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, 07:17 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
Ads
  #2  
Old January 20th 20, 08:49 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 20th 20, 11:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 865
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 20th 20, 11:09 PM 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 20th 20, 11:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 865
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, 12:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
mart mart is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 21
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 21st 20, 12:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Foster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-7, mart wrote:
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.


I think it could simplify a lot of things if they changed the rules to be more like sailboat racing. The start line opens at a specific time, and whoever crosses the line first is the winner. None of this delayed start stuff. Everyone is racing against each other in real time. The guys behind can see where the leaders are climbing, and maybe make up some time, but in order to win, you have to be in front. Much like they do in SGP racing. That format just makes more sense to me. I realize it is quite a bit different from how things have been done for many years, but it could eliminate a lot of the advantages folks would get from this whole live-tracking thing.
  #8  
Old January 21st 20, 12:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tijl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

That wouldn't circumvent manual Flarm-ID changes at any given moment within the flight (with an LX9000 connection for instance).

You can also quickly power your Flarm off an on after take-off, thereby creating a new random ID.

I am sure if the IGC asks for it, FLARM can quickly bring out a feature that triggers a ID-randomizer every 15 minutes during the flight. But that would not even be necessary in my opinion.


Also, if the punishment of having a private ground-based Flarm receiver in a team is disqualification for the whole team, and if the rules on this are 100% clear and widely known, who in their right mind would do this?
  #9  
Old January 21st 20, 01:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Daly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 634
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 7:46:03 PM UTC-5, Tijl wrote:
That wouldn't circumvent manual Flarm-ID changes at any given moment within the flight (with an LX9000 connection for instance).

You can also quickly power your Flarm off an on after take-off, thereby creating a new random ID.

I am sure if the IGC asks for it, FLARM can quickly bring out a feature that triggers a ID-randomizer every 15 minutes during the flight. But that would not even be necessary in my opinion.


Also, if the punishment of having a private ground-based Flarm receiver in a team is disqualification for the whole team, and if the rules on this are 100% clear and widely known, who in their right mind would do this?


I would be surprised if changing the ICAO ID didn't violate the IGC file security and validation.
  #10  
Old January 21st 20, 01:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,043
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 7:36:09 PM UTC-5, John Foster wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-7, mart wrote:
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.


I think it could simplify a lot of things if they changed the rules to be more like sailboat racing. The start line opens at a specific time, and whoever crosses the line first is the winner. None of this delayed start stuff. Everyone is racing against each other in real time. The guys behind can see where the leaders are climbing, and maybe make up some time, but in order to win, you have to be in front. Much like they do in SGP racing. That format just makes more sense to me. I realize it is quite a bit different from how things have been done for many years, but it could eliminate a lot of the advantages folks would get from this whole live-tracking thing..


The size of the field matters. SGP has relatively small field intentionally..
I flew in one of the first "bomb burst" starts about 25 years ago. There were about 50 ships, all at cloud base when the go signal was sent. We almost all came back saying that we never wanted to do that again.
This concept also puts everyone in one big gaggle which can be highly dangerous.
Been there - done that.
In my view the solution is to work to make FLARM the collision avoidance tool it is meant to be, and do whatever can be done to stop tracking and minimize the benefits of FLARM radar. Start with option for no ID. Kill climb rate information. Make range only what it needs to be for collision avoidance. Stealth does some of this.
UH
 




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 02:23 AM
Annual Report Final. "Long" NW_PILOT Piloting 22 October 28th 04 07:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.