FLARM for SAR

You must be very stupid to bring down this discussion at this personal
level.
And quite ignorant also! IGC has long asked FLARM to release the
communication protocol in order to break the monopolistic role.
That was a conclamated, asked and subscribed decision in their meetings, I
think 2 or 3 years ago.
You cannot have monopolistic leaders in safety industry! Because it is a
treat, life or money, you have no choices.

So for me it is purely an ethical matter, and this SAR issue with these
pathetical excuses are just leading facts towards the simple truth: if you
want to know where your pal has crashed, you must ring up flarm in
switzerland, because the information was obfuscated long time ago.

What I have done for aviation safety is irrelevant, I am not in that market.
You might have asked me what I have done in atomic industry, it had been the
same.

But I can tell you easy what YOU can do for aviation safety: crash your
glider in the US , on saturday afternoon, lost in the mountains, and expect
that your friends get informations from flarm offices opening on monday
morning.
good luck then.


"GC" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 17/11/2012 19:59, wrote:

How sad you don't answer any of my questions. All this new post does
is repeat how stupid the rest of the world must be compared to you,
that nobody else will ever be clever enough to analyse LFLA as good
as you do. That's not a good starting point for a serious
discussion.

No, Max. That's a complete distortion of what Flarm said. Like most
open source fanatics, your quasi-religious fervour makes you twist
comments to get the effect you want. What makes you think that a
discussion of aviation safety with you would be serious. What have YOU
and Paolo done for aviation safety compared to Flarm's track record?

Why don't you publish your analysis tool under a free license? That
not only allows authorities to respond faster to urgent situations
without having to wait for you to wake up, but will also allow others
to improve it, instead of starting from scratch. You do want to
improve response times and SAR quality, don't you?

I think Flarm want to make the best traffic awareness and avoidance
system they can and they have pursued that aim with great success and to
the benefit of soaring for some years. YOU are the one that keeps
bugging them about SAR as an excuse to push them into revealing their
proprietary designs and software. GO AWAY. It was much more
interesting when you and Paolo were trading insults over who owned what
parts of XCSoar and LK8000.

GC

Am 17.11.2012 09:59, schrieb :
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:38:38 AM UTC+1, FLARM wrote:
What you are suggesting is that when an aircraft is missing, anyone should be able to fire up their own homebuilt LFLA analysis tool with whatever data they have, then call SAR authorities to give them directions?

They would file that call with the calls from fortune-tellers and other nutters.

How sad you don't answer any of my questions. All this new post does is repeat how stupid the rest of the world must be compared to you, that nobody else will ever be clever enough to analyse LFLA as good as you do. That's not a good starting point for a serious discussion.

Why don't you publish your analysis tool under a free license? That not only allows authorities to respond faster to urgent situations without having to wait for you to wake up, but will also allow others to improve it, instead of starting from scratch. You do want to improve response times and SAR quality, don't you?

I guess we expect a software that delivers the coordinates or at least
the last known coordinates of plane to support SAR.
But nobody except the Flarm people ever saw how they get the
information. Is it an iterative process? Does the software deliver more
then one possible result and 'natural' intelligence has to make a
judgement? Nobody knows.
They announced a lot of features of PowerFlarm which is still not
available. I prefer they focus on this issues!
Bear

NB
Yes, Flarm people seem to be very arrogant. If they are not interested
in a proposed functionality the just ignore you.

And again yes, it was a terrible mistake to select Butterfly Avionics
GmbH as partner for PowerFlarm was a terrible mistake. The are not
professionals but a a messy company.

At 08:59 17 November 2012, wrote:
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:38:38 AM UTC+1, FLARM wrote:
What you are suggesting is that when an aircraft is missing, anyone
shoul=
d be able to fire up their own homebuilt LFLA analysis tool with whatever
d=
ata they have, then call SAR authorities to give them directions?=20
=20
They would file that call with the calls from fortune-tellers and other
n=
utters.

How sad you don't answer any of my questions. All this new post does is
rep=
eat how stupid the rest of the world must be compared to you, that nobody
e=
lse will ever be clever enough to analyse LFLA as good as you do. That's
no=
t a good starting point for a serious discussion.

Why don't you publish your analysis tool under a free license? That not
onl=
y allows authorities to respond faster to urgent situations without
having
=
to wait for you to wake up, but will also allow others to improve it,
inste=
ad of starting from scratch. You do want to improve response times and
SAR
=
quality, don't you?

Because they are Swiss, they hide things like terrorists bank accounts and
such. It would also appear they hide information which could save a life as
well, why am I not surprised.

Swiss Flarm is commercial enterprise that has given us a
tremendously useful instrument and code to aid see and
avoid and reduce collisions between gliders.

The appropriate primary instruments to aid SAR are
ELTs/PLBs and, to a lesser extent, SPOT. IMHO it is
irresponsible to fly XC without a locator beacon - especially
over difficult terrain.

If the Swiss Flarm company have been able to assist
efforts to locate downed pilots who don't have, or haven't
been able to operate, an emergency locator beacon of
some sort then surely that is to be applauded rather than
to be taken as grounds for (to me paranoid seeming)
complaints that they exercise their right to protect their
intellectual property and also to prioritise where they direct
their resources?

John Galloway







At 22:27 17 November 2012, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 08:59 17 November 2012,
wrote:
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:38:38 AM UTC+1,
FLARM wrote:
What you are suggesting is that when an aircraft is
missing, anyone
shoul=
d be able to fire up their own homebuilt LFLA analysis
tool with whatever
d=
ata they have, then call SAR authorities to give them
directions?=20
=20
They would file that call with the calls from fortune-
tellers and other
n=
utters.

How sad you don't answer any of my questions. All this
new post does is
rep=
eat how stupid the rest of the world must be compared
to you, that nobody
e=
lse will ever be clever enough to analyse LFLA as good
as you do. That's
no=
t a good starting point for a serious discussion.

Why don't you publish your analysis tool under a free
license? That not
onl=
y allows authorities to respond faster to urgent
situations withou
having
=
to wait for you to wake up, but will also allow others to
improve it,
inste=
ad of starting from scratch. You do want to improve
response times an
SAR
=
quality, don't you?

Because they are Swiss, they hide things like terrorists
bank accounts an
such. It would also appear they hide information which
could save a life a
well, why am I not surprised.

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:00:04 PM UTC-8, John Galloway wrote:
Swiss Flarm is commercial enterprise that has given us a

tremendously useful instrument and code to aid see and

avoid and reduce collisions between gliders.



The appropriate primary instruments to aid SAR are

ELTs/PLBs and, to a lesser extent, SPOT. IMHO it is

irresponsible to fly XC without a locator beacon - especially

over difficult terrain.



If the Swiss Flarm company have been able to assist

efforts to locate downed pilots who don't have, or haven't

been able to operate, an emergency locator beacon of

some sort then surely that is to be applauded rather than

to be taken as grounds for (to me paranoid seeming)

complaints that they exercise their right to protect their

intellectual property and also to prioritise where they direct

their resources?



John Galloway















At 22:27 17 November 2012, Don Johnstone wrote:

At 08:59 17 November 2012,

wrote:

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:38:38 AM UTC+1,

FLARM wrote:

What you are suggesting is that when an aircraft is

missing, anyone

shoul=

d be able to fire up their own homebuilt LFLA analysis

tool with whatever

d=

ata they have, then call SAR authorities to give them

directions?=20

=20

They would file that call with the calls from fortune-

tellers and other

n=

utters.



How sad you don't answer any of my questions. All this

new post does is

rep=

eat how stupid the rest of the world must be compared

to you, that nobody

e=

lse will ever be clever enough to analyse LFLA as good

as you do. That's

no=

t a good starting point for a serious discussion.



Why don't you publish your analysis tool under a free

license? That not

onl=

y allows authorities to respond faster to urgent

situations withou

having

=

to wait for you to wake up, but will also allow others to

improve it,

inste=

ad of starting from scratch. You do want to improve

response times an

SAR

=

quality, don't you?



Because they are Swiss, they hide things like terrorists

bank accounts an

such. It would also appear they hide information which

could save a life a

well, why am I not surprised.







Exactly, well said (although for most uses I'd put a SPOT first).

And the hypothetical scenario about missing/downed pilots is just alarmist claptrap. And should a pilot me down/missing in the USA and analysis of Flarm data could possibly help I don't expect there would be any waiting for offices in Europe (or the USA) to open. Enough people in the USA know how to reach Flarm employees and executives, and I expect there would be a tremendously quick response from those folks.

Its amazing how some folks feel its necessary to attack a company that has done, and continues to do, a huge service to the worldwide glider community..

Darryl

Its amazing how some folks feel its necessary to attack a company that has
done, and continues to do, a huge service to the worldwide glider community.

I sincerely hope you and everybody else, including Flarm, get that these requests are made in (what we think is) the best interest of safety. I like Flarm, but I see some room for improvement. So in
the end, I would like to see if I can make Flarm get even better. I am sincerely worried about what happens when multiple pilots crash in the USA.
Also, perhaps I can help improve the format, thus giving the Flarm team time to work on features which are beyond my knowledge.

Also, I feel I'm not asking much. I think I've figured out the LFLA format a bit, but I would need some small details to decode it. Raw code, from for example tiny snippets of flarm firmware or the
php range checker on their website would be more than sufficient I think. This sounds like 5 minutes of work to me.

Using the "and what have you done for safety?" Argument is a bit odd I think, as this assumes that only (commercially?) released work matters. I, for example, have done a Msc thesis on wireless
networking between airborne gliders, also with safety in mind. Does not ever commercially releasing my work give me no right to comment on aspects of Flarm? Others have way more experience
in programming, testing and using glide computer software. Should they have shifted their focus to safety in order to critisize others? I think not, and to me it kind of sounds like an instructor is
telling a solo pilot "what do you know?".

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:27:08 PM UTC-8, Roel Baardman wrote:
Its amazing how some folks feel its necessary to attack a company that has

done, and continues to do, a huge service to the worldwide glider community.

I sincerely hope you and everybody else, including Flarm, get that these requests are made in (what we think is) the best interest of safety. I like Flarm, but I see some room for improvement. So in

the end, I would like to see if I can make Flarm get even better. I am sincerely worried about what happens when multiple pilots crash in the USA.

Back to the scaremongering again. Why don't you worry about the Netherlands and let USA pilots worry about what happens here. Flarm is just not a great SAR tool and never will be, its a maybe useful thing is some situations, there are many better/more general tools, and many of those (especially SPOT) are widely used in sailplanes the USA. And as I said before should there ever be a need to analyze a PowerFLARM log in an an urgent SAR situation I expect through the many contacts we have in the USA we'll be able to get access to key Flarm technical and management staff in the USA and Europe within a very quick time.

Also, perhaps I can help improve the format, thus giving the Flarm team time to work on features which are beyond my knowledge.


Also, I feel I'm not asking much. I think I've figured out the LFLA format a bit, but I would need some small details to decode it. Raw code, from for example tiny snippets of flarm firmware or the

php range checker on their website would be more than sufficient I think. This sounds like 5 minutes of work to me.

You don't have a God given right to demand anything from Flarm or any other company. If you want something from them deal with them in private. Getting on a public forum and ****ing on and on about Flarm is not the way to do it. Dragging this out in public shows a high level of immaturity, and based on that alone if I was at Flarm I'd be strongly disinclined to ever give you access to confidential/private data. If you think you can improve technical things, have ideas, then instead of acting like you have a God-given right of access, discuss your ideas with Flarm technical/management staff and sell them on why they should work with (or hire?) you.

There are logical reasons for Flarm to not disclose everything about their technology, (as I see it, Flarm may disagree...) they don't want imitators copying it and then having to deal with compatibility issues, they don't want to have to pay staff to develop technology and have potential competitors use it for free, they don't want to have to deal with interoperability issues or be slowed down in their ability to innovate, or have to deal with all the political bull**** of having things adopted as a "standard" and then having to deal with the bureaucracy of evolving a standard, having to worry about how other implementations are verified etc., all that would likely be a huge mess and staff time and money sink.

Flarm and its partners have shipped over ten thousand devices that have likely saved many injuries and lives. Their strategy has worked so far, kept the company in business and us all supplied with collision avoidance gear, and they get to decide who they work with and how.

Using the "and what have you done for safety?" Argument is a bit odd I think, as this assumes that only (commercially?) released work matters. I, for example, have done a Msc thesis on wireless

networking between airborne gliders, also with safety in mind. Does not ever commercially releasing my work give me no right to comment on aspects of Flarm? Others have way more experience

in programming, testing and using glide computer software. Should they have shifted their focus to safety in order to critisize others? I think not, and to me it kind of sounds like an instructor is

telling a solo pilot "what do you know?".

This is getting pretty incoherent, maybe its a language issue, but I cannot work out what you are going on about. I never mentioned anything about "what have you done for saftey" and neither have I said (nor do I hold) that only commercially released software matters.


Darryl

At 07:27 18 November 2012, Roel Baardman wrote:
Its amazing how some folks feel its necessary to attack a company that
has
done, and continues to do, a huge service to the worldwide glider
community.

I sincerely hope you and everybody else, including Flarm, get that these
requests are made in (what we think is) the best interest of safety. I
like
Flarm, but I see some room for improvement. So in
the end, I would like to see if I can make Flarm get even better. I am
sincerely worried about what happens when multiple pilots crash in the
USA.
Also, perhaps I can help improve the format, thus giving the Flarm team
time to work on features which are beyond my knowledge.

Also, I feel I'm not asking much. I think I've figured out the LFLA
format
a bit, but I would need some small details to decode it. Raw code, from
for
example tiny snippets of flarm firmware or the
php range checker on their website would be more than sufficient I think.
This sounds like 5 minutes of work to me.

Using the "and what have you done for safety?" Argument is a bit odd I
think, as this assumes that only (commercially?) released work matters.
I,
for example, have done a Msc thesis on wireless
networking between airborne gliders, also with safety in mind. Does not
ever commercially releasing my work give me no right to comment on
aspects
of Flarm? Others have way more experience
in programming, testing and using glide computer software. Should they
have
shifted their focus to safety in order to critisize others? I think not,
and to me it kind of sounds like an instructor is
telling a solo pilot "what do you know?".

For crying out loud, just get some smart kid at MIT to reverse engineer the
damm thing and have done with it.

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:00:49 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:
For crying out loud, just get some smart kid at MIT to reverse engineer the
damm thing and have done with it.

One could do that, but it wouldn't solve the root cause of the problem. I could try to explain it again, and I would if I were confident that you are really interested, but the polemic/aggressive wording of your reply suggests otherwise.

At 10:47 19 November 2012, wrote:
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:00:49 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:
For crying out loud, just get some smart kid at MIT to reverse engineer
the
damm thing and have done with it.

One could do that, but it wouldn't solve the root cause of the problem. I
could try to explain it again, and I would if I were confident that you
are
really interested, but the polemic/aggressive wording of your reply
suggests otherwise.

Do you really need to solve the root cause? Would not getting round it have
the same effect. What is the problem you want to solve?