FLARM and Triathlon

If what the US rules committee is doing is becuase 1) more effective leeching is possible with POWERFlarm (absolutely no evidence) and 2) heads down behavior and looking at the Flarm "screen" (for legitimate Flarm collision alerts and/or for longer range tactical data) is unsafe, unfair, etc (and not saying I agree or disagree) then why do we need POWERFlarm AT ALL moving forward in the USA?

First, we do not have anything near 100% adoption. Second, why does a US pilot need all the sophistication that the PowerFlarm provides, ever again? Why would anyone else in the USA ever buy a Powerflarm from this moment forward? I wouldn't. Why have a visual Flarm display capable of more than a 1-2 mile range? Shouldn't that be illegal too on general principle? Shouldn't connecting a Flarm to a more advanced display (wire or Bluetooth) simply be forbidden? Maybe just a simple LED light stack ($20) should be the only visual aid allowed?

Why not just encourage (or demand) powerFlarm (or a new competitor) to offer a brand new US Flarm with the simple o'clock lights and above/level/below lights which are all 95% of global European Flarms do today (FCC BS aside)? $500 bucks, max.

Should we not simply allow only the audible warnings as legal for US contests and cheap, $500 unit "stealth and safety" Flarm unit that has nothing more than a speaker? "Traffic, 12 o'clock, below," with a range of "urgency" being provided in the speed of the loud beeping behind the units voice?

This is all I really use. My Oudies audible voice is pretty much all I care about. It's good enough.

If this is "the direction" we are all now going (many kicking and screaming or packing bags and going home in disgust) and the argument being presented by the "stealth cheerleaders" to justify the massive dilution of $2500 USA PowerFlarm capability is true...then why does this "safety argument" (old timers...) not also apply to a club flight or regional contests too? If it's unsafe to look at the screen in a contest, why is it safe to look at the screen on an OLC flight or a during club lap?

In Europe, most gliders have no integrated Flarm data with displays, etc. They have a simple, tiny and relatively inexpensive device which resembles a radar detector with some LED lights for radial and relative altitude. That's it!

Why have we strongly encouraged hundreds of US pilots buy sophisticated, effective and $2500 POWERFlarm devices for 6 years? Suddenly, after millions have been spent, all we needed (and are allowed to use) was already the functionality provided by simple, cheap Flarm units with no graphical display or technical sophistication for a decade or more. Basically a simple audible voice.

What a massive waste of time, money and effort this has all turned out to be...assuming we have all been flying our Flarms around the task (leeching the leaders) for 4-5 years now, and the scoreboards are all wrong due to "cheating."

Congratulations. Hat tip to those who have resisted buying Flarm and saved themselves a ton of money and aggravation. I honestly feel stupid for promoting Flarm.

Flarm is fairly useless without 100% adoption. Do a statistical analysis of the collision risk assuming Flarm equipped gliders gliders are immune from colliding with other Flarm equipped gliders (I know, even this is not 100%). Now, with this new direction, the USA has almost zero chance of ever reaching 100% adoption, even in contests. And therefore US Flarm has been a complete waste of time in my opinion.

I still simply do not believe that it is possible to effectively "cheat" individually in a US contest (timed area tasks or OLC HAT). Maybe it is at a world level with a team approach. But that only matters to a few.

What I know for sure is that, in the meantime, we have competely ruined the long term chances of reaching high adoption as the POWERFlarm is now massively over capable and overpriced. If I did not own one already, I would refuse to buy one even if it became mandatory for US contests. I would also refuse to rent one.

We need a new, very cheap, very simple Flarm which is in line with the new "safety" and "ethics" requirements designed by the US rules committee, after 5 years of encouraging everyone to buy these ultra expensive units.

I hope somebody is getting to work on this...

Sean

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 9:58:08 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
If what the US rules committee is doing is becuase 1) more effective leeching is possible with POWERFlarm (absolutely no evidence) and 2) heads down behavior and looking at the Flarm "screen" (for legitimate Flarm collision alerts and/or for longer range tactical data) is unsafe, unfair, etc (and not saying I agree or disagree) then why do we need POWERFlarm AT ALL moving forward in the USA?

First, we do not have anything near 100% adoption. Second, why does a US pilot need all the sophistication that the PowerFlarm provides, ever again? Why would anyone else in the USA ever buy a Powerflarm from this moment forward? I wouldn't. Why have a visual Flarm display capable of more than a 1-2 mile range? Shouldn't that be illegal too on general principle? Shouldn't connecting a Flarm to a more advanced display (wire or Bluetooth) simply be forbidden? Maybe just a simple LED light stack ($20) should be the only visual aid allowed?

Why not just encourage (or demand) powerFlarm (or a new competitor) to offer a brand new US Flarm with the simple o'clock lights and above/level/below lights which are all 95% of global European Flarms do today (FCC BS aside)? $500 bucks, max.

Should we not simply allow only the audible warnings as legal for US contests and cheap, $500 unit "stealth and safety" Flarm unit that has nothing more than a speaker? "Traffic, 12 o'clock, below," with a range of "urgency" being provided in the speed of the loud beeping behind the units voice?

This is all I really use. My Oudies audible voice is pretty much all I care about. It's good enough.

If this is "the direction" we are all now going (many kicking and screaming or packing bags and going home in disgust) and the argument being presented by the "stealth cheerleaders" to justify the massive dilution of $2500 USA PowerFlarm capability is true...then why does this "safety argument" (old timers...) not also apply to a club flight or regional contests too? If it's unsafe to look at the screen in a contest, why is it safe to look at the screen on an OLC flight or a during club lap?

In Europe, most gliders have no integrated Flarm data with displays, etc. They have a simple, tiny and relatively inexpensive device which resembles a radar detector with some LED lights for radial and relative altitude. That's it!

Why have we strongly encouraged hundreds of US pilots buy sophisticated, effective and $2500 POWERFlarm devices for 6 years? Suddenly, after millions have been spent, all we needed (and are allowed to use) was already the functionality provided by simple, cheap Flarm units with no graphical display or technical sophistication for a decade or more. Basically a simple audible voice.

What a massive waste of time, money and effort this has all turned out to be...assuming we have all been flying our Flarms around the task (leeching the leaders) for 4-5 years now, and the scoreboards are all wrong due to "cheating."

Congratulations. Hat tip to those who have resisted buying Flarm and saved themselves a ton of money and aggravation. I honestly feel stupid for promoting Flarm.

Flarm is fairly useless without 100% adoption. Do a statistical analysis of the collision risk assuming Flarm equipped gliders gliders are immune from colliding with other Flarm equipped gliders (I know, even this is not 100%). Now, with this new direction, the USA has almost zero chance of ever reaching 100% adoption, even in contests. And therefore US Flarm has been a complete waste of time in my opinion.

I still simply do not believe that it is possible to effectively "cheat" individually in a US contest (timed area tasks or OLC HAT). Maybe it is at a world level with a team approach. But that only matters to a few.

What I know for sure is that, in the meantime, we have competely ruined the long term chances of reaching high adoption as the POWERFlarm is now massively over capable and overpriced. If I did not own one already, I would refuse to buy one even if it became mandatory for US contests. I would also refuse to rent one.

We need a new, very cheap, very simple Flarm which is in line with the new "safety" and "ethics" requirements designed by the US rules committee, after 5 years of encouraging everyone to buy these ultra expensive units.

I hope somebody is getting to work on this...

Sean

Personally, I bought it to see where all the other gliders are. I believe it does mitigate collision risk as well, but collisions were a very low risk to start with. Operating in stealth removes the value that I paid for.

I have the same opinion of the AHRS rules. I have one for the extremely unlikely (but not impossible) event of being caught in a cloud. This is a pure safety device just like the intended use of Flarm. Yet the RC wants me to disable this expensive piece of gear because there is a rare, theoretical possibility of cheating with it. I'm trying to think of any other sport where the organizing body actively makes rules against having safety equipment on board. In sailing, it would be like saying you must irreversibly disable your auxiliary motor prior to leaving the dock, because you might turn it on and cheat at some point. If you have a man overboard and can't retrieve him because the motor won't work, well, that dead guy is the price of competition. Apparently glider pilots aren't nearly as trustworthy as sailors, we insist that the AHRS be irreversibly disabled, and that the engine be tell tailed in the log (some want them disabled as well).

I don't understand all the drama about this new rule. Hook your FLARM up to as many gadgets as you like and use all BVR info you want for almost all of your flying. When you go to a National Championship put it in Stealth/competition mode, that's 8 flying days a year, maybe 16 for some. Go race, have fun and look outside. If you don't like the rule, don't fly a National, pretty easy. But arguing that this rule has made FLARM a waist of money and will kill FLARM adoption in the US is crazy talk.

Jfitch,

I competely agree.

AHRS - I argued until I was blue in the face that the safety value of AHRS greatly outweighed the "cheating" concerns. I was personally insulted and attached for arguing that point. I'll never forget that. The RC went crazy, banning smart phones, requiring contest legal software versions, etc.

Same for SMART PHONES in general. For several years they were illegal toga be in the glider at a contest! You were ACTUALLY EXPECTED to go to Walmart and buy a disposable dumb phone. Amazingly, that ridiculous rule has now been reversed. Sigh. Weather panic, etc.

Same for US TASKING. 97% timed tasks in the USA in 2014 and growing. Literally 3% assigned tasks but even they are molested by the US rule modification that allows extra distance (and therefore not a race, and also increasing the risk of collision greatly) to be added on at the pilots discretion. This encourages the gaggle to reform again and again and again. Furthermore, the long MAT (timed task (not a race) is now preferred by CDs (I have no idea why) and encouraged as more flexible, easier task. These US only timed, watered down difficulty yet technically complex tasks are also a total departure from the rest of the world. Ongoing debate...

Now POWERFlarm is the new evil (without a shred of objective proof). The new high end US POWERFlarm is, with the US RCs new stealth/competition mode mandates, losing 90% of its advertised capability (and all of the justification for the very high price). In principle, I understand (complexity, unfair advantages at a highly sophisticated World Championship level) but we seem to quickly forget that we are just trying to survive here in the USA as a competition sport. The first thing that strikes me is that everyone who has POWERFlarm generally has the same basic capability. Those who don't have it are not able to see the "radar" but also cannot be leeched. So it's a null point there. First, we tell everyone to run out and buy a $2500 POWERFlarm because it works and it will increase safety! True, but not without its challenges. Antenna issues, installation issues ensued. Very few install the aft antenna for example! Many had very poor performance at first. Some still do. Slowly, over time a general satisfaction was finally reached (experience with using the tech, etc) and the POWERFlarm began to generally work as advertised. Today, 60-70% of US/Candian ompetiton pilots have them. But now, suddenly, in an unexplained US RC panic, it's a rush, rush, rush to virtually lobotomize a majority of the POWERFlarms capability (****ing off many) while putting the safety at risk in a completely untested manner. Sure, we may think the new mode (currently being developed?) should work, but there will be bugs and there will be pilot confusion (at MINIMUM!). "They" assume the new competition mode will be ready for next summers US contests and it will be 100% safe. It won't! We know this! Any logical person knows there will be issues with such a change. In a matter of a few months we went from Elmira where many said it was a big safety concern and did not like it (also STRONG PHILISOPHICAL DISAGREEMENT) to a mandate on US nationals next year! Incredible.

What's next? What if the satellite trackers (such as Delorme or the many others) cole out with a firmware update to show nearby targets? What about ADSB (max 5 years away)? Etc. Etc. This is insane.

Those who try and tightly control what soaring competition is, philisophically (timed huge area tasks, MATs, HATs (zero and one turn MATS and now coming soon, OLC tasks for example), have little moral ground in my opinion. We can't kick and scream like little girls every time a new technology has the potential to be change the sport slightly becuase we do more to change the substance and fairness of our sport here in the USA with our "unique" tasking philosophy (rolling the weather dice) than anything else, by far.

We keep falling back trying to make soaring what it was in 1960, technology wise. Yet, some here (who have been posting a great deal!) went nuts "wanting their cameras back" when GPS was introduced, or so I'm told. Incredible irony if that is true...but I'll keep that in my back pocket for now.

Im fine with making a sensible rule, once and awhile, but the viscous attack on every new technology that comes along is getting damn tiring. While we change the tasking dramatically and keep watering it down more and more! The US has far more important issues to focus on than Flarm.

Sean

Wrru,

If it's dangerous to look at the display in a nationals, why use that bad habit "the rest of year?"

You can't have it both ways.

Same for US TASKING. 97% timed tasks in the USA in 2014 and growing. Literally 3% assigned tasks but even they are molested by the US rule modification that allows extra distance (and therefore not a race, and also increasing the risk of collision greatly) to be added on at the pilots discretion.. This encourages the gaggle to reform again and again and again. Furthermore, the long MAT (timed task (not a race) is now preferred by CDs (I have no idea why) and encouraged as more flexible, easier task. These US only timed, watered down difficulty yet technically complex tasks are also a total departure from the rest of the world. Ongoing debate...

Just to clarify - the long MAT was encouraged (no rule change was required) to more closely match the AT format while retaining some insulation from implications of grossly over/undercalled tasks. There are multiple schools of thought on the safety implications of giving credit for distance within an AT or MAT (or "HAT" in "Fidlish") cylinder - but the implications for gaggles and leeches reforming are worth considering. Adopting the IGC approach has some merit and has generated some initial discussion.

Flat-out eliminating the MAT would also eliminate the long MAT and leave CDs with only AT and AAT to choose from. My guess is the result would be more AATs and the occasional cancelled day. Maybe that is more fair than a 1-turn MAT - especially to those who are poor at or don't value reading macro weather trends.

I know at least one person who would like the RC to mandate a minimum percentage of ATs in a contest - as opposed to the current guidance in the rules for CDs to strive for balance in task types - which advice is routinely ignored by task advisors for a variety of reasons that are, I am quite sure, not viewed as random or invalid in the context of the day by those involved in decision-making. A ban on task types or mandate for other task types is not likely forthcoming as it handcuffs CDs and task advisors into tasking that can have negative implications - imagine a sketchy weather week where you are trying to get a contest in and have used all your AATs up. You have no MAT option and now you have to call an AT into the prospect of widespread thunderstorms in the task area. Maybe that jazzes some people, but for the vast majority of pilots (most of whom are crewless these days) I suspect they'd view it as not so fun, fair or desirable.

However, before we get another speech on the RC's opposition to "real racing" it should be noted that the RC favors more AT call in the mix. Ideas on how to encourage that - short of outright bans or inflexible regulations are always welcome. As always, building support with pilots and task advisors at the contest level is a viable and welcome option - especially when the weather is reasonably reliable.

9B

Since Sean keeps hammering on it, I prefer ASTs more often than they are called. Head-to-head racing just seems to make more sense, but it's a philosophical thing.

That said, I'm old enough to recall losing day after day after day to CDs calling a task where, after the start, a thunderstorm developed RIGHT over a TP and sat there...with sun all around. If ONLY we had gone to TP X instead.

The interim solution was the "multiple turnpoint option" task (you could go to any one of several TPs on an out & return) with TPs in a fairly narrow sector, the idea being that we wouldn't be so likely to lose a day for a micro-meteorological phenomenon. It quickly developed that not all contest envelopes had TPs conveniently close to each other so when GPS flight recorders became mandatory, AATs appeared, marking the end of civilization as Sean defines it.

Hey, if the guys had listened to me and had continued to allow TP cameras, you wouldn't have this "problem" with AATs now! The MAT "problem" would still be there, though. It's just a variation of the "cat's cradle" distance tasks we used to fly.

Just for the record, I wasn't "in love" with my cameras; I just had a crush on the two grand it was going to cost me for a specialized flight recorder.. My real objection to GPS was primarily over the rush to mandate it when the approved devices still cost several thousand dollars. (No, we weren't allowed to use commercial off-the-shelf non-IGC GPS receivers that cost a fraction because someone might find a way to hack one and cheat with it). I thought the trade off between cost and benefit was disproportionate at that point. One of the biggest reasons cited by the pro-GPS lobby was safety: i.e., that the high-speed start line was inherently unsafe compared with the start cylinder. Here as recently, safety was hauled out to help make the sale, so to speak. It's as difficult to argue against safety as it is to contest motherhood and apple pie .

FLARM cost me somewhat less (I bought a used one this year) and I actually think it does enhance safety, with or without stealth. But I wouldn't want to digress by steering us back to the original topic.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

As mentioned in an earlier thread, I think the idea of setting up some regionals where the field is divided more by experience/ambition rather than by glider type/class might be a good way to strike a balance. Green Class (because, as I found out, Gold/Silver creates "issues") and Blue Class could be set up where Green Class will attempt to call "a significant percentage of Assigned Tasks even in the face of less than certain weather" or something like that while Blue Class will strive to call "tasks that maximize completions/options in the event of less than certain weather". And again, nothing is stopping a contest organizer from explicitly advertising their regionals as promoting the use of "Assigned Tasks".

P3

You can't use green and blue for the classes. That would pit tree
huggers against democrats. There's not enough polarization there for a
good race! Instead, use blue and red. ;-)

On 12/28/2015 5:48 PM, Papa3 wrote:
As mentioned in an earlier thread, I think the idea of setting up some regionals where the field is divided more by experience/ambition rather than by glider type/class might be a good way to strike a balance. Green Class (because, as I found out, Gold/Silver creates "issues") and Blue Class could be set up where Green Class will attempt to call "a significant percentage of Assigned Tasks even in the face of less than certain weather" or something like that while Blue Class will strive to call "tasks that maximize completions/options in the event of less than certain weather". And again, nothing is stopping a contest organizer from explicitly advertising their regionals as promoting the use of "Assigned Tasks".

P3

--
Dan, 5J

On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 1:44:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Correcting an auto-correct typo:

"So it's quite possible that much of this protracted debate has been over a term--leeching--about which there is no COMMON definition."

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

As a "leach" I will never win. But it is one of the very few ways I can learn from the better pilots in this sport. Call it involuntary mentoring. One day, if I work hard, I hope to be able to mentor leaches of my own, although I prefer to call them "followers".

Matt