.g. if required above 10,000') and especially with a likely "if equipped must use" regulation may make all the FLARM technology-angst irrelevant. What would the RC do? Require all PowerFLARM ADS-B In (and PCAS?) to be entirely disabled? (ah no from a safety and liability viewpoint). Work with FLARM to obfuscate PowerFLARM ADS-B In data? For glider types only.... So faster aircraft are still seen at a larger distance? Oops just impossible to do that at range where you see the ADS-B before the FLARM signal from a glider. So you are kinda screwed there. Do you rely on the ADS-B airframe information to be accurate and obfuscate gliders based on that? On a black list of ICAO addresses of contest gliders? Oh my head hurts, what problem are we trying to solve again?

But then what do you do? Ban any other ADS-B receiver? Including tiny USB stick for a PDA or similar? What about a pilot who wanted to receive TIS-B or ADS-R input to warn of GA aircraft? Seems a valid safety thing for them to expect to be able to do that and not be told they cannot... that creates an interesting liability situation. Do you cavity search pilots before a contest for USB stick receivers? Search gliders for hidden bluetooth receivers that can drive a PDA or iPhone etc? I am sympathetic to some of the concerns of folks but chances of putting the technology genie back in the bottle ah seem slim....


Um - yup.

We had a discussion on another thread (or was it this one?) about implementing traffic filtering based on registered competitor ICAO addresses at the glide computer - which would require all glide software being used in contests to implement it (including the open source stuff where an enterprising pilot could "adjust" it himself). It would also likely require daily inspections that each pilot had a full and correct ICAO database. Those of us who have multiple glide computers/situational displays would have to submit some sort of file for each one for each day and failure to submit a file that shows the correct database for each display in the cockpit - my cockpit has 5 such devices - would be DQ'd for the day. Display can't produce a file because it lost power or was reset in flight or just had some sort of error - DQ for the day. Each display in the cockpit for each pilot would need to be verified each day by the scorer.

You'd have trouble eliminating tiny home-brew ADS-B receivers and you'd never eliminate the smartphone stuff. Makes my head spin - and gives me nightmares of nasty emails from Ron Gleason. ;-)

If I heard it correctly from Andrzej there will be at least one glider at the Nationals at Nephi with ADS-B Out - which should light up a 15 mi circle around his glider showing any glider carrying a transponder (and required by FAR to have it on). The resolution of SSR for transponder targets is a few tens to a few hundred feet (the angular resolution goes down with range from the radar).

Bottle ----- ...Genie

Might be good to find Andrzej in the start cylinder and go when he goes.. It'll be like a having lantern on a moonless night. I am presuming any glider in range will be able to see the TIS-B traffic transmitted for Andrzej's benefit.

Good times.

9B

Andy, I was planning on attending one National contest this year, but since the RC vote, I am delaying registration. I may make other plans for this year as a result of this uncertainty.

If the Stealth mode were to be approved I am done flying contests.

whaaaaat? are you SERIOUS? Flarm isn't even mandatory yet. there are people still flying without them. i will stick with racing no matter what happens to it, because i love gliding and the spirit of coming together to fly/race together. one thing that doesn't go my way would never deter me.

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 10:54:41 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 10:01:03 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 4:40:49 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:

Biggest loser, though, is the sport of soaring. We lose our heros. These are the great personalities that make this sport attractive young pilots. This sport was built by bold pilots who did great things, who consistently demonstrated an uncanny knack for finding thermals when no one else could.

I have to say when I read this it sounded like a description of Ramy flying OLC from Monterrey to Truckee and back or Gordo and Jim Payne doing crazy distance flights in the wave.

Racing is really about tactical optimization under uncertainty, which is why you find so much gaggling and other tactical behavior - quite a different sport from OLC altogether. Flarm adds some dynamism to the pure tactical game of yore by spreading out the field. It's not clear that wanting to use Flarm tactically is much more than an emotional security blanket. It may in fact result in more spreading out of the field, more independent action and more heroic flying.

Funny how things go full circle sometimes.

9B

A sailplane contest should determine who is the best glider pilot. In fact that is the first rule in the rule book. We all know what skills it takes whether pure cross country, badges, OLC, or competition. That's why in the past contest winners were also record holders.

The rules should reward those who possess these better soaring skills. Now we are getting into this BS that a glider contest is about something else, a new set of skills. Further proof that we have a fuzzy picture of what our sport is about.

If we can't even get together on what our sport is about, how can we expect bright young people to be sold on it.

XC

I concur with XC. You guys that support Flarm for safety reasons is fine, but how about looking outside the old fashioned way and make your own decisions. My current career position has me looking inside the cockpit a large percentage of the time, technology is great, but is really limits pilot awareness especially outside the cockpit. You can keep your contests, and I'll be looking outside when I'm flying my glider for fun...

where can russell's paper be found?

http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/FlarmStealth