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

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:09:26 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
Interesting discussion,

IMO, the tactical advantage FLARM provides contest pilots during competition is being highly over-rated here. The "problem" is (and always has been) that A) not everyone has one, B) wants to buy one or c) is able to efficiently process the information available. I see FLARM (tactically) as just another small variable in the equation of flying performance.

It can easily hurt as much (or more) than it can help. Nobody seems to mention this possibility. Hint, hint...maybe you want people to try and leech with FLARM and fail or at least degrade. Hmm.

I currently have an "economy" contest set up...Brick-SN10-Oudie with a separate FLARM view display. A "funny guy" (he knows who he is) recently referred to my panel as a beat up WWII fighter. He's right! My panel is clearly not a great combination for efficiently tracking FLARM targets, analysing climb rates, etc. I don't know the full capabilities of the LX9000 or ClearNav. I do understand that their presentations are more (FLARM) information "rich." One good thing I see about a potential U.S. stealth mode rule is that the real or perceived advantage of these advanced soaring computers (in terms of FLARM based situation awareness) would be reduced or eliminated.

The real advantages of FLARM tracking (as I see it) is not climb rates. I would not trust the number anyway. I want to see the other potential gliders climbing and see the actual cloud they are under, etc. It's just not as simple as that pack has 3 knots and the other has 5...lets go to the 5!

For me, the ability to identify individual "key" pilots in the pack ahead (or behind) and "bonus" identification of gliders that I would have otherwise missed if I had not seen a FLARM "blip" and started searching in the exact right spot are the practical advantages that FLARM provides. It is very hard to calculate the value of these capabilities.

My actual FLARM reception range has been 1-3 miles (3 at absolute most). My antennas are well installed, blah, blah, blah. I therefore leave my FLARMview range at 1 mile so that I have a good resolution for "close in" gliders. In other words, the long range value is so consistently low that a greater range setting almost always pointless. Apparently others are seeing more as in my opinion 1 mile is fairly low value tactically. I usually see these gliders far earlier than I see them on FLARM.

While managing the available FLARM information well can provide value, my experience is that this is rarely a "great" value. In fact, it is usually a distraction to put effort into trying.

With that (my belief that others are likely gaining more from the available FLARM information than I am) I would (selfishly) be happy to see the requirement of a stealth mode at future US (or FAI) contests. But overall I have concluded that the value FLARM provides is highly, highly over-rated.

Finally, for whomever said (last few posts) the FAI World Championship Level requires FLARM leeching proficiency to be successful...please expound with specific information on how you reached these conclusions. Do you have a list of specifics? Who gave you this list? What experience do you have?

Sean
7T

Hi Sean, it's andy (ND) brayer. hobbs, asw 20, young guy.

You might have taken my words too literally. my meaning is not that one must use "flarm leeching" to it's fullest extent in order to be world champion.. on the contrary, and with the understanding that you know all of this already; I think that in order to win, you need something else, something intangible, raw unadulterated talent. but that alone doesn't win it. i think we all agree that at the world level a completely individualistic approach is ineffective anymore, and that you are giving something up by flying as a lone wolf. as such, and in conjunction with sound team flying tactics, the information that can be garnered through complete use of flarm's capabilities is probably better considered than not. so while i don't have first person experience on a world level, or an actual list of specifics blessed by kawa, meuser, or sommer themselves, I do think the results of the team flying/information sharing mentality speak for themselves. to me--and i daresay others with a more impressive competitive resume--those results ought to include the intelligence gathered through complete use of flarm's capabilities. it does seem cheap, it does seems like shameless leeching to be able to chose one thermal over another based on the fact that you know that frenchman is climbing in 6 knots, but the spaniard is only climbing in 4. a thermal finder would ruin the sport in my opinion, and in that instance it seems to be acting as one. But anyone including myself would to take advantage of that knowledge if it were at hand. now, from what i understand you say it isn't quite as accurate as that, and i accept that point of view. on the other hand, i have heard from others who shall remain nameless that say it is and that they've seen that movie played out. both are matters of opinion.
Maybe the information gathered from flarm is overrated, maybe it isn't. i think the possible scenarios are far too many and complex to dismiss the possibility of learning something useful, especially when trailing the leading in the world championships by 30 points.

what is your assessment about what i've said?

andy
(ND)

I thought the 15m class on day 3 at PAGC was a little bit over the top when it came to using FLARM. By that I mean it brought several guys together pre-start and kept them together for very similar flights and scores. Check it out.

I enjoyed the contest very much. The team flying thing was fun but probably would be an entry barrier to new guys if it were the norm for our regionals and nationals.

XC

When first using FLARM about 10 years ago, I don't remember anybody whinging about being unable to use FLARM for tactical advantage in contests. Those contests were FLARM mandatory.
Not competing, but worked at two 60-glider contests around then. The only complaints were due to people running an old software version, ie 2.x instead of 3.x. This was easily fixed.

Somehow I don't see that mandating FLARM and in stealth mode at contests is a barrier to contest entry. Rentals are inexpensive! From williamssoaring.com:

PowerFLARM Rental Units Now Available in the USA $50 per Contest ($100 if you have previously participated in the rental program)
Glider and tow-plane pilots can rent a PowerFLARM unit for $50 per contest or similar event. The $50 includes postage and return postage.

By not using "the dark side" of the instrument, there is nothing for a first-time renter to learn about tactical use, so the pilot is not at a tactical disadvantage or heads down trying to figure it out.
Jim

Andy-

I think you mean well and speak heartfelt words (along with the whole group here)...but I also feel most of this discussion is highly subjective. I would like to see at least some data or proof.

My questions were serious and (hopefully) meaningful. I did not mean to throw you under the bus. I was hoping to get some more information on the use of FLARM at the world level. I think that conversation may be a useful one here as it is more objective (assigned tasks, smaller turn areas, more even pilots, etc).

In the U.S., I honestly don't believe that FLARM has the slightest effect on the results. Some may try their hardest, but it's just to hard to do consistently. Also, FLARM data is the norm at the World Championship level and all but one U.S. Contest in all history. If we run off and adopt "stealth mode," we once again handicap our world level pilots by "watering down" the game.

Perhaps the elite, sophisticated world gliding teams (Germany, Poland, Britian, etc) would be able to do some damage with FLARM data. But good on them because the safety based FLARM technology is equally open to all parties, so it's a level playing field. Again, I see FLARM data as small part of the overall equation. As long as it's level for all, no problem. This is my view.

That said, I have recently heard "campfire stories" of very sophisticated, coordinated use of FLARM at world championships. "Hard to believe" stuff. As it is third hand and I was not there, I can't post it here, sorry. I have also heard the FAI is considering stealth mode requirements. So maybe there is real data out there on how this is changed results, etc. I was hoping to hear more about this and that was the reason for my questions.

I just don't hear any specifics here...I hear broad statements and assumptions.

Sorry to make you feel pinned down like that. Not my intention.

I really enjoyed meeting you at Hobbs and think you have a very bright future in soaring. I look forward to flying with you again soon!

Sean

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
Andy-

I think you mean well and speak heartfelt words (along with the whole group here)...but I also feel most of this discussion is highly subjective. I would like to see at least some data or proof.

My questions were serious and (hopefully) meaningful. I did not mean to throw you under the bus. I was hoping to get some more information on the use of FLARM at the world level. I think that conversation may be a useful one here as it is more objective (assigned tasks, smaller turn areas, more even pilots, etc).

In the U.S., I honestly don't believe that FLARM has the slightest effect on the results. Some may try their hardest, but it's just to hard to do consistently. Also, FLARM data is the norm at the World Championship level and all but one U.S. Contest in all history. If we run off and adopt "stealth mode," we once again handicap our world level pilots by "watering down" the game.

Perhaps the elite, sophisticated world gliding teams (Germany, Poland, Britian, etc) would be able to do some damage with FLARM data. But good on them because the safety based FLARM technology is equally open to all parties, so it's a level playing field. Again, I see FLARM data as small part of the overall equation. As long as it's level for all, no problem. This is my view.

That said, I have recently heard "campfire stories" of very sophisticated, coordinated use of FLARM at world championships. "Hard to believe" stuff.. As it is third hand and I was not there, I can't post it here, sorry. I have also heard the FAI is considering stealth mode requirements. So maybe there is real data out there on how this is changed results, etc. I was hoping to hear more about this and that was the reason for my questions.

I just don't hear any specifics here...I hear broad statements and assumptions.

Sorry to make you feel pinned down like that. Not my intention.

I really enjoyed meeting you at Hobbs and think you have a very bright future in soaring. I look forward to flying with you again soon!

Sean

hey sean,

i didn't feel thrown under the bus or pinned down. i was happy to elaborate on my thoughts, since i made a pretty short statement that was contradictory to what i had previously written. this discussion is interesting to me, and i'm glad to take part in it/read everyone else's opinions. on that note, I agree that it IS a subjective discussion.

sadly i can't give you more first hand knowledge of flying with flarm at the world level... YET look forward to flying with you again too!

ND

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 9:53:32 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:

I just don't hear any specifics here...I hear broad statements and assumptions.


One last effort to put the data we have on the table. I removed Days 1 and 6 (mass landout days) from Harris Hill. This leaves only days that had high completion ratios - only P7, XC and BT flew both 2014 and 2015 15-Meter Nationals and could make informed judgements about how "randomizing" the conditions were for what remained (outside the two landout days, that is).

The result is Harris Hill had an average winners score of 952 versus 869 for Montague, so from a devaluation perspective dropping the two mass landout days makes Harris Hill quantitatively less random. Even so, pilot performance averaged 10% off of what you'd expect from the PRL versus 7% for Montague (and 6.5% if you exclude P7's "random" landout).

I'd add that at Montague I saw lots of pretty complete Flarm setups (I worked on a bunch - doing config files, RF testing and even installed my spare unit in a competitor's glider - which is why people kept seeing 9B in multiple places on course - heh heh). I'd have to say that I think many, if not most, pilots had the ability to use Flarm tactically - I certainly did when I could and there was even a protest based in part on use of Flarm data for tactical purposes. Flarm may not have been in use by everyone to 100% of its ultimate capability, but it was certainly in use by enough people that if it was making a big difference you ought to be able to detect something. HH randomness notwithstanding, the Montague results were pretty orderly - so Flarm leeches were not successfully crawling up the scoresheet - though some may have tried.

The data to-date provides no evidence that people are generating sustained benefit from tactical Flarm usage. In fact, the evidence is that people are NOT generating a sustained benefit. Maybe that will change with time and experience.

This discussion has raised another thought. The single biggest factor in randomizing scores away from what makes sense (at least based on the long term competition records of the pilots) is weather. It has been argued here that it is harder to pick up any signal from Flarm leeching with random weather noise in the scores from tricky days that land out most of the field except for a lucky few. So, should we be disallowing days where less than 2/3 or 3/4 of the fleet finishes? They say contests are won on the weak days, maybe that's bad thing?

I tend to agree with Sean (7T). There seems to be a lot of speculation and supposition and "anecdotalytics" floating about - on all sides. It does appear to me that Stealth mode retains enough warning range for most collision scenarios, but how restricting the broader situational view might cascade into a threat scenario under particular circumstances is unclear and I would want to know a lot more about that. For instance, I have already once mistaken a glider that didn't show up on Flarm for one that was a threat and mistakenly tracked the wrong target until way too late. I suspect trial lawyers don't care if Stealth is 99% as good as no Stealth in the event anything bad happens. That's a concern.

I also tend to agree with 7T in his view that tactical Flarm usage sometimes helps a bit, sometimes hurts a bit. In FAI-style team and gaggle flying it probably can be used to greater benefit as gaggle-hopping is a strategy that can win races (Sebastian Kawa has a view on this point). Gaggle-hopping is a strategy that may be enhanced by, but was not created by, Flarm. It's more a result of FAI scoring philosophy. In any event, the strategy is available to everyone. Also, with or without Flarm, flying more assigned tasks will likely generate more leeching behavior, so if you're opposed to leeching, you might not like ATs either.

I also don't buy the "expensive arms race" argument. Most US racing pilots have Flarm available to them today (if you're really poor I'll loan you my spare, or you can rent one). Most glider pilots have some sort of moving map display - whether it's an LX9000/ClearNav premium computer or an Oudie (basically the same software as the LX) or a smartphone running open source gliding software. They all have Flarm tracking basically for free and new Flarm features will be made available to the broad market (at least that's been the case so far). Turning features off won't make the devices or software any cheaper and they won't not develop them just because racing pilots don't like them - they're great for OLC/buddy flying.

That does leave us with what seems to be the essential point. Does Flarm increase or decrease (some might say ruin) the qualitative experience of glider racing? There's no better feeling than having a strategic inspiration, going off on your own and smoking the field. There's also something disheartening about struggling down low until you find the boomer that saves your day only to have the gaggle roll in right on top of you. Stories of pilots who leeched their way to the podium by following top pilots around have been part of soaring folklore as long as I can remember, but I don't generally think the people on the podium are second-rate and most scoresheets make sense to me most of the time. BUT, there is also GW's sentiment - and it does not seem so rare - that Flarm allows pilots to keep in touch with some of the field and generates more of a sense of racing and some camaraderie in a sport that can be isolating. He argues that that's more fun and makes the sport more accessible to new pilots, even if it doesn't catapult them to the top - or even middle - of the scoresheet. We struggle with limiting the shrinkage of the sport. I'd be curious to know whether newer racing pilots learn more quickly and enjoy the experience more when they can see more of what's going on out of course.

Good discussion - many useful points and perspectives.

9B

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
... I have also heard the FAI is considering stealth mode requirements.

Further proof of a truly stupid idea...
But maybe it will keep them busy so they don't introduce an 11 meter class!

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that Flarm leeching is no factor in contest results. Does anyone think that means tactical use of Flarm is not resulting in more time with eyes in the cockpit? Seems to me that the supposed safety benefit of not being in stealth mode may be negated by pilots fixated on their screens.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that Flarm leeching is no factor in contest results. Does anyone think that means tactical use of Flarm is not resulting in more time with eyes in the cockpit? Seems to me that the supposed safety benefit of not being in stealth mode may be negated by pilots fixated on their screens.

I agree - lots of good discussion.

I would again emphasize though that nobody has yet put the effort into building a true Tactical Leeching Tool. Flarm just provides data and a collision warning algorithm which seems to work extremely well for the purpose for which it was designed. I have been truly impressed at how few spurious warnings I have gotten in either unrestricted or stealth mode. As a safety tool, I love it.

But, please consider what folks could do IF they put their minds to it. Visualizing and presenting the Flarm data for tactical advantage has hardly been tapped at all. Imagine a filtering algorithm that takes in Flarm data from a bunch of gliders. It figures out if this is a "gaggle" (defined by at least 2 gliders circling for at least 30 seconds and climbing, for example). Now, imagine that it smooths the climb data from the gliders that are identified as Gaggle A with an indication of average climb rate (30 second, 60 second, duration of climb) as selected by the user. Imagine that another gaggle (Gaggle B) nearby is similarly filtered and displayed. Color coding is applied with strongest average climbs in Green and decreasing in size and intensity with weaker climbs. Also, the user can set alerts to indicate if specific targets are in Gaggle A or Gaggle B. Okay, Gaggle A is clearly averaging a better climb, and as a bonus P7 is part of the group. This is not 10 years out sort of stuff. I've already written specs for several of these examples.

I suspect that the reason a lot of folks are finding Flarm of limited tactical value right now is largely unfamiliarity with the tool combined with User Interfaces which are not yet optimized for competition. My Flarm routinely provides 7.5km to 8km range, which is basically a corridor 15km wide (left and right). And contrary to statements made in this thread, many thermals are relatively persistent and regenerative. All you have to do to see this in action is to download competition files from a recent contest and replay the flights in maggot race mode on SeeYou. If you synchronize on start time, you can see gliders converging on exactly the same spot often times 10-15 minutes apart when you shift back to real-time. So, having a choice of 2 gaggles displayed each of which is only 3 miles away and KNOWING which gaggle is the stronger climb is a very real tactical advantage. Similar examples apply to the pre-start, straight glides, etc.

Of course, if everyone has it, then maybe the playing field is again level. Except that instead of looking out the window and eyeballing other gliders to figure out which group is climbing better relative to you, you'll be zooming in the gain on your Leeching Window. Sort of like good weather radar operators today who know how to identify the really ugly cells vs. the more benign cells. Maybe that's the exciting next frontier?

P3