FLARM ethics

25,000 devices and rising rapidly is one heck of a "very niche
product" in a market comprising mainly gliding. Flarm, in all its
varied applications, must on of the most widely adopted proprietary
products in the history of gliding - I suspect it will be in the top spot.

Flarm comprises a communication protocol as well as a glider
collision prediction algorithm. For a safety device it would be
bonkers not to have all units not using the most developed examples
of both - especially when updating the firmware is so simple. We in
Europe have been easily coping with Flarm mandatory and optional
updates for several.

John Galloway




At 20:24 22 February 2015, Mike Schumann wrote:


It is NOT impossible to design system upgrades so that they are
backward
co=
mpatible with older units that are still in use. It is probably much
more
=
convenient for FLARM to use this approach so they don't need to
deal with
t=
he complexity of having multiple different device versions that
need to
tal=
k to each other. These kind of shortcuts make one question
whether FLARM
r=
eally has the potential to be a VERY niche product for a small
subset of
th=
e aviation market.

Couple that with POWERFLARM's inability to see UAT equipped
ADS-B OUT
equip=
ped aircraft, either directly or via TIS-B retransmission from an
ADS-B
gro=
und station, raises some big questions on whether or not they
have really
t=
hought thru the whole collision avoidance picture in the US, where
the
thre=
at is not just other gliders, but also GA and airline traffic.

So easy to understand why Flarm would not sell into North America for so
many years...

At 22:18 22 February 2015, John Galloway wrote:
25,000 devices and rising rapidly is one heck of a "very niche
product" in a market comprising mainly gliding. Flarm, in all its
varied applications, must on of the most widely adopted proprietary
products in the history of gliding - I suspect it will be in the top
spot.

Flarm comprises a communication protocol as well as a glider
collision prediction algorithm. For a safety device it would be
bonkers not to have all units not using the most developed examples
of both - especially when updating the firmware is so simple. We in
Europe have been easily coping with Flarm mandatory and optional
updates for several.

John Galloway




At 20:24 22 February 2015, Mike Schumann wrote:


It is NOT impossible to design system upgrades so that they are
backward
co=
mpatible with older units that are still in use. It is probably much
more
=
convenient for FLARM to use this approach so they don't need to
deal with
t=
he complexity of having multiple different device versions that
need to
tal=
k to each other. These kind of shortcuts make one question
whether FLARM
r=
eally has the potential to be a VERY niche product for a small
subset of
th=
e aviation market.

Couple that with POWERFLARM's inability to see UAT equipped
ADS-B OUT
equip=
ped aircraft, either directly or via TIS-B retransmission from an
ADS-B
gro=
und station, raises some big questions on whether or not they
have really
t=
hought thru the whole collision avoidance picture in the US, where
the
thre=
at is not just other gliders, but also GA and airline traffic.

the classic FLARM didn't meet FCC regulations, so even if they wanted to sell it in the US, they couldn't

On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 6:45:05 PM UTC-5, R. Suppards wrote:
So easy to understand why Flarm would not sell into North America for so
many years...