Hi,
we recently launched a petition against Flarm decision to encrypt their communication protocols.

Although Flarm have the majority of the market for anti-collision systems there are others vendors and we think that monopolies are not a good things in any market and more important security comes first.

For this reasons we invite you to subscribe our campaign.

https://www.change.org/p/mr-urs-rothacher-flarm-chairman-petition-against-flarm-decision-to-encrypt-the-communication-protocol

Thank you so much!
Sergio

Hasn't this argument been done to death already? Flarm get to protect their intellectual property rights and gliders pilots get mutual interoperability between glider to glider collision warning units. Third party hardware makers get to include and sell Flarm capability in their own instruments. Geeks get to complain about monopoly and conspiracy. Everyone's a winner.

At 10:30 22 May 2015, wrote:
>Hi,
>we recently launched a petition against Flarm decision to encrypt their
>communication protocols.
>
>Although Flarm have the majority of the market for anti-collision systems
>there are others vendors and we think that monopolies are not a good
things
>in any market and more important security comes first.
>
>For this reasons we invite you to subscribe our campaign.
>
>https://www..communication-protocol
>
>
>Thank you so much!
>Sergio
>
Do you have any connection with DSX?

As far as I know they are the only equipment manufacturer offering a Flarm
?compatible? instrument that does not use integrated Flarm (tm) Firmware.

It's not a question of being a geek or having any connection with DSX.

The real issue here is that FAI rules should be that you need an anti-collision system instead of oblising the pilots in competition to use one specific brand. They should define a common protocol so anyone interested can develop its own product.

A valid example is for the flight recorders. You do not need to buy a flight recorder of a specific brand. There is a standard format (IGC) defined by the authorities.

For sure I do not like monopolies....

Am Freitag, 22. Mai 2015 14:00:04 UTC+2 schrieb Tim Newport-Peace:
> At 10:30 22 May 2015, wrote:
> >Hi,
> >we recently launched a petition against Flarm decision to encrypt their
> >communication protocols.
> >
> >Although Flarm have the majority of the market for anti-collision systems
> >there are others vendors and we think that monopolies are not a good
> things
> >in any market and more important security comes first.
> >
> >For this reasons we invite you to subscribe our campaign.
> >
> >https://www..communication-protocol
> >
> >
> >Thank you so much!
> >Sergio
> >
> Do you have any connection with DSX?
>
> As far as I know they are the only equipment manufacturer offering a Flarm
> ?compatible? instrument that does not use integrated Flarm (tm) Firmware.

The new encryption of Flarm is a result of the OGN activity which more or less pirated the existing protocol, as well as the existing FlarmNet database without asking for permission.
OGN then put all tracked gliders with their real ID onto a public website map.

While in France people generally like that, a fair number of pilots in Germany were upset by the fact that their real-time tracks were visible on a public map without having been asked. I myself don't want this to happen.

So the choice was simple - either a new encryption, or a large number of pilots simply switching off their Flarm. I am happy with the encryption.

Now OGN people are just ****ed off that they have to hack the protocol again.

This is a good point, however security should come first. I'm not a protocol expert at all, but it would have made more sense to hide ID.

At 12:50 22 May 2015, Tango Whisky wrote:
>Am Freitag, 22. Mai 2015 14:00:04 UTC+2 schrieb Tim Newport-Peace:
>> At 10:30 22 May 2015, wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >we recently launched a petition against Flarm decision to encrypt
their
>> >communication protocols.
>> >
>> >Although Flarm have the majority of the market for anti-collision
>systems
>> >there are others vendors and we think that monopolies are not a good
>> things
>> >in any market and more important security comes first.
>> >
>> >For this reasons we invite you to subscribe our campaign.
>> >
>> >https://www..communication-protocol
>> >
>> >
>> >Thank you so much!
>> >Sergio
>> >
>> Do you have any connection with DSX?
>>
>> As far as I know they are the only equipment manufacturer offering a
>Flarm
>> ?compatible? instrument that does not use integrated Flarm (tm)
Firmware.
>
>The new encryption of Flarm is a result of the OGN activity which more or
>less pirated the existing protocol, as well as the existing FlarmNet
>database without asking for permission.
>OGN then put all tracked gliders with their real ID onto a public website
>map.
Wrong in many ways. Earlier releases of Flarm were time-bombed long before
OGN came into being.

There has always been an opt-out.
>
>While in France people generally like that, a fair number of pilots in
>Germany were upset by the fact that their real-time tracks were visible
on
>a public map without having been asked. I myself don't want this to
happen.

The opt-out.
>
>So the choice was simple - either a new encryption, or a large number of
>pilots simply switching off their Flarm. I am happy with the encryption.

No. It was going to happen anyway.
>
>Now OGN people are just ****ed off that they have to hack the protocol

Not ****ed off. OGN up and running on V6.
>again.
>

In any case I think that an important organization like IGC should define a protocol, taking in consideration the privacy issue.

Exactly like the IGC file format for the loggers. Nobody contests the fact that every pilot that does competitions or records must have a certified logger. In a similar way every pilot in competition should have an anti-collision. It should not be obliged to buy a single brand like if we were in the Soviet Union

On Friday, 22 May 2015 14:50:22 UTC+2, Tango Whisky wrote:
> The new encryption of Flarm is a result of the OGN activity which more or less pirated the existing protocol, as well as the existing FlarmNet database without asking for permission.
> OGN then put all tracked gliders with their real ID onto a public website map.

- OGN don't use the FlarmNet database any more. They use their own database now.
- OGN honour the "no-tracking" flag in the FLARM version 6 protocol.
- If you want your details to be displayed on OGN you need to opt-in.
- If you don't want your details to be displayed anymore you can opt-out but there is no auto opt-in or the copying of your ID from other sources (like the FlarmNet DB).

Plenty of detail here http://wiki.glidernet.org/opt-in-opt-out

> Now OGN people are just ****ed off that they have to hack the protocol again.

Geeks like the challenge - V6 already hacked.

It's nice to see that OGN are playing nicely now for those who prefer to keeo their identities secret.

At 13:14 22 May 2015, wrote:
>In any case I think that an important organization like IGC should define
>a=
> protocol, taking in consideration the privacy issue.=20
>
>Exactly like the IGC file format for the loggers. Nobody contests the
fact
>=
>that every pilot that does competitions or records must have a certified
>lo=
>gger. In a similar way every pilot in competition should have an
>anti-colli=
>sion. It should not be obliged to buy a single brand like if we were in
>the=
> Soviet Union
>
You are not.

EDIATec, LXNAV and LX Navigation all make a variety of instruments with
integrated Flarm. You have a choice.

As you are probably aware, DSX took this question to IGC many years ago
without the result they wished for.

Are you connected with DSX?

The matter with FLARM may have discussed "to death" but a few appear th have grasped the basics, so let me try to wrap it up once for ever: FLARM decided one day to make business in flight safety by manufacturing an air trafic alert device, a Version for glider pilots of a TCAS in fact. Fair enough. The device has soon spread throughout the glider pilots community and by doing so it has changed the pilot's behaviour in flight. As soon as other manufacturers showed up FLARM introduced the data encryption in the firmware of a TCAS system making the other systems invisible to them and viceversa. This modus operandi is unthinkable in the GA and commercial aviation and thanks God. We all get on planes to fly for business or leisure without realling worrying about mid air collisions in a much denser airtraffic environment. This thanks to the fact that the standards are set by an authority, the FAA generally, and not by the whim of the largest or most cunning manufacturer. The fact that the soaring world is not as heavily regulated as the general and commercial aviation by no means mean that FLARM is entitled to act as it does since 2008. The protocol transmission has to be public and I for God's sake still want to have the right to chose the system that i like the most for my glider!
Marco Maceri

Tim,
I'm not. I am a DSX user and my behavior would be the same even if I had a Flarm.
I want to fly safely and I'm in favor of open market.

I like to fly in France in summer and as a matter of fact they are requesting me to throw away my DSX and install a Flarm. Do you think this is fair?


> Are you connected with DSX?

At 13:46 22 May 2015, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>At 13:14 22 May 2015, wrote:
>>In any case I think that an important organization like IGC should
define
>>a=
>> protocol, taking in consideration the privacy issue.=20
>>
>>Exactly like the IGC file format for the loggers. Nobody contests th
>fact
>>=
>>that every pilot that does competitions or records must have a certified
>>lo=
>>gger. In a similar way every pilot in competition should have an
>>anti-colli=
>>sion. It should not be obliged to buy a single brand like if we were in
>>the=
>> Soviet Union
>>
>You are not.
>
>EDIATec, LXNAV and LX Navigation all make a variety of instruments wit
>integrated Flarm. You have a choice.
>
>As you are probably aware, DSX took this question to IGC many years ag
>without the result they wished for.
>
>Are you connected with DSX?
>
>

Is there a report available on that IGC discussion?

Thanks,
Shaun

By the way, there are more than 500 glider pilots out there that are supporting us.
And we wish to thank them all for signing and the people that, reading this conversation, will sign the petition!
THANKS

At 13:46 22 May 2015, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>At 13:14 22 May 2015, wrote:
>>In any case I think that an important organization like IGC should
define

At 13:46 22 May 2015, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>At 13:14 22 May 2015, wrote:
>>In any case I think that an important organization like IGC should
define

At 11:35 22 May 2015, wrote:
>Hasn't this argument been done to death already? Flarm get to protect
>the=
>ir intellectual property rights and gliders pilots get mutual
>interoperabil=
>ity between glider to glider collision warning units. Third party
>hardware=
> makers get to include and sell Flarm capability in their own
instruments.
>=
>Geeks get to complain about monopoly and conspiracy. Everyone's a
winner.
>

Not really. Flarm protects their revenue by keeping their protocol closed.
Do you claim that a protocol can be pattented?

Monopoly makes things stagnant and more expensive. DSX provided better
device, for better price. Being CEO of a company you want keep competition
away, but being a consumer I don't understand why you want just one
product? What's more supporting just closed source you force others to buy
just this one only product.

Interoperability is not an issue, as long as protocol is known what DSX has
already shown.

There is no conspiracy in it. Monopoly is a simple fact.
Regards
Wolf
http://youtu.be/aQUB7erVIKw

Well said Wolf. It's not a win-win situation. Simply said Flarm uses its dominant position to try to make more money. Business decision. What is wrong is that someone ask to have Flarm on board. They should ask an anti collision system based on a protocol certified by a third party (IGC???)

Flarm currently does not have to ensure compatibility to its legacy code (due to mandatory updates), let alone having to respect a protocol or the ideas of other vendors. In my opinion this flexibility is one of the reasons Flarm was able to evolve so well.

Opening the protocol would mean that all stakeholders would need to agree on any change to the protocol. New ideas would need to be formally filed, debated, different interests negotiated, compromises would need to be found before a small change finally can be implemented and rolled out. Unfortunately democratic processes are not very efficient. Looking at the ADS-B discussion in another thread shows how difficult and time consuming it can be to establish a new standard.

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 9:33:48 PM UTC+1, wrote:
> "Well said Wolf. It's not a win-win situation. Simply said Flarm uses its dominant position to try to make more money. Business decision. What is wrong is that someone ask to have Flarm on board. They should ask an anti collision system based on a protocol certified by a third party (IGC???)"

That would be fair enough - if (and its a big if) the IGC had established both a communication protocol and (crucially) a collision prediction algorithm tailored for gliders that they were prepared to continually develop and update - then it would have been perfectly logical for those to be made open to all developers. That is a route that could have been taken but it is extremely unlikely that a body such as the IGC could have had the idea, the means and the will to have done so. In the real world it was done commercially and there are 25,000 Flarm units already installed and you have simply missed the boat. Many of those will be in club gliders and many others in syndicated gliders so a very conservative estimate would be 50,000+ pilots flying using Flarm at present. 500 supporting the petition is probably about 1% of the number of users. It would be very interesting to know how many of those signing the petition are actually current Flarm users.

Your petition only mentions the communication protocols. Flarm is both the communication protocol plus the collision warning algorithm. For the rest of us who have already paid for, and are using, Flarm the prospect of competing systems has no gain and increases the possibility of incompatible warning algorithms.

John Galloway

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 9:33:48 PM UTC+1, wrote:
> "Well said Wolf. It's not a win-win situation. Simply said Flarm uses its dominant position to try to make more money. Business decision. What is wrong is that someone ask to have Flarm on board. They should ask an anti collision system based on a protocol certified by a third party (IGC???)"

That would be fair enough - if (and its a big if) the IGC had established both a communication protocol and (crucially) a collision prediction algorithm tailored for gliders that they were prepared to continually develop and update - then it would have been perfectly logical for those to be made open to all developers. That is a route that could have been taken but it is extremely unlikely that a body such as the IGC could have had the idea, the means and the will to have done so. In the real world it was done commercially and there are 25,000 Flarm units already installed and you have simply missed the boat. Many of those will be in club gliders and many others in syndicated gliders so a very conservative estimate would be 50,000+ pilots flying using Flarm at present. 500 supporting the petition is probably about 1% of the number of users. It would be very interesting to know how many of those signing the petition are actually current Flarm users.

Your petition only mentions the communication protocols. Flarm is both the communication protocol plus the collision warning algorithm. For the rest of us who have already paid for, and are using, Flarm the prospect of competing systems has no gain and increases the possibility of incompatible warning algorithms.

John Galloway

Well this is an interesting point. I personally believe that the Flarm's users should also sign and the reason is easy: if they are a monopolist they can always decide to charge, as an example, a fee for using their device. If you put (always as an example) 100 EURO per year they could make 2.5 million per year on license fee. Not bad for them, not so sure for the users.....

Apparently you don't like democracy but you definitely like the Internet. CISCO has the vast majority of the router but they do not own the IP protocol. This is just to make an analogy with a market a bit bigger ....

Sergio Elia

Well this is an interesting point. I personally believe that the Flarm's users should also sign and the reason is easy: if they are a monopolist they can always decide to charge, as an example, a fee for using their device. If you put (always as an example) 100 EURO per year they could make 2.5 million per year on license fee. Not bad for them, not so sure for the users.....

Apparently Alexander doesn't like democracy on this but we all definitely like the Internet. CISCO has the vast majority of the router but they do not own the IP protocol. This is just to make an analogy with a market a bit bigger ....

At 10:30 22 May 2015, wrote:
>Hi,
>we recently launched a petition against Flarm decision to encrypt
their
>communication protocols.
>
>Although Flarm have the majority of the market for anti-collision
systems
>there are others vendors and we think that monopolies are not a
good things
>in any market and more important security comes first.
>
>For this reasons we invite you to subscribe our campaign.
>
>https://www.change.org/p/mr-urs-rothacher-flarm-chairman-
petition-against-flarm-decision-to-encrypt-the-communication-
protocol
>
>
>Thank you so much!
>Sergio
>
I'm afraid this is all a bit pointless, flarm is yesterday's company. If
I held them I'd be selling the stock, and if I could I'd be shorting it.
In 10 years you'll be saying flar...who? Why do I say this? Well as a
typical monopoly they have refused to innovate, and as usual this
works for a while, but the writing is now on the wall... The OGN
have published their tracker spec.. and if you look at it, it 'could' do
everything a flarm does... but at $30.. Now I know it doesn't right
now, but look through their code.. it's like 10 lines extra... and at a
size weight and power that would appeal to a whole host of other
users, paragliders, hanggliders, UAVS... a few glider pilots will be
irrelevant.... do you really think they won't?

I'd leave flarm to their own little bubble... you'll have exactly what
you want in a few years..

Why does Ebay have a monopoly when anyone could build a site and undercut them?

It's because the market for auctions is winner takes all. As a buyer you don't care which site you go to, you are just after the cheapest price.

As a seller you can only use one site per item, and you go to the one with the biggest number of users and hence the greatest number of people trying to buy. The listing costs in most cases are dwarfed by the money you make from the competition.

So with flarm, its a case that people are going to go with one system, and that's going to be determined by the number of users, or its mandated by law.

I don't "own" a Flarm, but I fly sailplanes that have them.

-I think it's good for the "intended user".
-I wish it "talked" to other "users" (namely commercial/private USA pilots)
-I "believe" a large "user group" of Flarm users have a bigger impact on what Flarm does than "petition" does.

In general, the market drives the company. If the company IGNORES the users, then the company dies.
Sorta "Business 101".

While I understand this thread, I feel there is a better way to drive Flarm.
If they're resistant, then they will fail and thousands of users will "jump ship" and go another direction.

Just saying.........

PS, Flarm, are you listening?!?!?........ "Poop or get off the pot".

PPS, not saying this has to be open source, but if you want to sell more systems, it "should" cover upcoming regulations (in various countries) reg's for collision avoidance.
The superfulace (sp) stuff may be nice, but NOT regulated/mandated.

On 22/05/2015 12:30, wrote:
> Hi,
> we recently launched a petition against Flarm decision to encrypt their communication protocols.
>
> Although Flarm have the majority of the market for anti-collision systems there are others vendors and we think that monopolies are not a good things in any market and more important security comes first.
>
> For this reasons we invite you to subscribe our campaign.
>
> https://www.change.org/p/mr-urs-rothacher-flarm-chairman-petition-against-flarm-decision-to-encrypt-the-communication-protocol
>
> Thank you so much!
> Sergio
>

There is going to be a lot of emotion around this. But from my personal
viewpoint. My club adopted Flarm back in 2004/2005. I think we were one
of the first sites outside of Europe to attempt to reach threshold usage
level required to make the system effective.

At the time Flarm was an experimental idea. Nobody knew if it would
work. As much as some US pilots have indicated reluctance to accept the
idea when first introduced to them, some of our members were also
sceptical. Yet a number of our members risked our own cash to buy the
first and 2nd batches of flarm for our private gliders (which took
nearly a year to arrive). Then we used club cash to buy units for the
club ships.

We made this risk investment on the understanding that Flarm was a
non-profit, good for glider pilots movement, empowered to a large extent
by voluntary man hours. We added to their efforts with testing and
regular feedback.

Now Flarm is commercially viable. I see it as having application in a
lot of GA aircraft as well as unmanned drones as well as gliders. It
works and I am a fan of the technology.

But I feel that encrypting the protocol goes against the spirit with
which I, and many other early adopters made risk investments.

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 12:00:10 AM UTC+3, Nick wrote:
> Why does Ebay have a monopoly when anyone could build a site and undercut them?
>
> It's because the market for auctions is winner takes all. As a buyer you don't care which site you go to, you are just after the cheapest price.
>
> As a seller you can only use one site per item, and you go to the one with the biggest number of users and hence the greatest number of people trying to buy. The listing costs in most cases are dwarfed by the money you make from the competition.
>
> So with flarm, its a case that people are going to go with one system, and that's going to be determined by the number of users, or its mandated by law.

Ebay is a good example. In New Zealand they got their arses kicked by local site TradeMe.

Or Starbucks. Why is Starbucks a virtual monopoly in the USA? They also got their arses kicked in both New Zealand and Australia, where they couldn't compete with local boutique cafes (not even another chain) and have closed something like 80% of their stores.

> But I feel that encrypting the protocol goes against the spirit with
> which I, and many other early adopters made risk investments.

As a matter of fact a FLARM customer might very well receive this communication soon:

"Dear Flarm customer, as already announced four years ago the new firmware release 6.0 prevents DSX devices from exchanging position, speed and altitude data with our products operating this release. In case of a mid air collision we do not take responsibility for the DSX pilot as he/she chose to buy an incompatible device. As for that one of our customers, who will happen to be involved in accident we sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. Thanks for choosing FLARM."

ROTFL

Good point Bruce!
I would only add that in this case also the Flarm's users should care. First of all in Europe there are gliders flying with DSX. As of today Flarms can only see Flarms. So they buy an anti-collision system and they may collide with another glider only because the encryption.... Crazy isn't it?

Second, in a condition of monopoly, the incumbent may decide the commercial policy he likes the most. And this, believe me, will not be in favor of the users


On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 12:19:37 PM UTC+2, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 12:00:10 AM UTC+3, Nick wrote:
> > Why does Ebay have a monopoly when anyone could build a site and undercut them?
> >
> > It's because the market for auctions is winner takes all. As a buyer you don't care which site you go to, you are just after the cheapest price.
> >
> > As a seller you can only use one site per item, and you go to the one with the biggest number of users and hence the greatest number of people trying to buy. The listing costs in most cases are dwarfed by the money you make from the competition.
> >
> > So with flarm, its a case that people are going to go with one system, and that's going to be determined by the number of users, or its mandated by law.
>
> Ebay is a good example. In New Zealand they got their arses kicked by local site TradeMe.
>
> Or Starbucks. Why is Starbucks a virtual monopoly in the USA? They also got their arses kicked in both New Zealand and Australia, where they couldn't compete with local boutique cafes (not even another chain) and have closed something like 80% of their stores.

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 7:52:38 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Good point Bruce!
> I would only add that in this case also the Flarm's users should care. First of all in Europe there are gliders flying with DSX. As of today Flarms can only see Flarms. So they buy an anti-collision system and they may collide with another glider only because the encryption.... Crazy isn't it?
>
> Second, in a condition of monopoly, the incumbent may decide the commercial policy he likes the most. And this, believe me, will not be in favor of the users
>
>
> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 12:19:37 PM UTC+2, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 12:00:10 AM UTC+3, Nick wrote:
> > > Why does Ebay have a monopoly when anyone could build a site and undercut them?
> > >
> > > It's because the market for auctions is winner takes all. As a buyer you don't care which site you go to, you are just after the cheapest price.
> > >
> > > As a seller you can only use one site per item, and you go to the one with the biggest number of users and hence the greatest number of people trying to buy. The listing costs in most cases are dwarfed by the money you make from the competition.
> > >
> > > So with flarm, its a case that people are going to go with one system, and that's going to be determined by the number of users, or its mandated by law.
> >
> > Ebay is a good example. In New Zealand they got their arses kicked by local site TradeMe.
> >
> > Or Starbucks. Why is Starbucks a virtual monopoly in the USA? They also got their arses kicked in both New Zealand and Australia, where they couldn't compete with local boutique cafes (not even another chain) and have closed something like 80% of their stores.

Sergio, have you heard of a little company named Apple? They seem to be the ultimate monopolist, nobody is guarding their intellectual and physical properties and trademarks as they do. Last I've seen, they are doing pretty well with that strategy - and their users seem to love them. Why don't you go whining to them? Flarm is in a much more vulnerable place and I don't begrudge them wanting to protect what they developed. To claim they are putting customers' safety at risk is the height of hypocrisy.

So as a pilot in a Glider with Flarm I'm warned of a potential collision
risk with one of 25000 or so other Flarm equipped Gliders. If there's no
collision risk Flarm doesn't distract me.

How Many DSX equipped gliders are there in Europe?
What collision risk prediction does it do, their website suggests it does
no prediction and just tells me that there are lots of gliders flying
within 7km of me. I already know that on any day that I'm flying in the
South of England there are lots of gliders within 7km, what does DSX
provide that I don't get from looking out of the window?


At 12:52 26 May 2015, wrote:
>First of all in Europe there are gliders flying with DSX.

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 1:52:38 PM UTC+1, wrote:
> Good point Bruce!
> I would only add that in this case also the Flarm's users should care. First of all in Europe there are gliders flying with DSX. As of today Flarms can only see Flarms. So they buy an anti-collision system and they may collide with another glider only because the encryption.... Crazy isn't it?
>
> Second, in a condition of monopoly, the incumbent may decide the commercial policy he likes the most. And this, believe me, will not be in favor of the users
>
>
> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 12:19:37 PM UTC+2, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 12:00:10 AM UTC+3, Nick wrote:
> > > Why does Ebay have a monopoly when anyone could build a site and undercut them?
> > >
> > > It's because the market for auctions is winner takes all. As a buyer you don't care which site you go to, you are just after the cheapest price.
> > >
> > > As a seller you can only use one site per item, and you go to the one with the biggest number of users and hence the greatest number of people trying to buy. The listing costs in most cases are dwarfed by the money you make from the competition.
> > >
> > > So with flarm, its a case that people are going to go with one system, and that's going to be determined by the number of users, or its mandated by law.
> >
> > Ebay is a good example. In New Zealand they got their arses kicked by local site TradeMe.
> >
> > Or Starbucks. Why is Starbucks a virtual monopoly in the USA? They also got their arses kicked in both New Zealand and Australia, where they couldn't compete with local boutique cafes (not even another chain) and have closed something like 80% of their stores.

DSX explicitly don't want their T-Advisor unit to function as an anti-collsion unit and they don't believe in the philosophy of a predictive algorithm for gliders - which is the absolutely defining feature of Flarm - so why would Flarm want to offer their communication protocols to DSX? In that case we Flarm users would be receiving traffic advisories of limited usefulness from DSX units instead of much more useful Flarm alerts. It would be very much better if DSX owners had bought Flarms or if DSX incorporated Flarm functionality in their products under licence - as do many other successful glider instrument companies.

See: http://www.soaringwear.com/uploadz/02/PDF/T-Advisor_07_12_19.pdf

DSX simply got it commercially wrong with the T-Advisor. At least with the SaFly they produced a sensible product that functions solely as a tracker and emergency locator.

I don't see much the point of your comment, but as you mention Apple, perhaps you can also tell why Samsung, LG and all the other smartphones CAN communicate with the I-Phones, and therefore be sold, in spite of the fact that Apple at first designed one and created the market for them.

Mah! This is very much an opinion of yours. In the same document there's an explaination why a prediction based method is not suited for this application. I personally agree with DSX approach.

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 1:02:45 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Mah! This is very much an opinion of yours. In the same document there's an explaination why a prediction based method is not suited for this application. I personally agree with DSX approach.

Only about 5 million hours of flarm experience to date showing that their predictive algorithm works very well indeed.

-T8

The T-Advisor AND Flarm are NOT anticollision system.
Anticollision systems are those who tell the pilot what to do (like TCAS), in case of emergency. Neither system does this.
BOTH systems are NOT anticollision systems.

Cleared this, those who talk about the "predictive algorithm", can please explain:

1) how it works, since they must know how it works, to be in the position of saying that it works or it doesn't

2) how they know that such an algorithm has been implemented into a Flarm system: what proof do they have of this ?

3) if they have ever seen the trace of at least 10 glider flights in different conditions (competition, cross country, around-the-airfield, ridge soaring,....); whoever has seen some, not many, traces of flights, without the need to be a glider pilot, can understand that a prediction of the position of a glider in a future time beyond a fistful of seconds is impossible, exactly IMPOSSIBLE, since not even its pilot knows it, apart from some cases, like straight flying and constant turn rate thermaling. A glider pilot knows that he will be changing the trajectory of the glider to search for the best netto value, which depends on the micro air movements, which are unknown to the pilot in terms of exact location. Is there a machine capable of predicting these locations ? And even if there was, is there a machine capable of predicting what a glider pilot will do in the next 30-60-80 seconds ? Because this is what the rumored (never verified) "prediction algorithm" does. This is spectacular indeed !

4) even if they found a system to predict the position of the glider with a certain probability, would they trust as optimal a system that has (obviously) a probability to fail the prediction and miss a danger of collision ? Even if the probability was low (all but sure, since never demonstrated with objective tests and calculated data), 2, 3, 10 collisions (and deads) out of XX'XXX flights are too much. In aeronautics, this approach is wrong: this is not the way we work in professional aeronautics, that has taken us where we are in aviation


Kevin Neave, can you show in which website you read that the T-Advisor tells you "that there are lots of gliders flying within 7 km" ?
Please indicate the source of this concept. Because this is completely FALSE.
The T-Advisor does NOT USE (not that it does not calculate, a very different story) a prediction coming from an unverified, unknown algorithm (if it is at all) to give warnings to the pilot. Its approach is down to what is sure, real, objectively undeniable and at the basis of a collision: the relative approach speed of the aircraft and their distance, calculating the time to possible impact. Depending on some parameters (time to impact, approach speed, difference of altitude, etc.) the communication to the pilot is given at three different levels of warning.
No predictions based on extrapolations or assumptions of pilot's behavior, that are impossible to know beforehand.
Nevertheless, to make the Flarm systems work with the T-Advisor, it calculates the prediction in a very similar way to these systems, and transmits the data. But it does not, and will not use these hypothetical data to give warning of a possible fatal collision to a pilot.
The consistent behavior of the Flarm systems flying with the T-Advisor systems like with other Flarms has demonstrated, in some hundreds thousand hours of flight, that the prediction of position calculated by the T-Advisor is very similar to the one calculated by the Flarm. I will not say here how this is done, because it might destroy your faith (on not proved basis) in what was always told to you, but this is enough to prove that the two systems work well together, and the same could happen with other new systems around.
The reports of many pilots, during 10 years of operations and the hundreds thousand hours of flight of the T-Advisor are a clear demonstration that it is just an excuse that two different systems can't work well together.
Apart from all the above, Kevin, there is NO PILOT that can see all air traffic of gliders within a range of up to 17 km (this is the maximum range of the T-Advisor correctly installed onboard). If you are capable of that, you are the only one, and you are an outlayer when considering the behavior of the average glider pilot.


Tango Eight, your statement is lacking of a scientific base: WHAT demonstrates that the "prediction algorithm works very well" ? Not the number of hours. That is senseless, obviously.
The collisions avoided thanks to the system would demonstrate that.
So: have you got the statistics "before and after" the introduction of these systems ?
Do you know if these systems have failed anytime ? And why ? (There have been collisions between gliders equipped with Flarm).
Obviously these systems increase the awareness of the surrounding traffic, there is no doubt about that, but from this to saying that it demonstrates that the prediction algorithm is correct the step is huge, and scientifically honestly, impossible.
The technical chats without FACTS are of poor use.
If anybody wants to convince somebody else of something in aviation, and engineering in general, should do it with FACTS, not declarations without basis.
Prediction algorithm ?
Patented method from Onera implemented ? Who proved that it's implemented ? (btw: discussing with Mr. Le Tallec, the inventor of the "prediction method" rumored to be adopted in these systems, he agreed that his method doesn't work well in ridge soaring, where the only method that is sensible is the one based on the approach speed and distance).
A radio protocol copyrighted or patented ? (It is impossible, by law)
Assigned patents ? (Make a check first: you will find only one, valid just for Germany, accepted after it was refused twice - Nothing more).

This way of working has been and still is very far away from what is a sounding procedure in aeronautics.
This doesn't mean spending the money to certify a system (which, btw, with so many units around, could be spent, no ?).
- It means adopting a procedure that is sound and clear, in the design (not starting with an electronic design that is old and, i.e. without the proper radio performance: the declared range of that system was 3 km - written in the official presentation of 2005 - while the T-Advisor was reaching 15 km, with the same transmission chip and power output)
- What is used for safety has to prove its full effectiveness with facts and objective quantitative tests (marketing doesn't save lives)
- What is used for safety has to be verified by an independent party, not hidden (who hides it, is because he fears to be uncovered, usually; patents protect what can be be protected, the rest is fog and chats)
- When a firmware update is mandatory, it must be managed in a way that there isn't a situation of a part of the systems (of the same manufacturer) incompatible with the rest of the same systems, creating a situation of high risk (for example for a change of radio protocol, it can be done with three lines of code like this: if (date < XX); transmit like this; else transmit like that).

The origin of the discussion appears to be a commercial attitude of Flarm. They are perfectly right in doing what they do: they are not a charity foundation and they try to protect what they did in all ways possible.
It is then up to the sector (gliding) and customers to accept this or not.
It is then up to the authorities to make and impose the rules for the well being of the community and the continuous development.
What is sure is that what has happened until now is far from the standard practices adopted in aeronautics (and in many ways, engineering in general): it's not a matter of increasing costs (the excuse so often brought up to scare people), it is about being capable of acting according to principles established during decades of (sometimes tragic) history of aviation.
Forgetting these principles might bring something quick today (as it has happened for this topic), but it will be painful tomorrow, when a correction to the path is required. Better founding it well as soon as possible and keep on along a way that has made aviation safe.

Since you ask...

The first hit from Google for "dsx systems t-advisor" is

http://frank.schellenberg.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/T-Advisor_07_12_19.pdf

This states..

"The Traffic Advisor, notifies the pilot the presence of all planes that
enter within the radio operating range (that for the T-Advisor is up to 7
km)"

I may be dim but I read that as "T-Advisor tells you 'that there are lots
of gliders flying within 7 km' ".

So I'll rephrase that.

It *would* tell me that there are lots of planes flying within 7km of me if
they were fitted with DSX.

The aircraft I'm interested in are the ones that are that are converging
with me. Flarm warns me of these as long as they are also Flarm equipped
Flarm is intended as an aid to lookout, generally I've seen most contacts
by the time Flarm generates a warning, occasionally I get a wake up call.
Flarm reminds me that my lookout is not as good as it could be.
(Of course I have no idea how many I'm missing and Flarm isn't picking up)

I don't see what T-Advisor would give me

A large number of the gliders flying XC in the UK (possibly a majority by
now) are using Flarm. I don't know of ANY using DSX.

So I repeat the question, how many gliders in Europe are using DSX?
Or more specifically how many in the UK are using DSX?

KN



At 23:44 26 May 2015, Lucas wrote:
>Kevin Neave, can you show in which website you read that the T-Advisor
>tells you "that there are lots of gliders flying within 7 km" ?

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 7:44:07 PM UTC-4, Lucas wrote:

> Tango Eight, your statement is lacking of a scientific base: WHAT demonstrates that the "prediction algorithm works very well" ?

*Extensive* end user experience.

This might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

best regards,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Il giorno mercoledì 27 maggio 2015 12:45:08 UTC+2, Kevin Neave ha scritto:
> Since you ask...
>
> The first hit from Google for "dsx systems t-advisor" is
>
> http://frank.schellenberg.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/T-Advisor_07_12_19.pdf
>
> This states..
>
> "The Traffic Advisor, notifies the pilot the presence of all planes that
> enter within the radio operating range (that for the T-Advisor is up to 7
> km)"
>
> I may be dim but I read that as "T-Advisor tells you 'that there are lots
> of gliders flying within 7 km' ".
>
> So I'll rephrase that.
>
> It *would* tell me that there are lots of planes flying within 7km of me if
> they were fitted with DSX.
>
> The aircraft I'm interested in are the ones that are that are converging
> with me. Flarm warns me of these as long as they are also Flarm equipped
> Flarm is intended as an aid to lookout, generally I've seen most contacts
> by the time Flarm generates a warning, occasionally I get a wake up call.
> Flarm reminds me that my lookout is not as good as it could be.
> (Of course I have no idea how many I'm missing and Flarm isn't picking up)
>
> I don't see what T-Advisor would give me
>
> A large number of the gliders flying XC in the UK (possibly a majority by
> now) are using Flarm. I don't know of ANY using DSX.
>
> So I repeat the question, how many gliders in Europe are using DSX?
> Or more specifically how many in the UK are using DSX?
>
> KN
>
>
>
> At 23:44 26 May 2015, Lucas wrote:
> >Kevin Neave, can you show in which website you read that the T-Advisor
> >tells you "that there are lots of gliders flying within 7 km" ?

Kevin,
I honestly do not understand why you are so emotional about this topic. No one is trying to convince you that you should trash your device, nor that's the aim of the petition. But you have to take that some other may prefer a T-Advisor. I personally prefer the T-Advisor because I like better its clock and because I agree with the philosophy behind its warning algorithm. If you ask though "how many gliders in Europe are using a DSX", well, I remind you that was it only one, yet makes you Flarm's policy one of the flarm customers that may die in a mid-air collision with a DSX pilot. You have to agree this is a very unusual way of "customer caring".

Il giorno mercoledì 27 maggio 2015 12:45:08 UTC+2, Kevin Neave ha scritto:
> Since you ask...
>
> The first hit from Google for "dsx systems t-advisor" is
>
> http://frank.schellenberg.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/T-Advisor_07_12_19.pdf
>
> This states..
>
> "The Traffic Advisor, notifies the pilot the presence of all planes that
> enter within the radio operating range (that for the T-Advisor is up to 7
> km)"
>
> I may be dim but I read that as "T-Advisor tells you 'that there are lots
> of gliders flying within 7 km' ".
>
> So I'll rephrase that.
>
> It *would* tell me that there are lots of planes flying within 7km of me if
> they were fitted with DSX.
>
> The aircraft I'm interested in are the ones that are that are converging
> with me. Flarm warns me of these as long as they are also Flarm equipped
> Flarm is intended as an aid to lookout, generally I've seen most contacts
> by the time Flarm generates a warning, occasionally I get a wake up call.
> Flarm reminds me that my lookout is not as good as it could be.
> (Of course I have no idea how many I'm missing and Flarm isn't picking up)
>
> I don't see what T-Advisor would give me
>
> A large number of the gliders flying XC in the UK (possibly a majority by
> now) are using Flarm. I don't know of ANY using DSX.
>
> So I repeat the question, how many gliders in Europe are using DSX?
> Or more specifically how many in the UK are using DSX?
>
> KN
>
>
>
> At 23:44 26 May 2015, Lucas wrote:
> >Kevin Neave, can you show in which website you read that the T-Advisor
> >tells you "that there are lots of gliders flying within 7 km" ?

....besides, are you really sure that all the flarms Flying around you are updated to version 6.01 and therefore that you can see them and been seen?
regards

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 4:44:07 PM UTC-7, Lucas wrote:
> The T-Advisor AND Flarm are NOT anticollision system.
> Anticollision systems are those who tell the pilot what to do (like TCAS), in case of emergency. Neither system does this.
> BOTH systems are NOT anticollision systems.

This is a bit of a hair-splitting argument, but to be clear - there are: 1) Traffic display systems (show traffic within a detection volume, but provide no alerts), 2) Traffic advisory systems (alert to new traffic entering a detection volume - like PCAS), 3) Collision detection systems (calculate and warn of other aircraft on a probable collision path - like FLARM), 4) Anti-collision systems (advise pilots on action to avoid a collision), 5) Automated anti-collision systems (autonomously take action to avoid collisions - I'm not aware of any of these - outside of military terrain-following autopilots).

Usefulness goes up as you move up the hierarchy. IMO FLARM, being higher that other systems is more useful.

>
> Cleared this, those who talk about the "predictive algorithm", can please explain:
>
> 1) how it works, since they must know how it works, to be in the position of saying that it works or it doesn't
>
> 2) how they know that such an algorithm has been implemented into a Flarm system: what proof do they have of this ?

Really? That's a serious question? Well, it warns me of converging traffic and when I look, there is in fact converging traffic in the direction indicated. There is no traffic converging on me for which I get no warning and warnings for traffic that is not a series factor is almost nonexistent.

>
> 3) if they have ever seen the trace of at least 10 glider flights in different conditions (competition, cross country, around-the-airfield, ridge soaring,....); whoever has seen some, not many, traces of flights, without the need to be a glider pilot, can understand that a prediction of the position of a glider in a future time beyond a fistful of seconds is impossible, exactly IMPOSSIBLE, since not even its pilot knows it, apart from some cases, like straight flying and constant turn rate thermaling. A glider pilot knows that he will be changing the trajectory of the glider to search for the best netto value, which depends on the micro air movements, which are unknown to the pilot in terms of exact location. Is there a machine capable of predicting these locations ? And even if there was, is there a machine capable of predicting what a glider pilot will do in the next 30-60-80 seconds ? Because this is what the rumored (never verified) "prediction algorithm" does. This is spectacular indeed !

Impossible? As a control-systems engineer I can tell you for a fact that a 1 second sample rate is perfectly adequate for this purpose and you only need 2-3 good data points for each aircraft to make a decent prediction. Even with dropped packets this is a reasonable task. Glider flight dynamics are not so abrupt as to make this an impossible task and pilots are not generally making so many aggressive control inputs as to flail the system. FLARM uses a probabilistic approach base on total energy to err on the side of possible control inputs that handles most situations well.

>
> 4) even if they found a system to predict the position of the glider with a certain probability, would they trust as optimal a system that has (obviously) a probability to fail the prediction and miss a danger of collision ? Even if the probability was low (all but sure, since never demonstrated with objective tests and calculated data), 2, 3, 10 collisions (and deads) out of XX'XXX flights are too much. In aeronautics, this approach is wrong: this is not the way we work in professional aeronautics, that has taken us where we are in aviation

We don't need optimal, we need better than human perception and FLARM does that very well indeed.


9B

What Flarm calls "prediction" I think that most likely is a simple
projection. It is quite likely calculated worst than how we calculate the
best point to turn in thermal.
I am referring to the "Beep" in Zanders, or in some flight computers .
If you want to see how a "prediction" is working, look at the thermal
Orbiter I have programmed
https://github.com/LK8000/LK8000/blob/master/Common/Source/Calc/Orbiter.cpp
which is quite similar to what Zander and SeeYou Mobile (and possibly other
software, I don't really know) do.
This is a prediction based on turning angle, estimated banking etc. and I
mention it here for a reason:
there is floating point math involved in such kind of predictions.
We use 400mhz or best ARM cpu on PNA-PDAs.
Flarm is tuned to "predict" on a 8mhz CPU by Atmel, a reduced instruction
set microcontroller that has no math coprocessor and cannot do floating
point calculations natively.

A prediction seems like something magic, and I doubt this is the case.
Each device (flarm, dsx) transmits its own position "predicted" with a
simple projection for the next second .
If your own device matches its own "predicted" position with the one
received from another one, it beeps.
That's how it works.
A projection cannot predict when you level and go straight, nevertheless as
you say it works .
It can not work "very well", as you say. But it is better than nothing.

The assumption is that the glider in thermal with you, or arriving in front
of you, has a device with the same protocol.
In the alps this is no more granted. This is what this thread is about.

greets
paolo




"Tango Eight" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 7:44:07 PM UTC-4, Lucas wrote:

> Tango Eight, your statement is lacking of a scientific base: WHAT
> demonstrates that the "prediction algorithm works very well" ?

*Extensive* end user experience.

This might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

best regards,
Evan Ludeman / T8

On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 7:46:25 PM UTC-7, pcool wrote:

> The assumption is that the glider in thermal with you, or arriving in front
> of you, has a device with the same protocol.
> In the alps this is no more granted. This is what this thread is about.

Wow, why would people buy an incompatible device when there are multiple manufacturers of compatible devices in the market?

On Thursday, 28 May 2015 07:05:42 UTC+2, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Wow, why would people buy an incompatible device when there are multiple manufacturers of compatible devices in the market?

What would happen if the relationship soured between FLARM and the manufacturer of your chosen FLARM device?
Flarm could easily issue another upgrade to the protocol and you are left with a $1000+ system which is now totally worthless and useless.

Who is incompatible with who? You have the freedom to choose a device
manufacturer.
The TAdvisor, and probably the OGN devices soon, are not worst than flarm to
do this job.
Anyway, as a wise guy ("Buddy Bob") here stated, shortly we may have OGN
devices acting as collision avoidance systems.
At that point Flarm will change its protocol and adopt the open one.

I fully agree with Bob, it is pointless to ask Flarm to open the protocol.
What we need is several other manufacturers selling their own devices, based
on the OGN open software for example. I have not signed the petition for
th