The Benefits of Smarts
It might not be apparent what benefit there is to adding smartphones and similar smart personal electronic devices to the sport of ARDF. Radio direction finding has been practiced for decades without such devices, so why should that change? Some arguments for smart electronics in ARDF are summarized below.
They Can Make a Great ARDF Receiver
Smartphones, tablets, watches, and similar highly-portable computing devices offer highly-integrated, intuitive, reliable and configurable user interfaces: all features we would love to find in ARDF receivers. Adding all those features to a receiver would be very expensive, and a “from-scratch” receiver built to contain them would be prohibitively expensive for most of us. But almost all smart devices provide short range wireless connectivity that will allow them to be incorporated wholesale into a receiver design, allowing a smartphone be the interface. Since many ARDF competitors, and would-be competitors, already own a smartphone they already own the most expensive components of a high-tech receiver. They need therefore only purchase or construct the cheaper “front end” and wireless connectivity components of the receiver.
They Facilitate Emergency Communications
Most smart devices will allow the placement of phone calls and text messages at venues with cellular connectivity. The more competitors carrying smartphones the better can be the response to an emergency. Non-emergency use of such communication functions must be prevented of course; more about that below.
They Reduce the Device Count
Most smart devices feature GPS/Glonass satellite geo-positioning, a technology already permitted under Region 1 rules. Competitors who cannot afford a dedicated positioning device (or a receiver with that feature) can utilize the smartphone they already own to record their track, and gain access to permitted positioning features.
Since most smart devices include 3-axis digital compasses, there is no need to carry around a magnetic compass when your smart device has one already. That is one less item to carry out on the course.
They Attract New Participants
One of the alluring aspects of ARDF is its unique blend of athleticism and technology. Those who enjoy software development will find smart devices an entry point into an exciting new sport.
They Can Simplify Events and Future-Proof the Sport
The capabilities of smart devices today open new opportunities to simplify the sport for organizers. They could be used to remotely monitor the positions of competitors on the course, and to broadcast safety alerts to competitors in the event of hazardous weather conditions. They could be used as time registration devices at foxes. Potentially, much of the administration of ARDF events could be automated through the broad use of smart devices in the sport, making events run more smoothly for both organizers and competitors.
Smart devices will get smaller and more capable over time. Though no one can predict exactly what the future will bring (new battery technologies, heads-up displays?) by allowing advanced consumer electronics to be used in ARDF, we can ensure that those advances will be more available to enhance the sport.
Preventing Abuse
The obvious concern about allowing cell phones to be carried during competitions is that they might be abused: competitors might use them for communicating with teammates, or they might run map applications that would provide them with a competitive advantage. But such concerns can be readily addressed using a combination of technology and policy.
The opportunity for abuse could be virtually eliminated if the rules allowed smartphone devices to be carried by a competitor only under these conditions:
- The device is used to continuously record an activity log from the time of receiver impoundment to arrival at the finish line.
- An approved application (app) is used for log recording.
- The file containing the recorded log is submitted to the organizers immediately after the competitor completes a course. Failing to do so would result in disqualification.
Approved Apps
Approved apps should be required to be made freely available for all to download, and more importantly they should be required to be open source so that the whole world can know the app’s true capabilities and limitations.
In order to receive approval for use in ARDF competition, apps would need to limit access to only approved functionality, and record a timestamped log file (that could include track information) with a record of certain device actions: the app being placed in the background or closed, any outgoing or answered incoming calls, etc. Apps are indeed informed of such events, and can log a record of their occurrence.
To avoid disqualification, a competitor’s log file would need to be submitted within a few minutes of arrival at the finish line. The log file could then be analyzed automatically on a server to confirm that the app ran continuously. Any suspicious logs would be flagged for review before official results are announced.
Rogue Apps
The use of rogue apps (those that mimic approved apps while providing access to banned functionality) could be prevented with the use of a registration and authentication procedure – similar to the registration of commercial software purchased and downloaded over the internet. The registration procedure could be automated, and administered by a technical committee appointed by a regional ARDF working group or hosting organization. Authentication at the finish line could likewise be automated, and performed wirelessly, with little or no human involvement. Technical details of the registration and authentication processes will need to be worked out and implemented before smart devices are allowed to be used in sanctioned ARDF events. And once in place, the system would require only routine maintenance by the technical committee, minimal oversight by organizers, and would ensure with a high degree of confidence that an approved app was continuously running on a device from the start to the finish of a competition.
Keeping It Simple
Non-sanctioned competitions, practices, demonstration events and the like need not require or support any form of authentication, or log file submission. The degree of rules enforcement should be commensurate with the the level of competition. Simply requiring competitors to use only apps meeting the “functionality” requirements of approved apps might be good enough for most low-stakes competitions. Full app approval, registration and authentication procedures might only be necessary for championship-level events. But having the regional rules spell out what functionality is and is not approved will provide needed guidance for all levels of competition.
Bottom Line
There is no way to prevent all forms of cheating. But it can readily be made very difficult to use an unconcealed smartphone running an approved app in a manner that provides an unfair competitive advantage. This should allay any concerns about permitting the use of approved apps on smart devices during a competition. Better yet, the use of smart personal electronic devices running approved apps could help improve the sport, enhance safety, and even identify and prevent certain types of rules violations.