FLARM for SAR

We do not plan to release the SAR software at this point.

I guess nobody expects you to release the software that you have written. It would be great though if the data format of these SAR relevant information was not kept as a secret. The new FLARM specification suggests that even all the PDA software solutions are supposed to record these information and that even without knowledge of what is actually getting recorded.

Once again, your software is your property and nobody suggests that you give that up for free, but the information in the IGC files of each individual pilot should be open and readable by the pilot if he chooses to do so. This would be the basis to provide such a service directly in platforms like the OLC or SkyLines.

Turbo

Once again, your software is your property and nobody suggests that you give that up for free, but the information in the IGC files of each individual pilot should be open and readable by the pilot if he chooses to do so. This would be the basis to provide such a service directly in platforms like the OLC or SkyLines.

Tobias,

we're actually discussing this internally.

Best
--Gerhard

Hi Gerhard,

that is very good news and I hope you take the right decision. Please let us know about it once you've decided.

Turbo

It seems that FLARM ultimately took the wrong decision...

Two weeks ago Andrea Schlapbach from FLARM contacted me via email to discuss how we would want to use these data sentences. In the initial email he already clearly stated that "they had no interest in publishing the data format" and would only "share the format with a few interested and suited partners". "Suited partners" in their definition are those that are able to keep the format a secret.

In my answer I explained that XCSoar and SkyLines are both open source applications and that keeping a secret in open source code isn't really possible. I also asked what their intentions are for keeping the format a secret, but unfortunately that question was never answered. My second email answering some follow-up questions and asking the same thing again was never answered either.

I feel very sorry that FLARM has become such a closed-up proprietary company. I don't see any reason for keeping the data format a secret and I certainly hope that they reconsider this non-sense at some point. The only two reasons I can see for this is: a) they want to use the data commercially at some point or b) they are logging data that contains private data that shouldn't be logged in the first place. If they would really care about these SAR reasons they would simply open up their format so that any public party could use them...

I feel very sorry that FLARM has become such a closed-up proprietary
company.

I agree.
But I've also experienced not many manufacturers feel different about
being open. They feel the market for their hardware it too small to be
open about their products.

There are some notable exceptions: Borgelt, Funkwerk, Becker,
Garrecht, Butterfly avionics.

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:20:36 AM UTC-5, Tobias Bieniek wrote:
It seems that FLARM ultimately took the wrong decision...

According to whom ?

All you experts out the
Quick, list 5 bad things that could happen quickly
if the RF or PFLAL formats were public.
Hint: it has already been discussed ad nausea...

Did you misstype between bad and good Dave?

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:45:14 AM UTC-5, Roel Baardman wrote:
Did you misstype between bad and good Dave?

No.

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:48:55 AM UTC-8, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:20:36 AM UTC-5, Tobias Bieniek wrote:

It seems that FLARM ultimately took the wrong decision...



According to whom ?



All you experts out the

Quick, list 5 bad things that could happen quickly

if the RF or PFLAL formats were public.

Hint: it has already been discussed ad nausea...

It's not a matter of "if" but of "when" they will become public. Whether FLARM wants it or not.

Much bigger minds have tried to keep much bigger formats veiled, unsuccessfully.

David

Relax, guys.
It is a pretty silly how some people interpret anything we do as commercially motivated and evil.

1)
We have been involved in quite a few SAR cases and the main challenge is *not* processing the FLARM logfiles, but communicating with the authorities to properly interpret the data and combine it with cell phone tracking and other data.
Initially we had cases where we were pretty sure where the missing aircraft was, but authorities did not 100% trust us. Luckily this has changed and they trust *us* now.

If everybody would run their own SAR analysis tool there would be quite a mess and inconsistent and completely inexperienced communications with authorities is the last thing you want in a time critical SAR case.

We have become good at this; why is it so hard to trust the guys with the most experience and know-how?

2)
Back in 2006? when we introduced the 'other aircraft' LFLA records we did that without putting very much thought into it and did not foresee all the uses that would come out of it.
Today, both the contend and the format of it are not ideal (and largely undocumented).
We really don't want to waste our time with publishing and supporting this format to everybody and their brother.
Some of the users are waiting for far more important features and we have very limited resources.
The above is also the reason why we asked developers to record the data 'blindly'; it will change as soon as we have time to improve it.
By the way: It is not 'encrypted', but rather 'poorly compressed'...

As mentioned, we do make the format available, if we believe it is worth our time. Our decisions on who to work with obviously bruises some very vocal egos, that is unavoidable. Yes, I am an arrogant ass, but show me your track record before you complain publicly ;-)

Our goal is not to maximize our popularity, but to develop and deploy safety technologies and make the flying we love safer.

I hope you all don't mind if we now go back to productive work instead of participating in RAS mud-throwing contests.