Is FLARM helpful?

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 2:27:36 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:.

Hmm, I wonder what will happen when I show up with an ADS-B out. My new glider is equipped with a certified ADS-B out unit, probably first such installation in a glider in US. I will see all transponder traffic including gliders miles ahead and so will everyone else around me who has PowerFlarm installed. There will be plenty of transponder equipped gliders at Nephi. Will RC ban me from contests? Stealth mode will not be worth much then. Time to move on with times or maybe RC will ask me to get the ADS-B out of my glider, hmm can you imagine that...

Well, that puts two flies in the ointment. One is that you can't, by FAR, turn off your ADS-B Out if it is part of your transponder - 1090ES Out. If you have one installed, the FAA requires it to be on. The second is that anyone else flying at Nephi with a transponder installed is required by FAR to turn it on. If I understand the specs for ADS-R (by which transponder returns are uploaded to ADS-B aircraft), you will have a 30-mile radius of targets provided to you. Need to check that.

I will be interested to see what the resolution of the traffic information is. I can't wait so see your installation.

Congrats on being the first I know of to get this done.

9B

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 11:15:46 PM UTC-6, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 2:27:36 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:.

Hmm, I wonder what will happen when I show up with an ADS-B out. My new glider is equipped with a certified ADS-B out unit, probably first such installation in a glider in US. I will see all transponder traffic including gliders miles ahead and so will everyone else around me who has PowerFlarm installed. There will be plenty of transponder equipped gliders at Nephi. Will RC ban me from contests? Stealth mode will not be worth much then. Time to move on with times or maybe RC will ask me to get the ADS-B out of my glider, hmm can you imagine that...

Well, that puts two flies in the ointment. One is that you can't, by FAR, turn off your ADS-B Out if it is part of your transponder - 1090ES Out. If you have one installed, the FAA requires it to be on. The second is that anyone else flying at Nephi with a transponder installed is required by FAR to turn it on. If I understand the specs for ADS-R (by which transponder returns are uploaded to ADS-B aircraft), you will have a 30-mile radius of targets provided to you. Need to check that.

I will be interested to see what the resolution of the traffic information is. I can't wait so see your installation.

Congrats on being the first I know of to get this done.

9B

I am expecting the delivery of my Phoenix Motorglider in January. It will be equipped with a Dynon Skyview system, including ADS-B IN and 1090ES ADS-B OUT. I am installing an extra battery so the system will be fully operational during soaring flight. This system will let me see not only other ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft, but also ALL other Mode C and Mode S transponder equipped aircraft that are visible by ATC (assuming I am in range of a ADS-B ground station). Virtually every other Phoenix that has been delivered in the US in the last year or so has this avionics setup.

As ADS-B OUT becomes more and more economical (Dynon has announced a 2020 compliant ADS-B OUT GPS source for under $600), it is only a question of time before the FAA will mandate that all aircraft, including gliders, UAVs, Balloons, etc.. be equipped with ADS-B OUT beacons. That will make this stealth mode argument totally moot.

Is FLARM helpful?

Yes, it significantly enhances situational awareness of conflicting or potentially conflicting Flarm equipped glider traffic.

Yes, it gives you a way to stay connected with your friends, if that is what you want to do.

But, often there is too much traffic information, especially in thermal gaggles.

But, it can enhance leeching in the contest environment, which means more gaggles.

But, interpreting Flarm traffic information requires significant head-in-the-cockpit time.

My Experience:

I was involved in a mid-air at Parowan in 2010. Most certainly, had the two gliders been Flarm equipped, the mid-air would not have happened.

Flarm is extremely helpful in identifying potential traffic conflicts, especially head-on traffic that if difficult to see. It has helped me comfortably avoid head-on traffic a number of times.

In thermals, I find the Flarm alarms to be quite an overload and quite unusable. I revert to my eyeballs for traffic avoidance.

Interpreting Flarm traffic information on in-cockpit devices is very difficult without diverting undue attention inside. The audio alarms on the ClearNav ("Traffic, one o'clock low") help this situation significantly.

Flarm enhances situational awareness; it does not replace visual see and avoid.

Stealth mode is entirely adequate as Flarm threats are not inhibited. Stealth worked fine at Elmira. It seemed to reduce the information overload significantly and de-cluttered the traffic situational awareness picture.. Stealth does not eliminate leeching which will always occur in weak conditions, but I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. I think this is in the best interest of the sport.

My personal conclusion and recommendation:

Make Flarm mandatory in US soaring contests
Make stealth mode mandatory in National contests
If a site has specific reasons where stealth may not be advisable (ridge and convergence lines, for example), deal with that by waiver

Tim Welles W3

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:15:46 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
If I understand the specs for ADS-R (by which transponder returns are uploaded to ADS-B aircraft), you will have a 30-mile radius of targets provided to you. Need to check that.


Correction: Here are the details of TIS-B services for aircraft with ADS-B Out and an ADS-B ground station in range - which is pretty much everywhere in the continental US once you're above a couple thousand feet. I believe aircraft with ADS-B In, but not properly-configured ADS-B Out, will be able to receive TIS-B traffic information including traffic with UAT and 1090ES ADS-B Out as well as transponder-equipped radar targets, so long as they are in range of a ground station that is broadcasting to any aircraft that does have properly configured ASD-B Out to request TIS-B services - which is to say you can "listen in" on TIS-B traffic rebroadcasts meant for another aircraft - it'll just be traffic in a 15 nm radius around them, not you.

I think that means that if you are flying near Andrzej you'll see everything he sees - but I need to check what Flarm will put on the dataport and whether there is anything special about TIS-B traffic packets that would cause them not to be passed along by Flarm.

I thought it would be another year or two before these installations started showing up.

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/library/...Smart_ADSB.pdf

Relevant passage:
Traffic Information Service-Broadcast (TIS-B): This air traffic advisory service provides
the altitude, ground track, speed and distance of aircraft flying in radar contact with controllers and within a 15-nautical-mile (nm) radius, up to 3,500 feet above or below the receiving aircraft's position. It can be received on both UAT and 1090 MHz. A general aviation aircraft equipped with ADS-B In can also receive position data directly from other aircraft broadcasting on the same ADS-B Out frequency. In addition, TIS-B enables pilots to see aircraft equipped with transponders flying nearby even if those aircraft are not equipped with ADS-B Out.

Tim:

You do a great job of summarizing flarm, which accords with my experience. (Thermal alarms are a PITA.)

You make an interesting case for choosing to turn on stealth.

You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "

First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.

Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?


John Cochrane BB

Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and
leeching are big problems.

Not being a contest pilot, I have no horse in this race, but - this being
northern winter! - one possible interpretation for the overwhelming 85% of
contest pilots who don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems (were
the two activities lumped in a single poll question?), is maybe 85% of contest
pilots are trying to leech! Just a thought...

Bob - snow on the ground here - W.

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.




You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "

First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.

Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?


John Cochrane BB

I find it interesting that the FAA has selected 15 nautical miles as the appropriate range for TIS-B aircraft target situational awareness yet on this forum, there are folks who want to argue that 2 km is all that is needed. Providing that 15 NM range comes at a square law cost in terms of data signaling requirements; that number would not have been the choice if it were not deemed to be needed and useful.

As has been pointed out, the fact that a glider pilot perceived some sort of competition related anti-leeching benefit from intentionally reducing their detection range would be one hell of a tough sell in a US court if the worst were to happen. And then there's the question of what might be the insurance response be in that situation? It seems to me that even if you happen to believe the leeching nonsense, you should not want to have anyone in the organization setting themselves up for increased liability. Seems like race organizers are rationally compelled to specifically disallow stealth so that nobody is permitted to use it for perceived advantage.

We, as an organization have set a 500' margin to airspace above and 30 minute margin to official sunset time -- conservative safety standards for sure.. It is incongruous that we might condone intentionally dialing back PowerFlarm to 2km range and obscuring Aircraft identification information when the instrument is capable of better.

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Tim:

You do a great job of summarizing flarm, which accords with my experience.. (Thermal alarms are a PITA.)

You make an interesting case for choosing to turn on stealth.

You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "

First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.

Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?


John Cochrane BB

John Cochrane,
Again you are throwing out this 85% number. Here is the question from the poll:

Do you think gaggling and leeching are serious problems, and the RC should consider other rules changes (not Flarm-related) to reduce their prevalence? Develop rules: 11%, No 85%.

I read this as: Do I think gaggle and leaching are serious problems AND RC should develop other non-flarm rules to deal with gaggle and leaching?

I and most others voted no because whether you think leeching is no issue or if you think non-flarm rules are not the way to go "no" would be your vote. It is a bad question.

You are quite cable of making a legitimate argument for your case. Please don't spin the results of the poll.

XC

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:51:58 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Tim:

You do a great job of summarizing flarm, which accords with my experience.. (Thermal alarms are a PITA.)

You make an interesting case for choosing to turn on stealth.

You do not make a strong case for mandating stealth on everyone, especially pilots pretty strongly opposed to that path. "I believe it does reduce gaggling to some degree. "

First, that belief is far from proven. The contrary theory is just as plausible -- you have to stay in eyeball distance of other gliders on a weak day without flarm radar. With it, you can be more adventurous, as you can more easily pick up other gliders from a further distance.

Second, In the poll, 85% of pilots said they don't think gaggling and leeching are big problems. If gaggling and leeching are problems, then there are lots of ways to address it, primarily small changes at the start. If we're not interested in making those (quite effective) changes, why so hot to ban new technology?


John Cochrane BB

John Cochrane,
Again you are throwing out this 85% number. Here is the question from the poll:

Do you think gaggling and leeching are serious problems, and the RC should consider other rules changes (not Flarm-related) to reduce their prevalence? Develop rules: 11%, No 85%.

I read this as: Do I think gaggle and leaching are serious problems AND RC should develop other non-flarm rules to deal with gaggle and leaching?

I and most others voted no because whether you think leeching is no issue or if you think non-flarm rules are not the way to go, "no" would be your vote. It is a bad question.

You are quite capable of making a legitimate, logical argument for your case. Please don't spin the results of the poll or scare people with the threat of legal action to make your point.

XC