If You've Flown a FLARM Stealth Contest, Vote Here

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 08:58:19 -0800, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Stealth information masking is implemented on the receive end, but AFAIK
it works like this: If you configure stealth no one, regardless of their
setting will see anything but the information designated in the stealth
spec (2km range except for active alarms, no climb or ID, etc). In
addition your display will only receive information on ALL other
gliders (regardless of their configuration stealth) as specified in
the stealth spec.

I have a hazy recollection that this came in with V5.0 softwa prior to
that all data was transmitted along with the 'stealth' flag that caused
the *receiver* to operate in stealth mode, and that the OGN developers
ignored the stealth flag so that FLARM-radar networks showed all FLARM-
carrying aircraft. IIRC a lot of pilots objected to OGN ignoring the
stealth flag and refusing to honour its settings and claiming freedom of
information reasons for doing this. Since OGN had apparently reverse-
engineered the protocol rather than talking nicely to FLARM, the latter
got ****ed off with this and took V5.0 release as an opportunity to
remove stealthed data/encrypt the message. This forced OGN to play nicely
with FLARM and lead to the current way that stealth works.

At least, thats what I remember happening around the time that the V5.0
software was released.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

I agree - but I wasn't talking about current technology. more like stuff that could become available in the future.

How about a drone that flies in front of you. Or technology that allows you to see heat or .............. you get the point - some thing we have not thought up yet - there certainly will be technology that is either really expensive or not available to the general public.

and all of that is probably fine for flying fun flights. But Competition requires fairness, accessibility and rules to try to keep competitors on a level playing filed (or at least try).

is creating rules to put limits on technology good? I think the rules make the sport fair in competition. Competitors ALWAYS want an edge, that's why they are competitors. Good one understand that edge is within them.

WH1

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:38:35 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:19:13 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:15:16 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
At 07:22 15 December 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
For the avoidance of any doubt, I have e-mails from Urban Mäder,
Chief Technical Officer at FLARM who confirms that if one unit has
STEALTH mode selected then all other units, in any mode, receive a
downgraded data set from that unit.

No one is going to take your word for that Don. Publish the emails - or are
they secret?

I read the FLARM published information differently and I quote from the
FTD14 document:

'Stealth mode. Instructs all receiving FLARM devices that the received data
must not be made accessible (...to display devices) in real-time full
precision, except for the purpose of collision warning.'

This does NOT say that the transmitted data is degraded. You would appear
to be promulgating a myth.

Whether the information is not transmitted, not received, or simply not provided for display is of identical consequence, operationally.

I think this is not true, based upon the above.
If my information is sent, it is available, with limitations to my competitors using Stealth, and is available to all others in range without such limitations.
UH

Hank, could you support your statement with an official statement from Flarm or is this your opinion?

I'm wow'd with the well stated positions in this thread, and I'm here to "vote" per the original topic. The question facing the Rules Committee about Flarm and Stealth is clearly very complex as clearly articulated by 9B, BB, UH, XC and others. I do not envy the RC.

Regardless, here's my vote: Stealth Flarm scared the **** out of me once at Harris Hill. I was established in a popular thermal in the start cylinder and the flarm went into full panic mode (loud rapid screaming) with no warning. It indicated that someone was at my altitude, probably entering the thermal. I saw nothing for many seconds (it seemed like a lifetime), until a white streak crossed my bow, never slowing to turn. During those seconds I was frantic, and I should emphasize "frantic." I'd never before had the flarm go into panic mode without some prior visual or flarm cues. It scared me enough that I considered landing due to frazzled nerves. So, my vote is no to stealth mode. I'd have preferred to have had more situational awareness in that story. The idea of taking away my ability to make decisions based on available information, instead relying solely on an unknown computer algorithm, is not my cup of tea.

Just my opinion.

Rob Dunning