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

WGC Final Report, John Good



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 20th 20, 08:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

https://ussoaringteams.org/john-good...c#comment-5830
  #2  
Old January 20th 20, 09:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tijl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

Good report from the view of a team captain in this unfortunate incident. I am very interested to hear from the side of the jury and of the Australian team, in how they experienced and see this.

Lessons should be learned, and the IGC will need to make some very clear decisions and rules.

I do disagree however with John on his conclusion: instead of allowing everything, we should go to even less groundbased support, and stricter enforcement.

Most pilots I know, hate gaggles and (startline) tactics. Most pilots want to simply fly and race head to head. FLARM and ground-based involvement including tracking-data, increase those gaggles and tactical games. And that makes gliding competitions more boring. It also makes competitions unsafer due to increased collision risk. I know a vice-world champion who has stopped competing for those reasons.

The IGC also agrees with that point of view. They reinforced this position in the 2019 general meeting.

But I also hear a lot of people saying, that "the cat is out of the bag" with tracking/internet-technology, "it's impossible to check if people are cheating, and you can't regulate and penalize what you can't check", and thus we should thus "we should allow everything, so it remains a level playing field".

All three arguments are wrong in my opinion.

First of all, regarding tracking, it's extremely easy and possible right at this moment to stop even a private "hacked" FLARM receiver network to track your FLARM-equipped glider. You don't even need "stealth mode" or "no-track mode" (although they help).

- In your Flarm, set your ICAO 24-bit code to "0". Each time you power up your Flarm, your Flarm-Radio ID will be newly randomly generated.

- With an LX9000 connected Flarm, whenever you feel you are tracked or followed, change your FLARM Radio ID manually in the Flarm-setup screen.

In this way, if someone has "locked on" to you (matched your FLARM-Radio ID to your Competition Number), you will magically "disappear" when the ID changes.

This makes all that effort of private OGN networks almost useless in practice.

On the second note ("you can't regulate, what you can't measure"), that's also not true. For instance, there are many products on the doping list that can't be screened for yet. Should we thus just allow those products? Surely not.

Similarly, turn-and-banks are prohibited in gliders to stop cloud flying. But now turn-and-banks are available in many cell-phones. Should we now thus just re-allow turn-and-banks? Of course not.


And the same is true with private "hacked" OGN networks, internet in the cockpit, ...

It's hard to enforce, certainly. But make it extremely clear that whoever caught breaking the rules, gets punished severely. That will stop the vast majority of cheating. Very few of the top pilots will risk it at all. And those extremely few who do, will be heavily punished if caught.

For instance, ban ground-based FLARM receivers from competitions. A team that gets caught is disqualified, except for the pilot who gives up their own cheating team partners. Very very few teams would still risk it, even if the chance of getting caught is low.

So, that leads me to conclude that we shouldn't go to "level the playing field" towards a situation which none of the pilots enjoy, and which increases collision risk.

We should go the opposite direction: broadcast the vision of the IGC more loudly (gliding competitions are meant to be pilots competitions, and not technology-arms-race or support crew competitions), make clear rules and penalties of what is allowed and what isn't, and then enforce them.
  #3  
Old January 21st 20, 12:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 3:49:03 PM UTC-5, Tijl wrote:

- In your Flarm, set your ICAO 24-bit code to "0". Each time you power up your Flarm, your Flarm-Radio ID will be newly randomly generated.


If so, this is quite the undocumented Easter egg. Can anyone confirm?

T8
  #4  
Old January 21st 20, 12:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tijl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 00:01:29 UTC+1, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 3:49:03 PM UTC-5, Tijl wrote:

- In your Flarm, set your ICAO 24-bit code to "0". Each time you power up your Flarm, your Flarm-Radio ID will be newly randomly generated.


If so, this is quite the undocumented Easter egg. Can anyone confirm?

T8


It's not undocumented.

https://flarm.com/flarm-firmware-v6-40-released/

It works if you use the online Flarm configuration tool:

https://flarm.com/support/tools-soft...guration-tool/

Quote:

"ICAO 24-bit aircraft address, hexadecimal
Official 24-bit ICAO aircraft address in hexadecimal notation, as issued by local CAA. It consists of six hexadecimal characters (0-9, a-f) and can be obtained from the aircraft papers. Must match the address configured in the Mode-S transponder. If the aircraft does not have a Mode-S transponder, it's possible to leave the field empty to use the device specific radio id. Enter "0" (zero) for random id (not recommended, will make Search and Rescue (SAR) very difficult)."
  #5  
Old January 21st 20, 12:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 6:09:28 PM UTC-5, Tijl wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 00:01:29 UTC+1, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 3:49:03 PM UTC-5, Tijl wrote:

- In your Flarm, set your ICAO 24-bit code to "0". Each time you power up your Flarm, your Flarm-Radio ID will be newly randomly generated.


If so, this is quite the undocumented Easter egg. Can anyone confirm?

T8


It's not undocumented.

https://flarm.com/flarm-firmware-v6-40-released/

It works if you use the online Flarm configuration tool:

https://flarm.com/support/tools-soft...guration-tool/

Quote:

"ICAO 24-bit aircraft address, hexadecimal
Official 24-bit ICAO aircraft address in hexadecimal notation, as issued by local CAA. It consists of six hexadecimal characters (0-9, a-f) and can be obtained from the aircraft papers. Must match the address configured in the Mode-S transponder. If the aircraft does not have a Mode-S transponder, it's possible to leave the field empty to use the device specific radio id.. Enter "0" (zero) for random id (not recommended, will make Search and Rescue (SAR) very difficult)."


Thank you...

T8
  #6  
Old January 21st 20, 01:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
mart mart is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 23
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

I completely agree that it should be pilot skills and not technology that determines the winners.


Your idea is unfortunately very easy to circumvent, put someone in a car near the end of the runway at launch time with a reciever and write down code and rego.

I would more go for random turnpoints in a circle so that every pilot flies the same distance but you wont know if the pilot you see has done more or less of the task than you did.
  #7  
Old January 22nd 20, 01:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Good
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

Tijl wrote:

I do disagree however with John on his conclusion: instead of allowing
everything, we should go to even less groundbased support, and stricter
enforcement.


That wasn't really my conclusion. Indeed, I believe limiting (eliminating?) ground-based support has real merit. The important problem - noted by many - is that rules to this effect are essentially impossible to enforce.

A case can be made that the current situation may be the worst choice: some teams have real-time tracking data; many don't. With all its problems, allowing equal access to useful data seems preferable.

  #8  
Old January 22nd 20, 02:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

The important problem - noted by many - is that rules to this effect are essentially impossible to enforce.

I really think this view sells the pilots in this sport short. Sure the CD can't see what happens in the cockpit, but each pilot knows and given the right set of rules and incentives, self enforcement seems a viable way past the 'impossible to enforce' hurdle.

  #9  
Old January 22nd 20, 12:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tijl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

I don't think low enforceability is a big issue. For example, some doping products have a very low chance of detection. That doesn't mean they should be reallowed.

As another example, in the Sailplane Grand Prix, any communication outside of the main radio frequency is not allowed. This can also be "essentially impossible to enforce", since you can't monitor 2280 radio channels. Nevertheless, in last years SGP World Final, 2 pilots who were suspected of collaborating were caught on the last flying day of the competition, and thus penalized.



The problem in my opinion, is that it isn't 100% clearly communicated right now what is allowed and what isn't.

If it was very clear that "hacked" FLARM receivers were illegal, and the penalties are very harsh when caught (team disqualification), almost no team would still risk it, even if the chance of getting caught was small.


By the way, there is a good argument to be made, that "hacked" flarm receivers are already not legal within the current rules.

In SC3a, Para 5.4.2 says: "5.4.2 Penalties may be imposed by the Organisers for unauthorized interference with the GNSS equipment, data or internal program, or Tracking equipment."

(*Penalties are not specified, and up to the organisation.)

Then SC3a, Para 7.5.2 says: "COLLISION AVOIDANCE AND TRACKING: Pilots are allowed to configure low power modes, limited information modes, and requests for “no tracking.” "


Combining those two paragraphs, "hacked" (groundbased or cockpit) Flarm receivers that circumvent FLARM-stealth and no-track mode (which have only been legal since last year), can be seen as "unauthorized interference with the GNSS equipment, data or internal program, or Tracking equipment", and thus could be penalized already under current rules.

Additionally, for a groundteam who is monitoring an undelayed OGN-clone and transmitting that to their pilots, you could call upon the spirit of the rule "Attempt to obtain external help for finding lift from non competing glider or airplane", for which the penalty is day disqualification.

In the Sailplane Grand Prix, it is better worded, and much more clear:

From SGPRules V9.0, Para 5.3.1: "External aid to competitors: Radio Transmitters and Transceiver: Radios are for voice transmissions between team members and between them and the Organisers only. Any other data transmission between competitors, or between them and the ground, is prohibited except as required: (i) by the organisers; or (ii) for safety purpose or; (iii) for anticollision warning, The Organisers shall designate a common radio frequency on which all transmissions will be made during the contest. All pilots shall remain on this frequency. Non-compliance may be
penalized."

So, in SGP even data transmission (including weather-data in the cockpit) is currently banned. I don't see why the same clear rules could not apply to all other competitions.
  #10  
Old January 21st 20, 03:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Springford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 320
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

How to fix future WGCs

1. Take away the team flying
 




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
2015 Nephi OLC/XC Final Report [email protected] Soaring 21 July 8th 15 10:56 PM
Day 4 at Perry and final report Frank Paynter[_2_] Soaring 0 April 25th 11 04:39 AM
Region 10 South Report: Final Day Bob D Soaring 0 August 16th 09 05:00 AM
Final Report of SSA FRTF Now Available [email protected] Soaring 2 October 28th 07 03:23 AM
Annual Report Final. "Long" NW_PILOT Piloting 22 October 28th 04 07:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 AM.


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