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

Interesting discussion,

IMO, the tactical advantage FLARM provides contest pilots during competition is being highly over-rated here. The "problem" is (and always has been) that A) not everyone has one, B) wants to buy one or c) is able to efficiently process the information available. I see FLARM (tactically) as just another small variable in the equation of flying performance.

It can easily hurt as much (or more) than it can help. Nobody seems to mention this possibility. Hint, hint...maybe you want people to try and leech with FLARM and fail or at least degrade. Hmm.

I currently have an "economy" contest set up...Brick-SN10-Oudie with a separate FLARM view display. A "funny guy" (he knows who he is) recently referred to my panel as a beat up WWII fighter. He's right! My panel is clearly not a great combination for efficiently tracking FLARM targets, analysing climb rates, etc. I don't know the full capabilities of the LX9000 or ClearNav. I do understand that their presentations are more (FLARM) information "rich." One good thing I see about a potential U.S. stealth mode rule is that the real or perceived advantage of these advanced soaring computers (in terms of FLARM based situation awareness) would be reduced or eliminated.

The real advantages of FLARM tracking (as I see it) is not climb rates. I would not trust the number anyway. I want to see the other potential gliders climbing and see the actual cloud they are under, etc. It's just not as simple as that pack has 3 knots and the other has 5...lets go to the 5!

For me, the ability to identify individual "key" pilots in the pack ahead (or behind) and "bonus" identification of gliders that I would have otherwise missed if I had not seen a FLARM "blip" and started searching in the exact right spot are the practical advantages that FLARM provides. It is very hard to calculate the value of these capabilities.

My actual FLARM reception range has been 1-3 miles (3 at absolute most). My antennas are well installed, blah, blah, blah. I therefore leave my FLARMview range at 1 mile so that I have a good resolution for "close in" gliders. In other words, the long range value is so consistently low that a greater range setting almost always pointless. Apparently others are seeing more as in my opinion 1 mile is fairly low value tactically. I usually see these gliders far earlier than I see them on FLARM.

While managing the available FLARM information well can provide value, my experience is that this is rarely a "great" value. In fact, it is usually a distraction to put effort into trying.

With that (my belief that others are likely gaining more from the available FLARM information than I am) I would (selfishly) be happy to see the requirement of a stealth mode at future US (or FAI) contests. But overall I have concluded that the value FLARM provides is highly, highly over-rated.

Finally, for whomever said (last few posts) the FAI World Championship Level requires FLARM leeching proficiency to be successful...please expound with specific information on how you reached these conclusions. Do you have a list of specifics? Who gave you this list? What experience do you have?

Sean
7T

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:08:08 AM UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
The US 15M/Standard Class Nationals required FLARM to be in stealth mode for the duration of the contest. I have to say, I absolutely enjoyed the experience. FLARM became what it was always supposed to be - a collision avoidance tool - rather than a tactical leaching tool. I found that I would get alerts for gliders in the same thermal or approaching/exiting the thermal up to about 1 mile away, but no more. Not a single surprise conflict from a FLARM-equipped glider.

I wonder if others had the same positive experience. I would hope other contests would consider requiring Stealth Mode.


Erik Mann (P3)

The thing that amazes me most about the contest was that the organizers did not require PowerFlarm!! But if you had PowerFlarm it had to be in the stealth mode.

It appears they are much more concerned about leaching than the safety of the competitors.

Richard

This is, indeed, amazing that folks are considering the "risk" of leeching more significant than the risk of collision. Sound like paranoia to me.

Ramy

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:17:35 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
This is, indeed, amazing that folks are considering the "risk" of leeching more significant than the risk of collision. Sound like paranoia to me.

Ramy

The genesis of trying the FLARM in stealth mode was when I was flying at the PAGC. Let me first say the PAGC was a very good event and Sarah and crew did an outstanding job. The idea was to use the FAI rules in a contest here in the US. The contest was a success and I like the FAI rules, generally.

There the US Team used team flying and all the FLARM capability we could get together. Poor Jerzey couldn't get away from the pack to do his own thing because he was tagged and followed from the start. It was also sad to see our top guys resort to following someone else rather than doing something brilliant on their own. The results were homogenized. Again, not as fun... I hope the FAI will continue with the movement afoot to go a stealth mode of some sort.

I congratulate the pilots at the 15m/Std Class Nationals at Harris Hill. There were no instances of poor, heads down thermalling that I heard of. FLARM warnings were quite adequate combined eyes-out awareness. The big FLARM debate never materialized at the contest. Everyone seemed content using stealth mode.

The same goes for the finish gate. None of the pilots went crazy with it. I don't remember any showy airshow stuff or iffy landing patterns. It really was no big deal and was more fun for everyone.

Thanks to those who came. Thanks for the sportsmanship and the safe flying. I wish more of you were there.

XC

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:

It appears they are much more concerned about leaching than the safety of the competitors.

Richard

It's tempting to start name calling here. I think you ought to retract that statement.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:08:08 AM UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
The US 15M/Standard Class Nationals required FLARM to be in stealth mode for the duration of the contest. I have to say, I absolutely enjoyed the experience. FLARM became what it was always supposed to be - a collision avoidance tool - rather than a tactical leaching tool. I found that I would get alerts for gliders in the same thermal or approaching/exiting the thermal up to about 1 mile away, but no more. Not a single surprise conflict from a FLARM-equipped glider.

I wonder if others had the same positive experience. I would hope other contests would consider requiring Stealth Mode.


Erik Mann (P3)

The thing that amazes me most about the contest was that the organizers did not require PowerFlarm!! But if you had PowerFlarm it had to be in the stealth mode.

It appears they are much more concerned about leaching than the safety of the competitors.

Richard

I would respond that my sense, and that of quite a number of others, is that Flarm, in Stealth mode, provided sense that we had the increased safety margin that Flarm technology offers without the possible negative affects of heads down tactical activity and had not meaningful affect on the race.
I do not think safety was compromised. As F1 said above, one might make a case for slightly more useful range, but that is a matter of opinion.
I thought it gave what we hoped for, without negative consequences.
UH

On 8/6/2015 11:00 PM, Richard wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:08:08 AM UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
The US 15M/Standard Class Nationals required FLARM to be in stealth mode
for the duration of the contest. I have to say, I absolutely enjoyed
the experience. FLARM became what it was always supposed to be - a
collision avoidance tool - rather than a tactical leaching tool. I
found that I would get alerts for gliders in the same thermal or
approaching/exiting the thermal up to about 1 mile away, but no more.
Not a single surprise conflict from a FLARM-equipped glider.

I wonder if others had the same positive experience. I would hope other
contests would consider requiring Stealth Mode.


Erik Mann (P3)

The thing that amazes me most about the contest was that the organizers did
not require PowerFlarm!! But if you had PowerFlarm it had to be in the
stealth mode.

It appears they are much more concerned about leaching than the safety of
the competitors.

Richard


As someone without a horse in this race (no PFlarm/interest in flying
competitions), it has more than once occurred to me while "listening" to these
sorts of (very interesting) discussions that PFlarm is a classic example of
better being the enemy of good enough, where good enough is glider-to-glider
(or even GA-to-glider, if adopted by GA) collision avoidance assistance, while
better is any real-or-perceived technical capability processed through humans'
"What if?" filters.

As for Richard's closing observation, that to me seems pretty strongly toward
relatively inaccurate gross oversimplification, doing little (nothing?) to
further the discussion while having significant potential of encouraging flame
warring. Have you anything new to add to the discussion on your thinking
regarding exactly how glider-to-glider safety is degraded through use of
stealth mode as it's been described throughout the years on RAS?

Respectfully,
Bob W.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 1:00:42 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:08:08 AM UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
The US 15M/Standard Class Nationals required FLARM to be in stealth mode for the duration of the contest. I have to say, I absolutely enjoyed the experience. FLARM became what it was always supposed to be - a collision avoidance tool - rather than a tactical leaching tool. I found that I would get alerts for gliders in the same thermal or approaching/exiting the thermal up to about 1 mile away, but no more. Not a single surprise conflict from a FLARM-equipped glider.

I wonder if others had the same positive experience. I would hope other contests would consider requiring Stealth Mode.


Erik Mann (P3)

The thing that amazes me most about the contest was that the organizers did not require PowerFlarm!! But if you had PowerFlarm it had to be in the stealth mode.

It appears they are much more concerned about leaching than the safety of the competitors.

Richard

you require powerflarm, then 3-4 of the people who participated safely would have had to sit out because they couldn't afford the damn thing. and that usually pertains to young competitors.

i'm not saying people are infallible to having a midair by simply keeping out a watchful eye, but the risk can certainly be effectively mitigated if everyone is looking vigilantly, and since we are all flying VFR, I don't care if you have flarm, or a transponder or god knows what, you've got to be looking. the organizers were not more concerned about leeching than safety. that's a silly presumption. the flarm in stealth mode still provides warning of impending collisions. it was an experiment, which XC talks about based on the experiences people had at PAGC.

Hmmm, personally, I never saw much of Jerzy at the PAGC. He usually (wisely) started behind, etc. I am shocked to hear that "FLARM marking" Jerzy was the U.S. team strategy. It certainly wasn't mine.. I (and my team-mate) must have missed that memo. Again, the capability of FLARM "leeching" is being greatly overrated here. It's not a major factor, it just isn't. I wish to debate this as needed.

I strongly suggest that people considering the opinions here replay the flight traces from (for example) the PAGC event for themselves and pay particular attention to the behavior of certain pilots with reference to certain other pilots. The conditions at the PAGC were quite weak (unfortunately) and little tactical flexibility was available to rapidly modify tactics based on a FLARM hit. It was my experience that you had to fly your own air as much as possible and survive as long as you could. If you were with a gaggle it was not because you used FLARM to catch it.

And, FWIW, good luck to anybody who wants to try and stay with Jerzy (or DJ, KM, P7 etc) simply by watching your FLARM screen. It's not going to happen. You may benefit slightly once in awhile but your not going to beat these pilots simply by following them via FLARM data. They will leave you behind in a big hurry.

Ban FLARM or go to Stealth mode, etc. IMO it's not going to make a big (or small) difference. So little that it's irrelevant. I feel the issue is being overblown here.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 12:09:26 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
Interesting discussion,

IMO, the tactical advantage FLARM provides contest pilots during competition is being highly over-rated here. The "problem" is (and always has been) that A) not everyone has one, B) wants to buy one or c) is able to efficiently process the information available. I see FLARM (tactically) as just another small variable in the equation of flying performance.

It can easily hurt as much (or more) than it can help. Nobody seems to mention this possibility. Hint, hint...maybe you want people to try and leech with FLARM and fail or at least degrade. Hmm.

I currently have an "economy" contest set up...Brick-SN10-Oudie with a separate FLARM view display. A "funny guy" (he knows who he is) recently referred to my panel as a beat up WWII fighter. He's right! My panel is clearly not a great combination for efficiently tracking FLARM targets, analysing climb rates, etc. I don't know the full capabilities of the LX9000 or ClearNav. I do understand that their presentations are more (FLARM) information "rich." One good thing I see about a potential U.S. stealth mode rule is that the real or perceived advantage of these advanced soaring computers (in terms of FLARM based situation awareness) would be reduced or eliminated.

The real advantages of FLARM tracking (as I see it) is not climb rates. I would not trust the number anyway. I want to see the other potential gliders climbing and see the actual cloud they are under, etc. It's just not as simple as that pack has 3 knots and the other has 5...lets go to the 5!

For me, the ability to identify individual "key" pilots in the pack ahead (or behind) and "bonus" identification of gliders that I would have otherwise missed if I had not seen a FLARM "blip" and started searching in the exact right spot are the practical advantages that FLARM provides. It is very hard to calculate the value of these capabilities.

My actual FLARM reception range has been 1-3 miles (3 at absolute most). My antennas are well installed, blah, blah, blah. I therefore leave my FLARMview range at 1 mile so that I have a good resolution for "close in" gliders. In other words, the long range value is so consistently low that a greater range setting almost always pointless. Apparently others are seeing more as in my opinion 1 mile is fairly low value tactically. I usually see these gliders far earlier than I see them on FLARM.

While managing the available FLARM information well can provide value, my experience is that this is rarely a "great" value. In fact, it is usually a distraction to put effort into trying.

With that (my belief that others are likely gaining more from the available FLARM information than I am) I would (selfishly) be happy to see the requirement of a stealth mode at future US (or FAI) contests. But overall I have concluded that the value FLARM provides is highly, highly over-rated.

Finally, for whomever said (last few posts) the FAI World Championship Level requires FLARM leeching proficiency to be successful...please expound with specific information on how you reached these conclusions. Do you have a list of specifics? Who gave you this list? What experience do you have?

Sean
7T

Hi Sean, it's andy (ND) brayer. hobbs, asw 20, young guy.

You might have taken my words too literally. my meaning is not that one must use "flarm leeching" to it's fullest extent in order to be world champion.. on the contrary, and with the understanding that you know all of this already; I think that in order to win, you need something else, something intangible, raw unadulterated talent. but that alone doesn't win it. i think we all agree that at the world level a completely individualistic approach is ineffective anymore, and that you are giving something up by flying as a lone wolf. as such, and in conjunction with sound team flying tactics, the information that can be garnered through complete use of flarm's capabilities is probably better considered than not. so while i don't have first person experience on a world level, or an actual list of specifics blessed by kawa, meuser, or sommer themselves, I do think the results of the team flying/information sharing mentality speak for themselves. to me--and i daresay others with a more impressive competitive resume--those results ought to include the intelligence gathered through complete use of flarm's capabilities. it does seem like leeching to be able to chose one thermal over another based on the fact that you know that frenchman is climbing in 6 knots, but the spaniard is only climbing in 4. now, from what i understand you say it isn't quite as accurate as that, and i accept that. on the other hand, i have heard from others who shall remain nameless that it is and that they've seen that movie played out.

Maybe the information gathered from flarm is overrated, maybe it isn't. who can say for sure? these are matters of opinion. i'm not sure whether i agree with you 100%, or not at all.

what is your assessment about what i've said?

andy
(ND)