FLARM ethics

[pcool]

On jan 28th Flarm has announced that all of their devices need an update.
(see www.flarm.com)
This update has to be downloaded and installed before the end of march.
This update will be available "by early march", leaving max 3 weekends for
install at the airfield.
This update was "announced in 2011" and "is part of the flarm maintenance
concept".

What kind of "maintenance concept" is this?
They should announce on jan 28 a mandatory update due by JUNE 30th, not
MARCH 31!
And give people time enough time to update (at least 3 MONTHS BEFORE), not a
few days before.
We are talking about a collision avoidance system which is installed aboard:
airplanes, gliders, helicopters, and also paragliders.

Where is the firmware to update? Why if it is not available we must download
it "sometime in march" and run to the airfield to update all aircrafts?
Why FLARM cannot SCHEDULE after 4 YEARS a delivery date for the firmware,
and leave people at least 6 MONTHS for example to update it?

I have never seen in my life a company delivering a software with a time
bomb inside, announcing it like this. And this software is a collision
avoidance system.
They keep changing the "press release", so I copy and attach it to let you
understand what we are talking about.

... and the best part is the Tracking Server which is most probably the real
reason beyond all of this. But you have to figure it out yourself to
undestand why.



As of Feb 22: Press release on www.flarm.com

Scheduled and mandatory firmware update to all FLARM and PowerFLARM devices;
New TrackingServer

Baar, Switzerland – January 28, 2015 – FLARM Technology today announced that
a scheduled and mandatory firmware update is soon to be released for all
FLARM devices. The update is required for all FLARM-compatible designs. It
includes classic FLARM, PowerFLARM and FLARM manufactured by LXNAV, LX
Navigation, Garrecht/AIR Avionics, Triadis, Ediatec, Flytec/Bräuniger,
OzFlarm and others.

The update will be released by early March 2015 on www.flarm.com at no cost.
It includes safety features that increase the effectiveness and robustness
of collision warnings, further decreasing nuisance alarms, for example by
taking into account wind. It also includes new features to alert about
temporary danger areas such as skydiver drop zones, RC plane- and UAV zones.
Position and message encoding with newly introduced optional no-tracking
setting will address privacy for ground-based tracking solutions while
improving performance and system integrity. Some regions will see a change
in operating frequency, to improve range. The new obstacle database now
handles additional obstacle areas and types. Old obstacle database versions
are obsolete and will no longer work. Obstacle database and functionality
extension licenses can be purchased from shop.flarm.com.

This scheduled update has been announced with the last major firmware update
in 2011, and is part of the FLARM system maintenance concept since FLARM was
introduced to the market in 2004.

If the free FLARM update is not applied, the device will no longer be
operational and stop to operate after March 31, 2015.

Every FLARM device must be updated to the latest firmware and obstacle
database version at least once per year, which should be part of the regular
aircraft maintenance program. Failure to do so may render the device fully
or partially inoperable.

FLARM TrackingServer
In spring 2015, FLARM Technology will introduce a scalable TrackingServer
service, connecting FLARM ground stations and 3rd party receivers. This will
enable tracking of participating aircraft, for example during competitions
and by permitting flying clubs to track their own aircraft. It will fully
support the new no-tracking setting and existing FLARM “Stealth Mode� for
full global privacy. Search & Rescue operations (SAR) will have fast and
comprehensive access to the data. TrackingServer is designed to combine
various sources of tracking data such as FLARM radio packages (raw and
dataport), smart phone tracking, SPOT, FlarmNet and other sources, with its
core data and service accessible for everybody at no cost. FLARM ground
stations and airborne systems will eventually rebroadcast data received from
other sources to ensure maximal coverage regardless of the technology used,
using FLARM’s innovative, patented mesh-technology. FLARM Technology
welcomes other data sources and service enablers to collaborate with
TrackingServer.

[[email protected]]

Chill. All this means is that if you want Flarm capability after March 31 and haven't updated, you should do so on your next trip to the airfield, whether it's April or June. You'll not get to the airfield after 3/31 and find that your entire panel has melted down...

Marc

On Saturday, February 21, 2015 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-8, pcool wrote:
> On jan 28th Flarm has announced that all of their devices need an update.
> (see www.flarm.com)
> This update has to be downloaded and installed before the end of march.
> This update will be available "by early march", leaving max 3 weekends for
> install at the airfield.
> This update was "announced in 2011" and "is part of the flarm maintenance
> concept".
>
> What kind of "maintenance concept" is this?
> They should announce on jan 28 a mandatory update due by JUNE 30th, not
> MARCH 31!
> And give people time enough time to update (at least 3 MONTHS BEFORE), not a
> few days before.
> We are talking about a collision avoidance system which is installed aboard:
> airplanes, gliders, helicopters, and also paragliders.
>
> Where is the firmware to update? Why if it is not available we must download
> it "sometime in march" and run to the airfield to update all aircrafts?
> Why FLARM cannot SCHEDULE after 4 YEARS a delivery date for the firmware,
> and leave people at least 6 MONTHS for example to update it?
>
> I have never seen in my life a company delivering a software with a time
> bomb inside, announcing it like this. And this software is a collision
> avoidance system.
> They keep changing the "press release", so I copy and attach it to let you
> understand what we are talking about.
>
> .. and the best part is the Tracking Server which is most probably the real
> reason beyond all of this. But you have to figure it out yourself to
> undestand why.
>
>
>
> As of Feb 22: Press release on www.flarm.com
>
> Scheduled and mandatory firmware update to all FLARM and PowerFLARM devices;
> New TrackingServer
>
> Baar, Switzerland - January 28, 2015 - FLARM Technology today announced that
> a scheduled and mandatory firmware update is soon to be released for all
> FLARM devices. The update is required for all FLARM-compatible designs. It
> includes classic FLARM, PowerFLARM and FLARM manufactured by LXNAV, LX
> Navigation, Garrecht/AIR Avionics, Triadis, Ediatec, Flytec/Bräuniger,
> OzFlarm and others.
>
> The update will be released by early March 2015 on www.flarm.com at no cost.
> It includes safety features that increase the effectiveness and robustness
> of collision warnings, further decreasing nuisance alarms, for example by
> taking into account wind. It also includes new features to alert about
> temporary danger areas such as skydiver drop zones, RC plane- and UAV zones.
> Position and message encoding with newly introduced optional no-tracking
> setting will address privacy for ground-based tracking solutions while
> improving performance and system integrity. Some regions will see a change
> in operating frequency, to improve range. The new obstacle database now
> handles additional obstacle areas and types. Old obstacle database versions
> are obsolete and will no longer work. Obstacle database and functionality
> extension licenses can be purchased from shop.flarm.com.
>
> This scheduled update has been announced with the last major firmware update
> in 2011, and is part of the FLARM system maintenance concept since FLARM was
> introduced to the market in 2004.
>
> If the free FLARM update is not applied, the device will no longer be
> operational and stop to operate after March 31, 2015.
>
> Every FLARM device must be updated to the latest firmware and obstacle
> database version at least once per year, which should be part of the regular
> aircraft maintenance program. Failure to do so may render the device fully
> or partially inoperable.
>
> FLARM TrackingServer
> In spring 2015, FLARM Technology will introduce a scalable TrackingServer
> service, connecting FLARM ground stations and 3rd party receivers. This will
> enable tracking of participating aircraft, for example during competitions
> and by permitting flying clubs to track their own aircraft. It will fully
> support the new no-tracking setting and existing FLARM "Stealth Mode" for
> full global privacy. Search & Rescue operations (SAR) will have fast and
> comprehensive access to the data. TrackingServer is designed to combine
> various sources of tracking data such as FLARM radio packages (raw and
> dataport), smart phone tracking, SPOT, FlarmNet and other sources, with its
> core data and service accessible for everybody at no cost. FLARM ground
> stations and airborne systems will eventually rebroadcast data received from
> other sources to ensure maximal coverage regardless of the technology used,
> using FLARM's innovative, patented mesh-technology. FLARM Technology
> welcomes other data sources and service enablers to collaborate with
> TrackingServer.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Any device used for collision avoidance will have some of its critical capabilities dependent on both aircraft in a potential collision situation having the same algorithms on board or chaos (or worse) might ensue. Making the update mandatory and taking non-updated units out of service is the only way to ensure safe and reliable performance of the entire system.

You might quibble a bit about the lead time, but updating the firmware is really not very complicated. I tried a different firmware version (or different config file) practically every day at the 15m nationals last year as I was trying to work out a PCAS problem and a interface issue with my LX 9000.. All you need is the firmware and a memory stick.

It's not that hard.

It will all work out in the end.

Remain calm.

9B

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

Assuming you're in North America and the flarm is a PowerFLARM, they have given prior notice. The PowerFLARM CORE manual version 3.40, June 16, 2014, page 23 says:

"Mandatory firmware update
In order to allow global changes of the FLARM system, every FLARM/PowerFLARM software has a fixed expiry date. Firmware update before the expiry date is mandatory for continued operation. The next such date is March 31, 2015. All FLARM/PowerFLARM devices will start warning about imminent expiry 60 days prior to the expiry date."

In the table of contents, it says "Mandatory firmware update........23".

I'm sure the Portable manual has a similar warning.

The flarm.com webpage has this:

"The ability to update the whole network without being limited by constraints of the past is one of the key features of FLARM and has allowed it to adapt to rapidly expanding requirements. Many parts of aircraft require scheduled maintenance; this is not a concept which is new to aviation."

It should be pointed out as well that this is not the first mandatory update - I did a search on ras and found in Feb 22, 2011 from the FLARM team:

"When is the next scheduled service update due? Since its creation
FLARM has maintained scheduled updates, initially in a one year cycle,
in 2006 a two year cycle, and last time in 2008 a three year cycle. As
the technology matures, we further extend this period to now four
years, i.e. version 5 expires on March 1, 2015. This is more
convenient for some users, but slows down the innovation cycle,
possibly delaying the use in new applications."

I look forward to the next update... but I wish there were an opportunity to test it a bit before the Pan American Gliding Championship starting a day or two later.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 12:36:15 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Any device used for collision avoidance will have some of its critical capabilities dependent on both aircraft in a potential collision situation having the same algorithms on board or chaos (or worse) might ensue. Making the update mandatory and taking non-updated units out of service is the only way to ensure safe and reliable performance of the entire system.
>
> You might quibble a bit about the lead time, but updating the firmware is really not very complicated. I tried a different firmware version (or different config file) practically every day at the 15m nationals last year as I was trying to work out a PCAS problem and a interface issue with my LX 9000. All you need is the firmware and a memory stick.
>
> It's not that hard.
>
> It will all work out in the end.
>
> Remain calm.
>
> 9B

It is NOT impossible to design system upgrades so that they are backward compatible 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 the complexity of having multiple different device versions that need to talk to each other. These kind of shortcuts make one question whether FLARM really has the potential to be a VERY niche product for a small subset of the aviation market.

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

[John Galloway[_1_]]

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.
>

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 2:24:44 PM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:

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

OK, this is getting old.

ONCE AGAIN: Since every aircraft that has ADS-B out (1090ES or UAT) also HAS to have a legacy mode C or mode S transponder, PowerFLARM TODAY can see EVERY ADS-B equipped aircraft, plus gliders/towplanes with PF.

And if you can't avoid an aircraft that shows up as approximate range and an exact altitude relative to you, then how the heck have you survived until now in the VFR see-and-avoid environment?

Get your damn facts straight. We all know you (for some odd reason) hate PF.. But spreading false information about a valuable safety device is borderline criminal.

Now, if you can tell me what combination of hardware - TODAY - can be installed in my glider and provide the SAME level of situational awareness and traffic alerts as my PF can, and at a competitive price, then please do.

Kirk
66

[R. Suppards]

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.
>>
>
>

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 12:24:44 PM UTC-8, Mike Schumann wrote:
> It is NOT impossible to design system upgrades so that they are backward compatible 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 the complexity of having multiple different device versions that need to talk to each other. These kind of shortcuts make one question whether FLARM really has the potential to be a VERY niche product for a small subset of the aviation market.
>
> Couple that with POWERFLARM's inability to see UAT equipped ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft, either directly or via TIS-B retransmission from an ADS-B ground station, raises some big questions on whether or not they have really thought thru the whole collision avoidance picture in the US, where the threat is not just other gliders, but also GA and airline traffic.

Please - anyone with a little knowledge of systems or control theory can tell you that maintaining full backward compatibility, while possible, is a boat anchor in terms of system performance. The Flarm folks made a prudent tradeoff to maintain overall system integrity and performance while enabling periodic improvements in algorithms that depend critically on timing. I, for one, am glad they made that choice.

This UAT ADS-R and TIS-B argument is growing increasingly tiresome. There's virtually no UAT-Out traffic out there when compared to Flarm and 1090ES-Out and certainly not when compared to what shows up on PowerFLARM's PCAS.

The numbers of aircraft equipped with different types of equipment, what equipment can see aircraft equipped with what other equipment and the scenarios where variously equipped aircraft come into proximity with each other has been analyzed in detail and the unavoidable conclusion is that the LAST piece of gear glider pilots should consider is ADS-B UAT Out - after PowerFLARM, after a transponder (preferably Mode S) and, maybe 5-10 years from now, after upgrading to 1090ES Out. It remains to be seen whether significant numbers of aircraft are going to equip with UAT Out in the GA community since 1090ES Out is the single standard for Europe and for anything that flies in Class A in the US. It may just steamroll UAT Out.

I agree with Kirk - misrepresentation of facts about systems that are important to safety is irresponsible. These arguments have been discredited on the facts and rejected overwhelmingly by the soaring community, the marketplace and the leadership of the SSA.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 2:24:44 PM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 12:36:15 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Any device used for collision avoidance will have some of its critical capabilities dependent on both aircraft in a potential collision situation having the same algorithms on board or chaos (or worse) might ensue. Making the update mandatory and taking non-updated units out of service is the only way to ensure safe and reliable performance of the entire system.
> >
> > You might quibble a bit about the lead time, but updating the firmware is really not very complicated. I tried a different firmware version (or different config file) practically every day at the 15m nationals last year as I was trying to work out a PCAS problem and a interface issue with my LX 9000. All you need is the firmware and a memory stick.
> >
> > It's not that hard.
> >
> > It will all work out in the end.
> >
> > Remain calm.
> >
> > 9B
>
> It is NOT impossible to design system upgrades so that they are backward compatible 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 the complexity of having multiple different device versions that need to talk to each other. These kind of shortcuts make one question whether FLARM really has the potential to be a VERY niche product for a small subset of the aviation market.
>
> Couple that with POWERFLARM's inability to see UAT equipped ADS-B OUT equipped aircraft, either directly or via TIS-B retransmission from an ADS-B ground station, raises some big questions on whether or not they have really thought thru the whole collision avoidance picture in the US, where the threat is not just other gliders, but also GA and airline traffic.

I wish the Messr. Schumann and Suppards would just join hands and walk away, far away from this forum. Maybe they can entertain each other with their nonsense.

[Bob Pasker]

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...

[pcool]

I am afraid I posted to the wrong audience, because you dont even know that
most of flarm units in europe do not have the capability to be reprogrammed
with a memory card.
You have to use a PC with a rs232 serial cable, to connect to the RJ45 plug
of the Flarm unit.
Most people do not even know what the heck this means.
I fear these people that may fly around for weeks, or months, with a
non-working flarm.
The collision avoidance works on the principle of cooperation, as with Flarm
here.
If you dont have a working unit, my working unit will not work too.
If I crash against a glider and the pilot says "my flarm did not say
anything.." and we discover it was not updated, you bet your home, wife and
kids that I shall sue the swiss company all the way. What they are doing is
criminal.

There are only two reasons why we dont have the firmware now, with a
blackout pending in 45 days.
A) Firmware is not yet ready and debugged. If this is the case, since we are
talking of SAFETY, the best thing to do is to postpone by some months the
entire matter.
B) Firmware is ready, but flarm is dealing with its Tracking server and
currently it is negotiating with the people of OGN and their network of
receive stations round the world that will be soon obscured at the end of
march. Yes, this is the missing point. Nothing to do with safety.

But let's calm down please, no reason to argue..


wrote in message
...

On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 2:24:44 PM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 12:36:15 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Any device used for collision avoidance will have some of its critical
> > capabilities dependent on both aircraft in a potential collision
> > situation having the same algorithms on board or chaos (or worse) might
> > ensue. Making the update mandatory and taking non-updated units out of
> > service is the only way to ensure safe and reliable performance of the
> > entire system.
> >
> > You might quibble a bit about the lead time, but updating the firmware
> > is really not very complicated. I tried a different firmware version (or
> > different config file) practically every day at the 15m nationals last
> > year as I was trying to work out a PCAS problem and a interface issue
> > with my LX 9000. All you need is the firmware and a memory stick.
> >
> > It's not that hard.
> >
> > It will all work out in the end.
> >
> > Remain calm.
> >
> > 9B
>
> It is NOT impossible to design system upgrades so that they are backward
> compatible 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 the complexity of having multiple different device versions that need
> to talk to each other. These kind of shortcuts make one question whether
> FLARM really has the potential to be a VERY niche product for a small
> subset of the aviation market.
>
> Couple that with POWERFLARM's inability to see UAT equipped ADS-B OUT
> equipped aircraft, either directly or via TIS-B retransmission from an
> ADS-B ground station, raises some big questions on whether or not they
> have really thought thru the whole collision avoidance picture in the US,
> where the threat is not just other gliders, but also GA and airline
> traffic.

I wish the Messr. Schumann and Suppards would just join hands and walk away,
far away from this forum. Maybe they can entertain each other with their
nonsense.

[John Galloway[_1_]]

"most of flarm units in europe do not have the capability to be
reprogrammed with a memory card"

"Most" - really?? Do you have numbers to back that up?

and:

"Most people do not even know what the heck this means.
I fear these people that may fly around for weeks, or months, with a
non-working flarm."

What nonsense. At e.g. a typical UK club like mine there are always
people with the know how who are happy to help the few who need
some assistance with a Flarm upgrade.

John Galloway


At 17:53 23 February 2015, pcool wrote:
>I am afraid I posted to the wrong audience, because you dont even
know that
>
>most of flarm units in europe do not have the capability to be
reprogrammed
>
>with a memory card.
>You have to use a PC with a rs232 serial cable, to connect to the
RJ45 plug
>
>of the Flarm unit.
>Most people do not even know what the heck this means.
>I fear these people that may fly around for weeks, or months, with
a
>non-working flarm.
>The collision avoidance works on the principle of cooperation, as
with
>Flarm
>here.
>If you dont have a working unit, my working unit will not work too.
>If I crash against a glider and the pilot says "my flarm did not say
>anything.." and we discover it was not updated, you bet your
home, wife and
>
>kids that I shall sue the swiss company all the way. What they are
doing is
>
>criminal.
>
>There are only two reasons why we dont have the firmware now,
with a
>blackout pending in 45 days.
>A) Firmware is not yet ready and debugged. If this is the case,
since we
>are
>talking of SAFETY, the best thing to do is to postpone by some
months the
>entire matter.
>B) Firmware is ready, but flarm is dealing with its Tracking server
and
>currently it is negotiating with the people of OGN and their network
of
>receive stations round the world that will be soon obscured at the
end of
>march. Yes, this is the missing point. Nothing to do with safety.
>
>But let's calm down please, no reason to argue..
>
>
>wrote in message
>news:ec848c20-2b1e-4fe8-9456-
...
>
>On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 2:24:44 PM UTC-6, Mike
Schumann wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 12:36:15 PM UTC-5, Andy
Blackburn wrote:
>> > Any device used for collision avoidance will have some of its
critical
>> > capabilities dependent on both aircraft in a potential collision
>> > situation having the same algorithms on board or chaos (or
worse) might
>
>> > ensue. Making the update mandatory and taking non-updated
units out of
>> > service is the only way to ensure safe and reliable
performance of the
>> > entire system.
>> >
>> > You might quibble a bit about the lead time, but updating the
firmware
>> > is really not very complicated. I tried a different firmware
version
>(or
>> > different config file) practically every day at the 15m nationals
last
>> > year as I was trying to work out a PCAS problem and a
interface issue
>> > with my LX 9000. All you need is the firmware and a memory
stick.
>> >
>> > It's not that hard.
>> >
>> > It will all work out in the end.
>> >
>> > Remain calm.
>> >
>> > 9B
>>
>> It is NOT impossible to design system upgrades so that they are
backward
>> compatible 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 the complexity of having multiple different device versions
that
>need
>> to talk to each other. These kind of shortcuts make one
question whether
>
>> FLARM really has the potential to be a VERY niche product for a
small
>> subset of the aviation market.
>>
>> Couple that with POWERFLARM's inability to see UAT equipped
ADS-B OUT
>> equipped aircraft, either directly or via TIS-B retransmission
from an
>> ADS-B ground station, raises some big questions on whether or
not they
>> have really thought thru the whole collision avoidance picture in
the US,
>
>> where the threat is not just other gliders, but also GA and airline
>> traffic.
>
>I wish the Messr. Schumann and Suppards would just join hands
and walk
>away,
>far away from this forum. Maybe they can entertain each other
with their
>nonsense.
>
>

[Tango Whisky]

Le lundi 23 février 2015 18:53:17 UTC+1, pcool a écrit*:
> I am afraid I posted to the wrong audience, because you dont even know that

>
> I wish the Messr. Schumann and Suppards would just join hands and walk away,
> far away from this forum. Maybe they can entertain each other with their
> nonsense.

What a nonsense.

I fly with a Flarm from 2005 with no SD card facility, and it's easy enough:
After the deadline, the next occasion you see your glider, you do the update. Be it 3 days, 3 months or a year after the deadline.

Done.

If you have such a device installed, you know about the scheme. If you don't know to handle it, don't buy such a device, or stay away from gliding.

This concept has been working flawlessly for the last 11+ years. People like you are one reason why FLarm didn't want to sell their original device in the US.

[Colin Wray[_3_]]

On Monday, 23 February 2015 17:53:17 UTC, pcool wrote:
> I am afraid I posted to the wrong audience, because you dont even know that
> most of flarm units in europe do not have the capability to be reprogrammed
> with a memory card.
> You have to use a PC with a rs232 serial cable, to connect to the RJ45 plug
> of the Flarm unit.
> Most people do not even know what the heck this means.
> I fear these people that may fly around for weeks, or months, with a
> non-working flarm.
> The collision avoidance works on the principle of cooperation, as with Flarm
> here.
> If you dont have a working unit, my working unit will not work too.
> If I crash against a glider and the pilot says "my flarm did not say
> anything.." and we discover it was not updated, you bet your home, wife and
> kids that I shall sue the swiss company all the way. What they are doing is
> criminal.
>
> There are only two reasons why we dont have the firmware now, with a
> blackout pending in 45 days.
> A) Firmware is not yet ready and debugged. If this is the case, since we are
> talking of SAFETY, the best thing to do is to postpone by some months the
> entire matter.
> B) Firmware is ready, but flarm is dealing with its Tracking server and
> currently it is negotiating with the people of OGN and their network of
> receive stations round the world that will be soon obscured at the end of
> march. Yes, this is the missing point. Nothing to do with safety.
>
> But let's calm down please, no reason to argue..
>
>
> wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 2:24:44 PM UTC-6, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 12:36:15 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > Any device used for collision avoidance will have some of its critical
> > > capabilities dependent on both aircraft in a potential collision
> > > situation having the same algorithms on board or chaos (or worse) might
> > > ensue. Making the update mandatory and taking non-updated units out of
> > > service is the only way to ensure safe and reliable performance of the
> > > entire system.
> > >
> > > You might quibble a bit about the lead time, but updating the firmware
> > > is really not very complicated. I tried a different firmware version (or
> > > different config file) practically every day at the 15m nationals last
> > > year as I was trying to work out a PCAS problem and a interface issue
> > > with my LX 9000. All you need is the firmware and a memory stick.
> > >
> > > It's not that hard.
> > >
> > > It will all work out in the end.
> > >
> > > Remain calm.
> > >
> > > 9B
> >
> > It is NOT impossible to design system upgrades so that they are backward
> > compatible 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 the complexity of having multiple different device versions that need
> > to talk to each other. These kind of shortcuts make one question whether
> > FLARM really has the potential to be a VERY niche product for a small
> > subset of the aviation market.
> >
> > Couple that with POWERFLARM's inability to see UAT equipped ADS-B OUT
> > equipped aircraft, either directly or via TIS-B retransmission from an
> > ADS-B ground station, raises some big questions on whether or not they
> > have really thought thru the whole collision avoidance picture in the US,
> > where the threat is not just other gliders, but also GA and airline
> > traffic.
>
> I wish the Messr. Schumann and Suppards would just join hands and walk away,
> far away from this forum. Maybe they can entertain each other with their
> nonsense.

Anyone with a non-updated Flarm will be well aware that it is not working because there will be (unit-dependent) positive indications of the problem.

[Dan Marotta]

<snip> People like you are one reason why FLarm didn't want to sell
their original device in the US.</snip>
Oh come on, now. I think you'll find that the original poster is from
Italy, not the US and the original Flarm didn't meet US Federal
Communications Commission requirements (not that I agree much with our
bloated government).
--
Dan Marotta

[Ramy[_2_]]

I think the real concern here is that during the month of March, updated flarms will apparently (according to another thread) not able to communicate with those which were not updated yet. This is surprising and concerning, at least I would expect this upgrade announcement will come with a clear warning, and also explains why the window for update is so short. It would be better if it was reduced to just one week...

Ramy

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 9:50:36 AM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
> I think the real concern here is that during the month of March, updated flarms will apparently (according to another thread) not able to communicate with those which were not updated yet. This is surprising and concerning, at least I would expect this upgrade announcement will come with a clear warning, and also explains why the window for update is so short. It would be better if it was reduced to just one week...
>
> Ramy

Yes, one reason to have a short transition is to reduce the incompatibility period, though one would think a better approach would be to have the new firmware retain the old protocols as well as the new ones and switch over on the expiration date automatically.

Andy, 9B

[pcool]

"Colin Wray" wrote in message
...
Anyone with a non-updated Flarm will be well aware that it is not working
because there will be (unit-dependent) positive indications of the problem.

Precisely! And those with updated Flarm will not know that the other are not
working.
Here's the song about the brave pilot with its updated and working Flarm,
that cannot "see" the others.

Where have all the gliders gone,
long time passing?
Where have all the gliders gone,
long time ago?
Where have all the Flarms gone?!?
Need to update, every one!
When will they ever learn,
when will they ever learn?

(Pete Seeger)

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 01:18 25 February 2015, pcool wrote:
>
>
>"Colin Wray" wrote in message
>news:f0b74e24-324a-434a-8f0d-
...
>Anyone with a non-updated Flarm will be well aware that it is not
working
>because there will be (unit-dependent) positive indications of the
problem.
>
>Precisely! And those with updated Flarm will not know that the
other are
>not
>working.
>Here's the song about the brave pilot with its updated and working
Flarm,
>that cannot "see" the others.
>
>Where have all the gliders gone,
>long time passing?
>Where have all the gliders gone,
>long time ago?
>Where have all the Flarms gone?!?
>Need to update, every one!
>When will they ever learn,
>when will they ever learn?
>
>(Pete Seeger)
>
>
>
You can still look out the window from time to time

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 02/25/2015 10:31 AM, John Galloway wrote:
> You can still look out the window from time to time
Exactly, FLARM is an aide if you NEED it you're doing it wrong...

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 10:05:58 AM UTC-6, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> On 02/25/2015 10:31 AM, John Galloway wrote:
> > You can still look out the window from time to time
> Exactly, FLARM is an aide if you NEED it you're doing it wrong...

Well, no, not always - more likely you NEED it if SOMEONE ELSE is doing it wrong!

For example, someone entering you thermal where you can't see him, and not clearing his flight path so he hits you - you can do everything right and still be blindsided.

Or, in the case of PowerFLARM, a powerplane blasting through your thermal or glider field airspace at pattern altitude. Sure are a lot of nice pretty screens to look at in modern planes, why look outside? And if there isn't 10,000ft of concrete and a control zone around it, there couldn't be an active airfield in that big grass field, after all....

Kirk
66

[waremark]

On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 18:18:49 UTC, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 9:50:36 AM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
> > I think the real concern here is that during the month of March, updated flarms will apparently (according to another thread) not able to communicate with those which were not updated yet. This is surprising and concerning, at least I would expect this upgrade announcement will come with a clear warning, and also explains why the window for update is so short. It would be better if it was reduced to just one week...
> >
> > Ramy
>
> Yes, one reason to have a short transition is to reduce the incompatibility period, though one would think a better approach would be to have the new firmware retain the old protocols as well as the new ones and switch over on the expiration date automatically.
>
> Andy, 9B

I suspect that some of the Flarm hardware is too limited to run two different protocols. Most people will probably install the new firmware before the first time they fly after it is released - and that is what should happen. Please pass on this message to any Flarm users you know. Certainly at an active gliding club like mine anyone who needs help to update will find more computer literate friends both equipped and willing to help.

PS We have to trust that the new firmware will work correctly on all Flarm compatible hardware! And keep looking out both before and after confirming that it does.

Mark Burton, London Gliding Club, UK

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 4:47:27 PM UTC-8, waremark wrote:
>
> I suspect that some of the Flarm hardware is too limited to run two different protocols.

I confess I was thinking about the US where there is only PowerFLARM. Backward compatibility all the way to the original hardware creates some additional constraints in all likelihood.

9B