Is FLARM helpful?

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 6:57:03 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Dear XC:

With all due respect life is more worthwhile than what YOU deem "the spirit of the sport" while flying a glider costing over $100,000 made of the the most advanced composite materials and utilizing the most advance low speed aerodynamics on the planet. Your glider or those also in "the spirit of the sport" have flight computers that can keep track of arrival hight and l/d to arrive for all airports, those computers tell you how fast to fly between thermals, will tell you the time to complete a task given the McCready setting, will tell you where airspace is both in the vertical and horizontal plane. These computers will warn you if your airbrakes or open, if you forget to lower your landing gear, they will show you photos of the airport you have selected they can tell you your height both in AGL and MSL... Some of these gliders that by your argument still have the correct "spirit of the sport" have engines, some have jet engines, other can launch themselves, this is still in the spirit of the sport but anti-collision not muted to 2 km takes away the spirit? Your "spirit of the sport" idea is seriously warped and does not stand to simple logic. Advanced computers fine, advanced aerodynamics fine, engines fine, seeing all the traffic that can kill you bad.

Maybe the 1-26 association and the vintage glider association would better provide the spirit you want to preserve.

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 2:22:52 PM UTC-8, XC wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Technology can be defined as the application of human ability to affect change to answer a determined human need. That need may well be to preserve what is deemed worthwhile. There are many cases of technology being used in this preservation way.

The stealth mode feature of FLARM is such an application of human ability or technology - moving ahead with collision avoidance enhancement but preserving the spirit of the sport.

XC

Okay, my take on spirit of the sport is different than yours. Please take a moment to tell us what your take is? What are we comparing when we race? What qualities in a glider pilot are worthy of peer recognition?
XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

Hey Sean,

Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.

The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.

I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.

9B

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

Hey Sean,

Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.

The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.

I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.

9B

The mention of normal flight (I read this as non-contest flight) is included in the description of the values 0 and 1 in the table. Somewhat obtuse I know, but that is where it is.

I think many in the IGC and the BGA seriously value the use of this competition or stealth mode and think it is a good thing to do. These are more than just "people". These are highly competent and involved racing pilots who are looking after the future of our sport.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:42:02 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

Hey Sean,

Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.

The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.

I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.

9B

The mention of normal flight (I read this as non-contest flight) is included in the description of the values 0 and 1 in the table. Somewhat obtuse I know, but that is where it is.

I think many in the IGC and the BGA seriously value the use of this competition or stealth mode and think it is a good thing to do. These are more than just "people". These are highly competent and involved racing pilots who are looking after the future of our sport.

XC

In Europe ADS-B out installation is much cheaper than in the US as the GPS source does not need to meet the same standards as in US. How are these "more than just "people"" going to deal with that, outlaw ADS-B in contests?
What about here?

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:57:17 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:42:02 PM UTC-5, XC wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:52:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 4:42:13 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
I find your use of the phrase "banning technology" completely disingenuous when in fact what Tim and others are proposing is to actually USE a feature built into the technology by the designers. Semantics matter!

Erik Mann
Flarm Fan. Stealth Fan.


Just to clarify, the Flarm Configuration Specification 1.02 published in 2015 says, in the section describing the PRIV (stealth) command:

"It is recommended NOT to activate stealth mode!"

From conversations with the Flarm engineers I discovered that statement, complete with exclamation point, was included because they meant it.. That's a pretty strong way to word it. Stealth is only included as an alternative to people turning their Flarm off entirely, which is the one thing that's worse.

People demand that stealth mode be written into the software then use the fact that the feature exists to argue that the designers want us to use it, otherwise that wouldn't have written it.

Nope. They don't think it's a good idea for us to use it and they said so - in writing.

9B

Again, this is not accurate. The FLARM CONFIGURATION SPECIFICATION FTD-14 recommends not setting your FLARM to stealth for normal flying. (See the table below the text.) The reason is given below:

"To apply full reciprocity, a pilot who enables stealth mode will only get information as if all other aircraft had enabled stealth mode, independent of their actual setting."

This is not to say stealth is not recommended to be used in competition as it designed to be. Rather the intent is that a non-competition pilot who is accidentally configured in stealth may think he/she is getting features he/she is not. For example, he may incorrectly think the area is clear by looking at the scope.

XC

Hey Sean,

Hmmm...I've read that spec over and over since it was published back in August. They don't mention anywhere that PRIV mode should only be left off for "normal flying" (presumably this means non-contest flying) - but the spec doesn't use either "normal" or "non-contest" as a qualifier when recommending it not be used. They make a blanket statement.

The quote you copy, while correct, is simply a description of how stealth mode operates, but not in any way a recommendation for its use that I can wrestle out of the language no matter how hard I try.

I'd add that in my conversations with various members of the Flarm team (and without attempting to speak for any of them), I got a very specific sense that the internal view of stealth mode is that it is a compromise made only to keep some pilots from turning off their units entirely, not because anyone thought it was intrinsically a good thing to do. It's complex to implement, creates potential unpredictable conflict scenarios (despite a lot of thought), and requires ongoing support.

9B

The mention of normal flight (I read this as non-contest flight) is included in the description of the values 0 and 1 in the table. Somewhat obtuse I know, but that is where it is.

I think many in the IGC and the BGA seriously value the use of this competition or stealth mode and think it is a good thing to do. These are more than just "people". These are highly competent and involved racing pilots who are looking after the future of our sport.

XC

In Europe ADS-B out installation is much cheaper than in the US as the GPS source does not need to meet the same standards as in US. How are these "more than just "people"" going to deal with that, outlaw ADS-B in contests?
What about here?

The assumption here is that ADS-B will be mandatory for gliders. It is not included to be mandatory at this time. I am not 100% sure of this but someone out there will clarify I'm sure.

Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.

XC

Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.

XC

The idea that seeing gliders a few kilometers away via flarm destroys the "integrity of our sport" seems a little far-fetched. Certainly it is not an idea universally held.

The echo of how GPS would do the same thing is hard to ignore. Heck, apparently when Kronfeld put in the first variometer, there was complaining that pilots would lose their seat of the pants skills and they'd all fly around staring at the little pellets all day long.

John Cochrane BB

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:01:51 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.

XC

The idea that seeing gliders a few kilometers away via flarm destroys the "integrity of our sport" seems a little far-fetched. Certainly it is not an idea universally held.

The echo of how GPS would do the same thing is hard to ignore. Heck, apparently when Kronfeld put in the first variometer, there was complaining that pilots would lose their seat of the pants skills and they'd all fly around staring at the little pellets all day long.

John Cochrane BB

It seems that we have a solution to a technology problem with no objective evidence of its actual existence, being addressed against the manufacturer's recommendations, supported by far less than a majority of the pilots using it, which is likely to be obsolete in less than 5 years. Did I miss anything?

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 2:12:05 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 8:01:51 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
Can't any technology that preserves the integrity of our sport while enhancing collision avoidance via FLARM also be applied to ADS-B signals? It would have the added benefit of painting non-contest aircraft further away since they are tagged under a different category.

XC

The idea that seeing gliders a few kilometers away via flarm destroys the "integrity of our sport" seems a little far-fetched. Certainly it is not an idea universally held.

The echo of how GPS would do the same thing is hard to ignore. Heck, apparently when Kronfeld put in the first variometer, there was complaining that pilots would lose their seat of the pants skills and they'd all fly around staring at the little pellets all day long.

John Cochrane BB

It seems that we have a solution to a technology problem with no objective evidence of its actual existence, being addressed against the manufacturer's recommendations, supported by far less than a majority of the pilots using it, which is likely to be obsolete in less than 5 years. Did I miss anything?

Politely, yes you have missed a few facts in there. I and others have seen a competitor use FLARM to track a talented competitor out the gate, follow him half way around the course, jump to another, better thermal solely based on information on the FLARM display and win the day. This was a short task so that was all it took.

Others in Europe thought this FLARM following was not worthy of our esteem. It was quite out of control at the World Championships. I am not sure if the specs came from outside FLARM or were internal but the engineers put a team together to address this issue. Somebody thought a lot about this problem and developed a solution.

Know this type of flying was happening, we had a national contest using the available stealth feature of FLARM. Collision avoidance warnings were found to be quite satisfactory in this contest mode. There were a few who had trouble configuring initially but at the end of the event pilot satisfaction was close to 100%. I don't know of anyone who disliked actually using it.

I still believe the competition mode can be implemented just as well or better with ADS-B technology.

Those in this forum who are strongly opposed to FLARM stealth mode are those who have not tried it. I suggest we have a few more contests with FLARM to allow others to gain experience with it. With all this debate and heightened awareness, plus some good tasking, plus the warnings provided by mandatory FLARM at Nephi I am sure will be a very safe contest.


XC

Anyone or clubs using FLARM to help the new XC pilot? Thought I saw a thread awhile back mentioning why are not more pilots venturing into XC and just hanging around the strip. Would FLARM help them keep track of others in the air and give direction and altitude that they could use to feel more confident in venturing further?

Yes. Many pilots flying at OLC and XC events - or even casual XC flying - use Flarm to buddy fly. When used with simple, short radio communications it makes it pretty easy to get together and stay together, though generally the more experienced pilot(s) will need to pay attention to not getting too far out front as knowing where the lead glider is located is quite a different matter from catching up to it.