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

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.

So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.

I think we need to get back to a simple principle: Let's see if something is really a problem before we start passing rules against it.

Surely, you guys who want to impose stealth mode can come up with some real, serious, documented problem that real flarms today are causing, not just hypothetical problems of hypothetical future software?

By then we'll all have FAA mandated ADSB displays of all traffic, super cheap drone anti-collision technology showing us where the thermaling birds are, and so on.

John Cochrane

The cadence of transition remains ever present, clocks that bind will be left to rust. Tick tock, tick tock.....

The old days are in the past. This argument is similar to the GPS data loggers versus cameras. The cream always raises to the top. Why limit Flarm. No Flarm data is going to help you out climb, core faster, or fly more efficient than a better pilot.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 7:49:31 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.

I think we need to get back to a simple principle: Let's see if something is really a problem before we start passing rules against it.

Surely, you guys who want to impose stealth mode can come up with some real, serious, documented problem that real flarms today are causing, not just hypothetical problems of hypothetical future software?

By then we'll all have FAA mandated ADSB displays of all traffic, super cheap drone anti-collision technology showing us where the thermaling birds are, and so on.

John Cochrane

At 02:15 08 August 2015, Papa3 wrote:
I agree - lots of good discussion. =20

I would again emphasize though that nobody has yet put the effort into
buil=
ding a true Tactical Leeching Tool. Flarm just provides data and a
collisi=
on 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
wa=
rnings I have gotten in either unrestricted or stealth mode. As a safety
to=
ol, I love it. =20

But, please consider what folks could do IF they put their minds to it.
V=
isualizing and presenting the Flarm data for tactical advantage has
hardly
=
been tapped at all. Imagine a filtering algorithm that takes in Flarm
dat=
a 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
ex=
ample). Now, imagine that it smooths the climb data from the gliders
th=
at 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
t=
hat another gaggle (Gaggle B) nearby is similarly filtered and
displayed.
=
Color coding is applied with strongest average climbs in Green and
decreas=
ing in size and intensity with weaker climbs. Also, the user can set
aler=
ts to indicate if specific targets are in Gaggle A or Gaggle B. Okay,
Gag=
gle 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
spe=
cs for several of these examples. =20

I suspect that the reason a lot of folks are finding Flarm of limited
tacti=
cal value right now is largely unfamiliarity with the tool combined with
Us=
er Interfaces which are not yet optimized for competition. My Flarm
routin=
ely provides 7.5km to 8km range, which is basically a corridor 15km wide
(l=
eft and right). And contrary to statements made in this thread, many
the=
rmals are relatively persistent and regenerative. All you have to do
to
=
see this in action is to download competition files from a recent contest
a=
nd replay the flights in maggot race mode on SeeYou. If you synchronize
o=
n 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
KNOW=
ING which gaggle is the stronger climb is a very real tactical advantage.

=
Similar examples apply to the pre-start, straight glides, etc.=20

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
glider=
s to figure out which group is climbing better relative to you, you'll be
z=
ooming in the gain on your Leeching Window. Sort of like good weather
rad=
ar operators today who know how to identify the really ugly cells vs. the
m=
ore benign cells. Maybe that's the exciting next frontier? =20

P3


Astute thinking. Flying the computers is the problem for me.

Well, I am no Luddite, but will there be never be a technology that we ban from our cockpits? Won't we have to draw a line at some point?

I hated turn point cameras and I really would not want to do without GPS, but before all the gadgetry, contests usually filled up or were oversubscribed.

Surely, you guys who want to impose stealth mode can come up with some real, serious, documented problem that real flarms today are causing, not just hypothetical problems of hypothetical future software?

John Cochrane

John,

The problem is here. FLARM is a great help in finding the best competitors pre-start, following them out the start gate, and good way down the course line. For a short task in weak conditions folks can follow the top guy all the way around. XG never had a chance of hiding out and sneaking away.

This results in artificially similar flights and scores, not reflective of the variety of ability in the race, and make for a duller contest.

Here is a video replay of PAGC Day 3. Let me say that I and my partner would have gladly helped wear a groove around the course line. Those were the rules at this contest and it was clearly the fastest way to get around. 5E had a late start and got stuck low so I waited for him. It cost us.

https://youtu.be/Oti1iLPcTKg

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:49:31 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.

John Cochrane

No, but as a leader in the US Rules Committee one would have thought you would be open-minded enough to at least consider the potential long term impacts of new technologies and at least be prepared for the consequences.

It's obvious at this point that you're not, so I'll bow out of this one.

As far as the software is concerned, that's the easy part. The Flarm folks did the difficult part by solving the hardware/firmware/collision algorithm problems. Good on them. Some of us are worried about the second order impacts already today (even with limited capability Flarm leeching has started), and it's easy to see it advancing rapidly from here for anyone with 25+ years in software development.

Out.
P3

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 6:47:43 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:49:31 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.

John Cochrane

No, but as a leader in the US Rules Committee one would have thought you would be open-minded enough to at least consider the potential long term impacts of new technologies and at least be prepared for the consequences.

It's obvious at this point that you're not, so I'll bow out of this one.

As far as the software is concerned, that's the easy part. The Flarm folks did the difficult part by solving the hardware/firmware/collision algorithm problems. Good on them. Some of us are worried about the second order impacts already today (even with limited capability Flarm leeching has started), and it's easy to see it advancing rapidly from here for anyone with 25+ years in software development.

Out.
P3

Don't like my tone in this post, so I'll edit it. First cut was early a.m. and BC (before coffee). So, Take 2:

No, but as a leader in the US Rules Committee I think you need to be open-minded enough to at least consider the potential long term impacts of new technologies and be prepared for the consequences. It's obvious that a number of competitor are concerned and feel strongly on this topic, so hopefully that message is getting through .

As far as the software is concerned, that's the easy part. The Flarm folks did the difficult part by solving the hardware/firmware/collision algorithm problems. Good on them. Some of us are worried about the second order impacts already today (even with limited capability Flarm leeching has started), and it's easy to see it advancing rapidly from here.

Out.
P3

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:49:31 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet.

I think we need to get back to a simple principle: Let's see if something is really a problem before we start passing rules against it.

Surely, you guys who want to impose stealth mode can come up with some real, serious, documented problem that real flarms today are causing, not just hypothetical problems of hypothetical future software?

By then we'll all have FAA mandated ADSB displays of all traffic, super cheap drone anti-collision technology showing us where the thermaling birds are, and so on.

John Cochrane

I'll provide here a portion of a report written by one of the major rules thinkers without attribution as I do not have his OK to do so.
What's the problem
Range of Flarm now gives competitors the opportunity of identifying, locating and assessing the climb rate of competitors over 20km away. This has evolved with the production of better Flarm electronics (Powerflarm) and a better understanding of influence and importance of antenna location and design. Whilst the improved performance is most welcome as it now ensures that all installations are seeing and being seen at the important 2km range with much reduced blind spots(2km required for effective collision avoidance head to head), it has dramatically increased the tactical use by competition pilots.
Tactical benefits on task include being able to assess climb rate of others and identify where important pilots are in order to make improved strategic decisions. Even if the targets in view are not "tagged" they give important information for gliders behind to optimise routing and to ensure that if required a follower may ensure they fly the same route. Tactical benefit prior to start is even greater as it allows a full view of the start line area so it is clear where all the start gaggles are located, where key competitors are, whether they have started and sometimes what rate of climb is achieved in the first thermal on task.
It is arguable whether this sort of tactical assistance diminishes the art of racing gliders. I believe it does but this is not the main thrust of this paper. Flarm in isolation is a great safety device that has rightly been encouraged to the position we find ourselves today where it is mandatory in all FAI Cat 1 events. However, it is now very clear from feedback from International competition pilots that the workload in gleaning the "necessary" tactical data from the Flarm device is diminishing or eliminating the apparent added safety that the underlying Flarm provides.
What are pilots doing:-
1 Spending way too much time scanning moving maps for tactical contact detail instead of look out
2 Spending way too much time "tagging" competitors instead of look out to improve tactical content
3 Turning their Flarm units on and off at will to avoid tactical benefit accruing to others
4 Blanking antennas to reduce or eliminate range to avoid tactical benefit accruing to others
5 Installing amplifiers to increase range even further
6 Utilising two port Flarm units with one send/receive and one receive only antenna to maximise the range received but eliminate or restrict transmit range.
7 Changing backwards and forwards from "stealth" to full ON mode to minimize tactical benefit accruing to others but maximising own benefit as required.
Whats the effect
1 Safety is significantly diminished due to significant head in cockpit time inputting and viewing the Flarm for maximum tactical benefit.
2 Following or "leaching" is much easier so the eternal problem of gaggling is further encouraged at the possible cost of safety.
3 It is much easier for pilots of lower skill level to fly at the same XC speed as the best pilots.
What's the solution

Please read and consider with an open mind.
UH