Confessions of a Flarm Follower

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:21:09 PM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
What an absolutely ridiculous statement. I won't stand by and listen to this passively anymore. It's time to slap this stupidity down.

Powerflarm provides a moderately reliable, 2-3 mile (and a very reliable 1-2 mile) situational awareness "radar" with an advanced collision algorithm which automatically alerts any pilots involved in a potential collision well in advance of any calculated conflict possibility. This alert could come at the beginning of a slight turn or climb or descent by one or both gliders while gliders are at relatively close range. If you are entirely unaware of the other glider when you get the warning (this could suddenly be a critical warning), it's often quite a panic to locate where the threat is, especially when in close proximity. Powerflarm is carefully designed not to beep (annoy) unless there is a potential glider collision "solution." This can mean that gliders can get incredibly close without any alert or warning whatsoever. Say 100 meters side to side, etc. Not a sound is made by the POWERFlarm if both gliders are not, at that moment, tending course towards the other. Parallel courses is not a problem. Suddenly one pulls aggressively towards another and bang. The POWERFlarms alert or warning event alone is simply not sufficient to achieve truly improved safety environment in any glider contest or busy flying area (say a club flight of 2,3,4...). This is the whole point of Powerflarm vs gen 1 Flarm (simple lights O'clock above, level, below). This is also THE EXACT REASON POWERFLARM DOES NOT RECOMMEND STEALTH MODE. Many other dangerous scenarios are possible without simultaneous situational awareness and an occasional scan of the Flarm radar picture (telemetry is useless and needs less in this scan). It's about has anything new appeared nearby and it will be completely lost with stealth or competition mode.

A HUGE part of the "safety equation" POWERFlarm "used to provide" us is a much higher level of basic situational awareness. This fact is IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE US RC STEALTH MANDATE (now called "competition?" mode and currently pure untested vaporware). Flarm is exactly the same debate as ADSB vs traditional ATC flight following with transponders or nothing at all (the SSA argument). Transponders are all but useless in a busy environment. TCAS was a band aid on this vastly flawed system, but even that has failed us miserably (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Über...air_collision). GPS based data linked radar, on the other hand is very powerful improvement for aviation safety. Gliders are not the only aircraft that matter in this discussion of course. Enter ADSB (Flarms technology "big brother"). Bottom line, regardless of statistical arguments claiming we have very few collisions in glider contests, gliders hitting each-other, even once more, is unacceptable in any gliding or general aviation environment, ever again, P E R I O D. Sacrificing safety for philosophical traditionalism is unacceptable. We cannot let our safety guard down, for a second, ever. Yet here we are having this discussion...and facing an RC almost immediate US RC mandate of said POWERFlarm SA lobotomy.

Anyone who has seriously competed with a POWERFlarm (several years experience over 15+ flarm equipped contests, from a few gliders at first to most or all in 2015 contests, or a thermal at a World Championships, etc) would fully understand that a POWERFLARM is PRIMARILY (and by far) a "safety device" which may occasionally help alert its owner (and the potential conflict owner) to a dangerous collision threat which they may have otherwise been entirely unaware of without POWERFlarm. Again, the "warning" itself is very small piece of the total safety value.

A huge part of value this SAFETY DEVICE creates is the natural capability to generally "notice" another glider in the immediate area (2-3 miles, or less) which otherwise would be completely unknown (back to the Stone Age, or with Stealth or Comp mode). This problem happens ALL THE TIME in starting areas for example. It also happens approaching or departing thermals, ridges, etc.

The idea of "killing" the situational awareness value of this obvious and clear SAFETY DEVICE in such a rapid, untested and unnecessary philosophical "technology jihad" has been awe inspiring to behold. The almost childlike comments from the peanut mob are equally amazing. These two campaigns are in direct conflict. Let's be honest. One philosophically says position data and telemetry is unfair (even though all have equal capability, and zero objective evidence of value has been provided) and it must all be struck down and lobotomized entirely, immediately, with angry accusations about pilot cheating motives for purchase (not safety at all) and the other saying that situational awareness is important to the safety environment, tech is OK, there is no real evidence, everyone has the same view, it's not a big deal competitively, calm down, breath, etc. I'm starting to lean back to to stand with this group on general principle.

Without the situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm, we are absolutely and considerably debilitating the basic safety elements of the POWERFlarm system by removing the pilots ability to notice other yet visually undetected gliders around them. A main cause of recent most collisions in the USA (Uvalde, Minden?).

There are absolutely going to be unintended consequences by lobotomizing POWERFlarm situational awareness, depending on the specific and entirely unreleased technical requirements of the "competition mode" that Flarm is supposedly working on for the US rules committee. I wonder who is paying them for this work, this testing? At this point, committing to the promise of its safe function is reckless and hard to imagine.

The 1-2 or 2-3 mile situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm instrument and its basic display is critical to the overall safety process POWERFlarm provides. This is an absolute fact and I will argue as necessary to substantiate it by citing numerous personal videos (never before shown) and corresponding SeeYou examples, etc.

Finally, I find the ridiculous statements in this topic that everyone bought POWERFlarm to track competitors (leech) and not as a safety device to be absolutely unacceptable. The person saying this, is out of order. No apology is sufficient. Such statements are dangerous, reckless and factually pathetic.

The recent "apology" was a joke and hopefully is not accepted.

Sean



Now, now Sean, I never said "everyone". I said "hard core Flarm pushers". As I have said previously, I have flown with a Powerflarm in a couple of contests and numerous non-contest flights and find it to be useful. I have also stated in a previous post that I don't care about the whole issue of using Flarm for leeching. However, I stand by my assertion that the majority of those who are opposed to any type of "competition mode" for Flarm, AND who are not willing to discuss the possibility of negative safety effects of tactical use, do not have safety as their PRIMARY interest with regards to Flarm. I did not say they had NO interest in safety.

I'm at a loss to understand how my opinion was "dangerous, reckless...". We hear anecdotally that pilots have admitted to intentionally disabling their Flarm output to deny tactical information to their competitors. I think ignoring or attempting to stifle the discussion of the unintended consequences of unlimited tactical use of Flarm might be dangerous.

As for "factually pathetic", well, that is certainly a possibility. Wouldn't be the first time.

As for my apology to Andrzej, that was no joke. It was quite sincere.

WB

"Does anyone really doubt that the hard core Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover? I think most of the Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm. "Safety" is mostly just a bludgeon to be used against the debate opposition. "

This is the most asinine statement I have ever read on RAS. Crying out loud, did you really not know Flarm was designed from the ground up as an anti-collision device and it is very effective for its designed purpose ?! Can you really not see multiple holes in your "logic jump"? Your thoughts become your words, and yours are off base illogical and downright foolish. I hope your New Years resolution if for clearity of thought.

Happy NewYears all!

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:16:08 PM UTC-8, wrote:

The often quoted manufacturers recommendation to not enable stealth is taken out of context. They are cautioning that leaving the Flarm in stealth when not at a contest will, of course, limit what is displayed on your Flarm and others. This designed feature is for use at contests not general flying.


Hey Sean,

I've read the spec over and over. I've read other Flarm-produced documentation and I've spoken at one point or another to most of the Flarm leadership team, including spending a day with Urs in his California office. Without putting specific words in anyone's mouth it was made pretty clear to me that the recommendation against using Stealth specifically includes contest use. They have said (in writing) that the only reason to use it (and implied that the only reason it was developed) was to forestall people turning their units off altogether. You can speculate that this was due to liability concerns, but no one ever said that to me and the way people talked about it just reinforced the sense that the main consideration is that they thought using it was a bad idea on technical grounds - second only to not using Flarm at all.

We can talk about the (small) probabilities of glider midairs and merits of a bit less situational awareness against the (still to be described in a quantifiable way) reduction in "tactical use", but it really is a line drawing exercise that makes many of us pretty uncomfortable - since the costs are some small increment in a horrific outcome versus a benefit that can't be adequately described, let alone quantified or demonstrated as to how it decreases the accuracy to which contest scores represent soaring skills.

Take John's confessional and unpack it a bit into the real implications. There are two main tactical use cases he describes:

Use Case 1: Knowing where other gliders are and to some extent how they are progressing - a different line, a different thermal, etc. Knowing where a handful of other pilots are some of the time - maybe where they made their turn in the cylinder - give you a sense of whether you are gaining or losing. In other words, it give you a sensation that you are racing - which a lot of pilots seem to enjoy. You have tactical information that you are, for instance, losing ground to another glider - instead of waiting until dinner time and the scores to figure this out. At three miles distance it gives you almost no useful information about what to do about it. Three miles laterally is a hard gap to close on a leg - you just give up too much to make a sharp deviation and if you do it with a gradual course change it's equally pointless as whatever is happening differently will likely be totally changed 10 miles or more down the course line. As prior data analysis - and experience - has demonstrated, following someone from 3 miles behind is generally a recipe for getting 4 miles behind unless you find your own, better thermals - that is, fly you own flight.

Use Case 2: Having some confidence under marginal conditions when there are other gliders about that you will have a decent shot at finding a thermal if there is one to be had. This reduces the chances that you will miss the saving climb that prevents a landout (or being stuck for a long time) when climbs (and particularly good climbs) are few and far between. From looking at the names on the list of landouts on days like this, it seems that there is more luck than skill involved, but it is possible that there is some skill, some local knowledge and some risk tolerance involved (e.g. willingness to drive down to 300', fly over unlandable terrain, into tight canyons, etc). Are these the types of soaring skills we want to value? Is having more landouts a desirable way to ensure these skills are tested? Does it really make the sport more attractive to new pilots to know we specifically want them to not have the information that could have gotten them home on a marginal day or when they are low and desperate? Landouts are the enemy of fair scoring - they scramble the scoresheet and we can't even come to a stable view of how to score miles versus miles per hour. The points we grant for landing out have come up and up over the years specifically because we realize landouts are mostly an indication of bad luck more than lack of skill. We devalue days with lots of landouts (luck factor). We've increased landout scores to the point that slow finishers are starting to complain that they don't get enough points. Why is it a good idea to deny pilots useful tactical information to avoid a landout? In addition to the basic fairness and values issues, it is a question the tort lawyers will be interested to address the next time we have a landout fatality in a contest - all the IGC files will be analyzed to see if there were any climbing gliders in range to avoid the tragedy. The next question will be "who is to blame for deliberately denying the pilot this potentially life-saving information". At that point what actually would have happened in the alternate case won't matter.

I wouldn't describe all opponents of Open Flarm as technophobes - some are (and have admitted to me that they are "not computer people"), other like technology just fine but seem to feel that some skill they have (perhaps risk-tolerance is one) will be diluted with new and better information. But denying people all external information hardly seems like a fundamental principle of glider racing - if it were we would do separate time trials or all MAT format to maximize the separation of gliders so you can't use any visual cues. We would have leeching penalties that are quite easy to calculate with IGC files. We don't, and no one seems to be interested in going down that path.

9B

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 4:28:58 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
"Does anyone really doubt that the hard core Flarm pushers have been using "safety" as a cover? I think most of the Flarm advocates have never really cared about collision avoidance as the PRIMARY function of Flarm. "Safety" is mostly just a bludgeon to be used against the debate opposition. "

This is the most asinine statement I have ever read on RAS. Crying out loud, did you really not know Flarm was designed from the ground up as an anti-collision device and it is very effective for its designed purpose ?! Can you really not see multiple holes in your "logic jump"? Your thoughts become your words, and yours are off base illogical and downright foolish. I hope your New Years resolution if for clearity of thought.

Happy NewYears all!

Thanks, Jonathan,

I am ever so grateful that you have lifted the scales from my eyes. I had no idea that Flarm was designed from the ground up as an anti-collision device. That is what I have used it for in my glider, but I thought I had just somehow stumbled upon a novel use for that mysterious little box. Who would'a thunk it?

Hey, maybe you can tell me what these GPS thingies are for? I'm thinking GPS stands for "going purty straight". Is that right? And then there's this other thing on my panel that makes "beep-beep-beep" and "boop-boop-boop" sounds. Mostly the "boop" sound, though. What is that?

I am away from my computer and celebrating New Year's Eve. If I take time to give full response my wife is going to kill me. I'll comment on only part of your post.

Your stance on land outs is part of the east v west divide on this issue. The possibility of landing out is part of the drama of the sport. Talk to someone interested in the sport and they soon ask you, "have you ever had to land in a field?" In the west this is viewed as much more a huge deal. In the east it is part of the game. So is taking yourself out of the race by making a rash decision which leads to a landout. In this way, the sport simulates life. People's personalities seep into the pilot decision making. You see it is the characters that make the sport interesting to new people. Otherwise, the race is just about fying around. FLARM potentially masks this and other key elements of sailplane racing making the sport more dull.

I am away from my computer and celebrating New Year's Eve. If I take time to give full response my wife is going to kill me. I'll comment on only part of your post.

Your stance on land outs is part of the east v west divide on this issue. The possibility of landing out is part of the drama of the sport. Talk to someone interested in the sport and they soon ask you, "have you ever had to land in a field?" In the west this is viewed as much more a huge deal. In the east it is part of the game. So is taking yourself out of the race by making a rash decision which leads to a landout. In this way, the sport simulates life. People's personalities seep into the pilot decision making. You see it is the characters that make the sport interesting to new people. Otherwise, the race is just about fying around. FLARM potentially masks this and other key elements of sailplane racing making the sport more dull.

I am away from my computer and celebrating New Year's Eve. If I take time to give full response my wife is going to kill me. I'll comment on only part of your post.

Your stance on land outs is part of the east v west divide on this issue. The possibility of landing out is part of the drama of the sport. Talk to someone interested in the sport and they soon ask you, "have you ever had to land in a field?" In the west this is viewed as much more a huge deal. In the east it is part of the game. So is taking yourself out of the race by making a rash decision which leads to a landout. In this way, the sport simulates life. People's personalities seep into the pilot decision making. You see it is the characters that make the sport interesting to new people. Otherwise, the race is just about fying around. FLARM potentially masks this and other key elements of sailplane racing making the sport more dull.

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:29:22 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

I wouldn't describe all opponents of Open Flarm as technophobes - some are (and have admitted to me that they are "not computer people"), other like technology just fine but seem to feel that some skill they have (perhaps risk-tolerance is one) will be diluted with new and better information. But denying people all external information hardly seems like a fundamental principle of glider racing - if it were we would do separate time trials or all MAT format to maximize the separation of gliders so you can't use any visual cues. We would have leeching penalties that are quite easy to calculate with IGC files. We don't, and no one seems to be interested in going down that path.

9B

While maybe not a "fundamental principle" one might look to the rules that have been in place and withstood the test of time.

6.6 Restricted Equipment
6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
* Permits flight without reference to the ground.
* Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at a distance greater than one wingspan.
6.6.2 An external cleaning device is any device with moving parts designed to clean the exterior of the sailplane during flight, such as bugwipers.
The use of such devices is allowed in all classes Rule 6.12.
6.6.3 Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,
commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight capabilities beyond those referenced below:
6.6.3.1 An aircraft-band VHF radio
6.6.3.2 An aircraft transponder
6.6.3.3 A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)
6.6.3.4 A air-to-ground position reporting device
6.6.3.5 An anti-collision device. Rule 6.6.3 does not forbid the use of a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by the
device.
6.6.4 Other than an aircraft-band VHF radio, any device that allows in-flight access to weather data is prohibited.
6.6.5 Violations of any provisions of this Rule are considered Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (Penalty described in Rule 12.2.5.3.)

Note that the rule was added a few years ago to permit a collision avoidance device. We have a pretty good one of those in Flarm. They do not expressly permit a device for tactical tracking or viewing our competitors which turns out to be another very useful application of the device. This is what I might call a "back door benefit" of the use of Flarm which could reasonably be seen as not included and thus either removed(not possible without destroying the benefit of safety), or limited in some manner.
The rules also are clear in intent to limit information in to that which is described in the text.
For 2016, phones will now be allowed to be on for the purpose of enabling tracking outputs only.
So while you might want to roll over the top on this and create a wide open cockpit technology race, the process will require a measured pace which starts with no new information in until due process allows it.
Cheers
UH

So under the rules is the anti-collision strobe in my fin illegal? This strobe has a LX cal controller so when I get a Flarm alert the strobe goes off like a Christmas tree.

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:11:16 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:21:09 PM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
What an absolutely ridiculous statement. I won't stand by and listen to this passively anymore. It's time to slap this stupidity down.

Powerflarm provides a moderately reliable, 2-3 mile (and a very reliable 1-2 mile) situational awareness "radar" with an advanced collision algorithm which automatically alerts any pilots involved in a potential collision well in advance of any calculated conflict possibility. This alert could come at the beginning of a slight turn or climb or descent by one or both gliders while gliders are at relatively close range. If you are entirely unaware of the other glider when you get the warning (this could suddenly be a critical warning), it's often quite a panic to locate where the threat is, especially when in close proximity. Powerflarm is carefully designed not to beep (annoy) unless there is a potential glider collision "solution." This can mean that gliders can get incredibly close without any alert or warning whatsoever. Say 100 meters side to side, etc. Not a sound is made by the POWERFlarm if both gliders are not, at that moment, tending course towards the other. Parallel courses is not a problem. Suddenly one pulls aggressively towards another and bang. The POWERFlarms alert or warning event alone is simply not sufficient to achieve truly improved safety environment in any glider contest or busy flying area (say a club flight of 2,3,4...). This is the whole point of Powerflarm vs gen 1 Flarm (simple lights O'clock above, level, below). This is also THE EXACT REASON POWERFLARM DOES NOT RECOMMEND STEALTH MODE. Many other dangerous scenarios are possible without simultaneous situational awareness and an occasional scan of the Flarm radar picture (telemetry is useless and needs less in this scan). It's about has anything new appeared nearby and it will be completely lost with stealth or competition mode.

A HUGE part of the "safety equation" POWERFlarm "used to provide" us is a much higher level of basic situational awareness. This fact is IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE US RC STEALTH MANDATE (now called "competition?" mode and currently pure untested vaporware). Flarm is exactly the same debate as ADSB vs traditional ATC flight following with transponders or nothing at all (the SSA argument). Transponders are all but useless in a busy environment. TCAS was a band aid on this vastly flawed system, but even that has failed us miserably (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Über...air_collision). GPS based data linked radar, on the other hand is very powerful improvement for aviation safety. Gliders are not the only aircraft that matter in this discussion of course. Enter ADSB (Flarms technology "big brother"). Bottom line, regardless of statistical arguments claiming we have very few collisions in glider contests, gliders hitting each-other, even once more, is unacceptable in any gliding or general aviation environment, ever again, P E R I O D. Sacrificing safety for philosophical traditionalism is unacceptable. We cannot let our safety guard down, for a second, ever. Yet here we are having this discussion...and facing an RC almost immediate US RC mandate of said POWERFlarm SA lobotomy.

Anyone who has seriously competed with a POWERFlarm (several years experience over 15+ flarm equipped contests, from a few gliders at first to most or all in 2015 contests, or a thermal at a World Championships, etc) would fully understand that a POWERFLARM is PRIMARILY (and by far) a "safety device" which may occasionally help alert its owner (and the potential conflict owner) to a dangerous collision threat which they may have otherwise been entirely unaware of without POWERFlarm. Again, the "warning" itself is very small piece of the total safety value.

A huge part of value this SAFETY DEVICE creates is the natural capability to generally "notice" another glider in the immediate area (2-3 miles, or less) which otherwise would be completely unknown (back to the Stone Age, or with Stealth or Comp mode). This problem happens ALL THE TIME in starting areas for example. It also happens approaching or departing thermals, ridges, etc.

The idea of "killing" the situational awareness value of this obvious and clear SAFETY DEVICE in such a rapid, untested and unnecessary philosophical "technology jihad" has been awe inspiring to behold. The almost childlike comments from the peanut mob are equally amazing. These two campaigns are in direct conflict. Let's be honest. One philosophically says position data and telemetry is unfair (even though all have equal capability, and zero objective evidence of value has been provided) and it must all be struck down and lobotomized entirely, immediately, with angry accusations about pilot cheating motives for purchase (not safety at all) and the other saying that situational awareness is important to the safety environment, tech is OK, there is no real evidence, everyone has the same view, it's not a big deal competitively, calm down, breath, etc. I'm starting to lean back to to stand with this group on general principle.

Without the situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm, we are absolutely and considerably debilitating the basic safety elements of the POWERFlarm system by removing the pilots ability to notice other yet visually undetected gliders around them. A main cause of recent most collisions in the USA (Uvalde, Minden?).

There are absolutely going to be unintended consequences by lobotomizing POWERFlarm situational awareness, depending on the specific and entirely unreleased technical requirements of the "competition mode" that Flarm is supposedly working on for the US rules committee. I wonder who is paying them for this work, this testing? At this point, committing to the promise of its safe function is reckless and hard to imagine.

The 1-2 or 2-3 mile situational awareness picture provided by the POWERFlarm instrument and its basic display is critical to the overall safety process POWERFlarm provides. This is an absolute fact and I will argue as necessary to substantiate it by citing numerous personal videos (never before shown) and corresponding SeeYou examples, etc.

Finally, I find the ridiculous statements in this topic that everyone bought POWERFlarm to track competitors (leech) and not as a safety device to be absolutely unacceptable. The person saying this, is out of order. No apology is sufficient. Such statements are dangerous, reckless and factually pathetic.

The recent "apology" was a joke and hopefully is not accepted.

Sean



Now, now Sean, I never said "everyone". I said "hard core Flarm pushers". As I have said previously, I have flown with a Powerflarm in a couple of contests and numerous non-contest flights and find it to be useful. I have also stated in a previous post that I don't care about the whole issue of using Flarm for leeching. However, I stand by my assertion that the majority of those who are opposed to any type of "competition mode" for Flarm, AND who are not willing to discuss the possibility of negative safety effects of tactical use, do not have safety as their PRIMARY interest with regards to Flarm. I did not say they had NO interest in safety.

I'm at a loss to understand how my opinion was "dangerous, reckless...". We hear anecdotally that pilots have admitted to intentionally disabling their Flarm output to deny tactical information to their competitors. I think ignoring or attempting to stifle the discussion of the unintended consequences of unlimited tactical use of Flarm might be dangerous.

As for "factually pathetic", well, that is certainly a possibility. Wouldn't be the first time.

As for my apology to Andrzej, that was no joke. It was quite sincere.

WB

You don't need to apologize to me as I had no part in bringing PowerFlarm to US, but you can call me a PowerFlarm pusher anyway since I am advocating its use to the full extend for safety reasons. I also installed ADSB-out in my glider for safety reasons at great expense. If I did not see PowerFlarm improving my safety I would take it out of my glider.

Here is a fact, RC proposed (contrary to Flarm recommendation) compulsory use of Stealth mode without dealing with reduced safety issue. Then when RC finally figured out (thanks to RAS) that Stealth was not such a good idea they renamed it to the Competition mode without proper definition by the vendor of what it would be. This was less than 3 months before the first competition of 2016. Flarm does not have a Competition mode available at this time that RC is talking about.

I am sorry but this decision is a sign of RC incompetence at best. How can you mandate something that is not defined and it does not exist and then hope that maybe it shows up in time for the first contest?

Everyone reasonable can accept changes provided the change is clearly defined and tested to ensure safety is not compromised. Some discussion prior to making such a huge decision would be in order as well. I guess we already had that on RAS.

In the past RC stated that no major change can happen without being properly tested. What happened to that? I guess it was a different group of people back then, a little bit more restrained perhaps.

We don't want RC to become a knee jerk reaction group imposing their will on the rest of the pilots. What happened to a democratic process? The poll does not support this decision.

I have no issue with bringing a change as long as it is done with proper consultation and the technology is there to avoid negative safety impact. That is not the case now. Nothing is ready. It is time to give it up for 2016.

Let's do proper polling for 2017 to truly understand what pilots want and meantime figure out the technology puzzle.