On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:25:43 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
As a (retired) systems engineer, I read the analysis on strictly
technical terms, no worries about personalities, profits, fixed
costs or any other possible motivations.* I only saw the possibility
of 64 second dropouts, not the certainty.* I saw no denigration of
the efficacy of Flarm in its intended role, only that the encryption
of its transmissions could possibly result in
erroneous position reporting.* Maybe the author would have been
better received had he left out the talk about monopolies, etc.



It is my understanding that the reason for Flarm signals to be
encrypted was to thwart a rogue group of Brits (tongue deeply in
cheek) from using a network of cheap receivers to receive and
process Flarm signals to post the locations of the gliders on a
webpage for them to track the progress of the gliders in flight.*
And if I'm correct in that recollection, isn't that what the other
sailplane trackers currently do?* Not necessarily using Flarm
signals, but some other means to display the locations and tracks of
gliders.




On 3/3/2016 12:18 PM,
wrote:



I'll wait for more info on the alleged technical problem. As for the attitude that "FLARM risked time and money to develop a proprietary technology that a lot of pilots want and now that it's successful, we don't think it's fair unless it's shared" (translation: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs), until such time as Bernie dispatches Hillary and then the Donald, I have no problem with this kind of "monopoly", at least in the U.S.

Chip Bearden





--

Dan, 5J

My reading of it isn't that it transmits erroneous positions (which would be bad) but that it does not transmit positions at all, or the transmissions that it makes cannot be decrypted and would be ignored. In other words the same situation as if that particular glider had no Flarm. In the US anyway, many don't, you better be looking for them anyway!!!