Information for all users of Flarm, OEM FLARM supplier and Flarm PowerFlarm

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!!!

On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 13:25:31 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

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.

I thought they were a German group, but I digress and could be wrong. I
don't recall any FLARM users objecting to them building ground-based
FLARM receivers and using them to track gliders, indeed this was seen as
a useful service throughout Europe, PROVIDED that they obeyed the pilot's
wishes and did not publish identification data for gliders using stealth
mode. However, there were some hardline 'all data is free' fanatics in
the group who refused to play nice with stealthed gliders and so FLARM
encrypted the messages to make them behave.

At least, thats why I remember encryption was introduced: it had
absolutely nothing to do with commercial secrets or anybody getting rich
and everything to do with third parties violating another's privacy.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

This thread was interesting for about 64 seconds...and then the moment passed.

On Friday, 4 March 2016 01:58:04 UTC+1, wrote:
This thread was interesting for about 64 seconds...and then the moment passed.

Head on!

Ban it?

My eyes hurt trying to read all this. Can someone write an executive summary of the issue and concern for the rest of us?

Ramy

Ramy

I could summarize the bizarre aforementioned pontification, but I would need to encrypt that summary.

Darryl

FAI/IGC seem to have punted on the encryption question.

At 12:21 04 March 2016, Pat Russell wrote:
FAI/IGC seem to have punted on the encryption question.

As far as I as aware, the only envolvement IGC have with Flarm is as an
Approved Flight Recorder, which is not affected.

In other matters I believe IGC do not approve or disapprove, nor do they
specify.

In other matters I believe IGC do not approve or disapprove, nor do they
specify.

The IGC ANDS committee disapproves of the current FLARM position. I am not sure if this has yet evolved to be the official IGC position on the topic.

http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC...lenary_AX6_2_4

Personally, I don't share the opinion of the ANDS committee