PowerFlarm Update?

[Mike the Strike]

What do the Swiss regard as "early March"?

Mike

[[email protected]]

Now THAT is a really, really, really dumb question that cannot have any kind of objective answer.

[Richard[_9_]]

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:46:48 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Now THAT is a really, really, really dumb question that cannot have any kind of objective answer.

There are only dumb answers.

[Mike the Strike]

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:46:48 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Now THAT is a really, really, really dumb question that cannot have any kind of objective answer.

As a physicist, let me do this for you. I'll divide March into three segments, "early" - March 1-10, "mid" - March 11 to 21 and "late" - March 22 to 31.

If you were British, you would spot the tone of my e-mail instantly! Someone has missed their deadline.

Mike

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 4:06:20 PM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:46:48 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Now THAT is a really, really, really dumb question that cannot have any kind of objective answer.
>
> As a physicist, let me do this for you. I'll divide March into three segments, "early" - March 1-10, "mid" - March 11 to 21 and "late" - March 22 to 31.
>
> If you were British, you would spot the tone of my e-mail instantly! Someone has missed their deadline.
>
> Mike

Ummmm.... as a "field service guy" (that used to deal with sales guys)..... there are still a few hours left in "March 10th".... even for Europe.....
;-)

LOL......

[[email protected]]

All I know is that stops working on April 1st.

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> What do the Swiss regard as "early March"?
>
> Mike

Maybe they should have said "the Ides of March".

[Brad[_2_]]

sure glad I paid for my flarm unit in full

Brad

[JS]

Someone needs to play violin.
Jim

[George Haeh]

My take is that they are sorting out some unanticipated issues -- a
neverending story in software development.

Should we take bets that there will be an emergency release to push back
the expiry date?

Tick, tick, tick, tick....

[Peter Scholz[_3_]]

Am 11.03.2015 um 22:11 schrieb George Haeh:
> My take is that they are sorting out some unanticipated issues -- a
> neverending story in software development.
>
> Should we take bets that there will be an emergency release to push back
> the expiry date?
>
> Tick, tick, tick, tick....
>
According to their facepook page the update is due for the coming weekend.

In Europe we have been through this procedure already a few times, so I
am not worried, but from experience I expect that there will be a few
more updates before everything runs stable.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:19:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Scholz wrote:
> Am 11.03.2015 um 22:11 schrieb George Haeh:
> > My take is that they are sorting out some unanticipated issues -- a
> > neverending story in software development.
> >
> > Should we take bets that there will be an emergency release to push back
> > the expiry date?
> >
> > Tick, tick, tick, tick....
> >
> According to their facepook page the update is due for the coming weekend.
>
> In Europe we have been through this procedure already a few times, so I
> am not worried, but from experience I expect that there will be a few
> more updates before everything runs stable.
>
> --
> Peter Scholz
> ASW24 JE

Peter,
Thanks for trying but... that doesn't help my anxiety attacks and worrying, the waking up at night, the sweating. On March 31 my trusty PFLarm will go POOF releasing the white smoke (it's eternal Soul) and move on some other place in the Universe.
This is all so sad.

Herb

[John Carlyle]

Don't worry, Herb - I'm sure they'll sort it out at Perry for us... <grin>

-John, Q3

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 10:02:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:19:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Scholz wrote:
> > Am 11.03.2015 um 22:11 schrieb George Haeh:
> > > My take is that they are sorting out some unanticipated issues -- a
> > > neverending story in software development.
> > >
> > > Should we take bets that there will be an emergency release to push back
> > > the expiry date?
> > >
> > > Tick, tick, tick, tick....
> > >
> > According to their facepook page the update is due for the coming weekend.
> >
> > In Europe we have been through this procedure already a few times, so I
> > am not worried, but from experience I expect that there will be a few
> > more updates before everything runs stable.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Scholz
> > ASW24 JE
>
> Peter,
> Thanks for trying but... that doesn't help my anxiety attacks and worrying, the waking up at night, the sweating. On March 31 my trusty PFLarm will go POOF releasing the white smoke (it's eternal Soul) and move on some other place in the Universe.
> This is all so sad.
>
> Herb

[Mike the Strike]

"According to their facebook page the update is due for the coming weekend."

Reminds me of the sign in my favorite pub "free beer tomorrow"

Mike

[QRP Nimbus C]

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> What do the Swiss regard as "early March"?
>
> Mike

To me, this is the very definition of "Having you by the short hairs!" Unlike the flight navigation computer domain where there are multiple vendors competing with one another to stimulate a robust development and support environment, I'm quite surprised that there is no other entity to have taken up the torch for this worthy cause (especially here stateside) to encourage the same. For the most part, some healthy competition keeps all the players engaged, honest and focused. Maybe it's time for some healthy discussion about an alternative.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 2:23:34 PM UTC-4, QRP Nimbus C wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> > What do the Swiss regard as "early March"?
> >
> > Mike
>
> To me, this is the very definition of "Having you by the short hairs!" Unlike the flight navigation computer domain where there are multiple vendors competing with one another to stimulate a robust development and support environment, I'm quite surprised that there is no other entity to have taken up the torch for this worthy cause (especially here stateside) to encourage the same. For the most part, some healthy competition keeps all the players engaged, honest and focused. Maybe it's time for some healthy discussion about an alternative.

With a market as small as this one, dividing it and trying to create a competition to get to the financial bottom makes very little sense to me.
UH

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

Page at www.flarm.com has been updated today...

Under "Firmware 6.0" it says:

"The current firmware in all FLARM devices will expire March 31, 2015. It will be replaced by the new firmware version 6.00, which will be released by March 16. When the new firmware has been released, this page will be updated."

[Tim Newport-Peace[_2_]]

At 18:30 12 March 2015, wrote:
>On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 2:23:34 PM UTC-4, QRP Nimbus C wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
>> > What do the Swiss regard as "early March"?
>> >=20
>> > Mike
>>=20
>> To me, this is the very definition of "Having you by the short hairs!"
>U=
>nlike the flight navigation computer domain where there are multiple
>vendor=
>s competing with one another to stimulate a robust development and
support
>=
>environment, I'm quite surprised that there is no other entity to have
>take=
>n up the torch for this worthy cause (especially here stateside) to
>encoura=
>ge the same. For the most part, some healthy competition keeps all the
>pla=
>yers engaged, honest and focused. Maybe it's time for some healthy
>discuss=
>ion about an alternative.
>
>With a market as small as this one, dividing it and trying to create a
>comp=
>etition to get to the financial bottom makes very little sense to me.=20
>UH
>
There was a competitor once. I believe they tried to force Flarm to release
the protocols. Their web site seems to be closed.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 2:23:34 PM UTC-4, QRP Nimbus C wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> > What do the Swiss regard as "early March"?
> >
> > Mike
>
> To me, this is the very definition of "Having you by the short hairs!" Unlike the flight navigation computer domain where there are multiple vendors competing with one another to stimulate a robust development and support environment, I'm quite surprised that there is no other entity to have taken up the torch for this worthy cause (especially here stateside) to encourage the same. For the most part, some healthy competition keeps all the players engaged, honest and focused. Maybe it's time for some healthy discussion about an alternative.

The obvious alternative is an ADS-B based system.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 6:58:48 PM UTC-4, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 2:23:34 PM UTC-4, QRP Nimbus C wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> > > What do the Swiss regard as "early March"?
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> > To me, this is the very definition of "Having you by the short hairs!" Unlike the flight navigation computer domain where there are multiple vendors competing with one another to stimulate a robust development and support environment, I'm quite surprised that there is no other entity to have taken up the torch for this worthy cause (especially here stateside) to encourage the same. For the most part, some healthy competition keeps all the players engaged, honest and focused. Maybe it's time for some healthy discussion about an alternative.
>
> The obvious alternative is an ADS-B based system.

Sigh.......

[QRP Nimbus C]

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> What do the Swiss regard as "early March"?
>
> Mike

I would agree that collision avoidance or gliders represents a rather small market. But my thoughts only begin with soaring. Real time collision avoidance technology is applicable to many situations and industries. While Flarm boasts of 30K aviation installations, when you stop to consider other industries such as mining, construction, public transportation, shipping and others (basically anywhere there is an opportunity for traditional "see and avoid" tactics to fail resulting in financial loss), then the aviation industry and gliding in particular effectively becomes just a "tip of the iceberg" thing.

But then again, I'm a rather selfish bloak who's simply looking to leverage my way into a wildly profitable business relationship to support my continually growing addiction to soaring.

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 5:58:48 PM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:

> The obvious alternative is an ADS-B based system.

No, Mike, it isn't. For all the reasons that have been explained to death before.

Kirk
66
Happy PF owner, who is not concerned with such a trivial task as updating software occasionally.

[JS]

Thanks, Kirk.
As previously pointed out, ADS-B will not react well to things like a glider on tow or worse yet in a gaggle. It is designed more for IFR separations, and alarms will go off for what you'd consider a non-event in a glider.
With ADS-B, circuit breakers will be your friend. Do not install without a circuit breaker!
Wings won't fall off just because "April Fools Day" - an interesting coincidence - might come without a completely functional update.
How many countries are now selling RF frequencies that used to be open to the public? This is part of the problem.
I hope Herb found a good night's rest, with such a horror story unfolding.
Jim

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 6:05:52 PM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 5:58:48 PM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> > The obvious alternative is an ADS-B based system.
>
> No, Mike, it isn't. For all the reasons that have been explained to death before.
>
> Kirk
> 66
> Happy PF owner, who is not concerned with such a trivial task as updating software occasionally.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

QRP Nimbus C wrote on 3/12/2015 5:13 PM:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike
> wrote:
>> What do the Swiss regard as "early March"?
>>
>> Mike
>
> I would agree that collision avoidance or gliders represents a rather
> small market. But my thoughts only begin with soaring. Real time
> collision avoidance technology is applicable to many situations and
> industries. While Flarm boasts of 30K aviation installations, when
> you stop to consider other industries such as mining, construction,
> public transportation, shipping and others (basically anywhere there
> is an opportunity for traditional "see and avoid" tactics to fail
> resulting in financial loss), then the aviation industry and gliding
> in particular effectively becomes just a "tip of the iceberg" thing.

If you dig a little bit deeper, you will find the FLARM folk do supply
collision avoidance devices to mining companies and probably other
ground based vehicles, in addition to gliders and helicopters.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 8:17:53 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
> Thanks, Kirk.
> As previously pointed out, ADS-B will not react well to things like a glider on tow or worse yet in a gaggle. It is designed more for IFR separations, and alarms will go off for what you'd consider a non-event in a glider..

ADS-B does not react to anything, it is fundamentally a protocol for transmitting aircraft identifying information (including the type of aircraft, of which 'glider' is one possible type), positions, and velocity vectors. Any 'alarms' that may be triggered are solely a function of the receiving equipment. FLARM has several advantages over ADS-B, not the least of which is the ability to enforce updates to its protocol every few years (rather than being stuck with update cycles measured in decades), which, strangely enough, is precisely what people were complaining about. But, there is nothing preventing implementation of more glider-appropriate ADS-B traffic warning capability, if someone was interested enough in doing so.

Marc

[Dave Leonard]

Its up now.
http://flarm.com/support/firmware-updates/firmware-version-6-00/

[JS]

Thanks!
Installed.
Jim

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 12:49:31 PM UTC-7, Dave Leonard wrote:
> Its up now.
> http://flarm.com/support/firmware-updates/firmware-version-6-00/

[pcool]

There is no more competitor for Flarm. They have the monopoly of collision
avoidance systems.
The other company has ceased distributing products as far as I know.
They never obtained any kind of support, of course, from Flarm.

OGN (open glider network) glidernet.org is working on a OGN tracker, and
the base stations as a consequence are being obscurated by flarm through the
release of v6.0 that changes the protocol they could still read thanks to
Hiram Yaeger. Flarm is now entering the business of online tracking,
apparently, and the first thing to do is get back monopoly on the data
transmission, just to be sure.
There is no other reason to change the protocol and not keep it backward
compatible.
Beside, the new software must still run on 2004 - 2005 early units that have
a miserable cpu and ridicolous memory. This means that functionalities are
not really changing for safety.

This is an old movie for me. Already seen happening here.


"Tim Newport-Peace" wrote in message
...

At 18:30 12 March 2015, wrote:
>On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 2:23:34 PM UTC-4, QRP Nimbus C wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
>> > What do the Swiss regard as "early March"?
>> >=20
>> > Mike
>>=20
>> To me, this is the very definition of "Having you by the short hairs!"
>U=
>nlike the flight navigation computer domain where there are multiple
>vendor=
>s competing with one another to stimulate a robust development and
support
>=
>environment, I'm quite surprised that there is no other entity to have
>take=
>n up the torch for this worthy cause (especially here stateside) to
>encoura=
>ge the same. For the most part, some healthy competition keeps all the
>pla=
>yers engaged, honest and focused. Maybe it's time for some healthy
>discuss=
>ion about an alternative.
>
>With a market as small as this one, dividing it and trying to create a
>comp=
>etition to get to the financial bottom makes very little sense to me.=20
>UH
>
There was a competitor once. I believe they tried to force Flarm to release
the protocols. Their web site seems to be closed.

[[email protected]]

Am Freitag, 13. März 2015 23:25:39 UTC+1 schrieb pcool:

> release of v6.0 that changes the protocol they could still read thanks to
> Hiram Yaeger. Flarm is now entering the business of online tracking,
> apparently, and the first thing to do is get back monopoly on the data
> transmission, just to be sure.
> There is no other reason to change the protocol and not keep it backward
> compatible.


There IS another reason: privacy. Those OGN-Guys could track everyone without a working opt-out. That caused a lot of furore, especially in Germany.

[pcool]

It seems impossible that an opt-out could not be made, it is a trivial thing
to do, a matter of a list of flarm ID opt-outs and a filter.
I cannot read german, so I cannot follow any discussion about it. Can you
please enlight us?


wrote in message
...

Am Freitag, 13. März 2015 23:25:39 UTC+1 schrieb pcool:

> release of v6.0 that changes the protocol they could still read thanks to
> Hiram Yaeger. Flarm is now entering the business of online tracking,
> apparently, and the first thing to do is get back monopoly on the data
> transmission, just to be sure.
> There is no other reason to change the protocol and not keep it backward
> compatible.


There IS another reason: privacy. Those OGN-Guys could track everyone
without a working opt-out. That caused a lot of furore, especially in
Germany.

[[email protected]]

You are correct - it would be easy for the OGN guys to realize such a feature. BUT: They don´t want it and are strictly against an opt in/opt out.

Flarm had to react, otherwise they would have lost a lot of customers.

[Alexander Swagemakers[_2_]]

There are a lot of people here in germany who don't want to be tracked or at least want the freedom to decide. This kind of stuff really hits a nerve here and there was one of the longest threads I have seen sofar in the german gliding forum. There was a big outcry for an opt out option. Unfortunatly not all OGN operators feel there should be an opt out option. The problem seemed to be that OGN is an initiative of individuals. That means there is no central entity to discuss privacy requirements with or to enforce an opt out implementation. So basically it doesn't help that the solution might be technically trivial.

Tracking of individuals without consent also might touch strict german data privavcy laws - even though it would need a court ruling to clarify whether tracking a glider is already sufficiently linked to the piloting individual.

It seems that Flarm and also Butterfly Avionic (removing FlarmNet databases) took this topic quite seriously. In the end Flarm chose to end the discussion by taking the intiative. A new encryption should disable OGN short term and long term a Flarm organised solution will probably transfer OGN operators into Flarm control enforcing opt-out.

[Tango Eight]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 6:25:39 PM UTC-4, pcool wrote:

> There is no other reason to change the protocol and not keep it backward
> compatible.


There's at least one good reason to change and that's the update to stealth mode. New mode makes much more sense than old. No silly position/climb "degradation" of tactical info, simply eliminate tactical stuff symmetrically unless the gliders are "read each other's tail numbers" close.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[pcool]

Now I understand, thank you very much.
Well it seems OGN is going to pay back the privacy issue. Their OGN tracker
is going to expire in a few days, and they will now pass through Flarm to
get the data decrypted.
Stealth mode was easy to accomplish, very strange, and a very sad
conclusion. But I agree that the privacy goes first, it wasnt that hard to
deal with, at all.


"Alexander Swagemakers" wrote in message
...

There are a lot of people here in germany who don't want to be tracked or at
least want the freedom to decide. This kind of stuff really hits a nerve
here and there was one of the longest threads I have seen sofar in the
german gliding forum. There was a big outcry for an opt out option.
Unfortunatly not all OGN operators feel there should be an opt out option.
The problem seemed to be that OGN is an initiative of individuals. That
means there is no central entity to discuss privacy requirements with or to
enforce an opt out implementation. So basically it doesn't help that the
solution might be technically trivial.

Tracking of individuals without consent also might touch strict german data
privavcy laws - even though it would need a court ruling to clarify whether
tracking a glider is already sufficiently linked to the piloting individual.

It seems that Flarm and also Butterfly Avionic (removing FlarmNet databases)
took this topic quite seriously. In the end Flarm chose to end the
discussion by taking the intiative. A new encryption should disable OGN
short term and long term a Flarm organised solution will probably transfer
OGN operators into Flarm control enforcing opt-out.

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 10:18:50 AM UTC-5, pcool wrote:
> Now I understand, thank you very much.
> Well it seems OGN is going to pay back the privacy issue. Their OGN tracker
> is going to expire in a few days, and they will now pass through Flarm to
> get the data decrypted.
> Stealth mode was easy to accomplish, very strange, and a very sad
> conclusion. But I agree that the privacy goes first, it wasnt that hard to
> deal with, at all.

I really don't understand your point. Flarm develops a proprietary product that gets adopted by a large part of the gliding community, then gets hacked and used by a bunch of techno glider geeks. Flarm responds by protecting their (as in, THEY DEVELOPED AND OWN IT) technology and responds to a market demand (tracking) by enhancing their system to provide features such as privacy for those who were previously affected by the (possibly illegal) hacked OGN network.

And you think Flarm acted incorrectly? Really?

Interesting perspective.

Kirk
66

[Tim Newport-Peace[_2_]]

At 15:30 14 March 2015, kirk.stant wrote:
>On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 10:18:50 AM UTC-5, pcool wrote:
>> Now I understand, thank you very much.
>> Well it seems OGN is going to pay back the privacy issue. Their OGN
>track=
>er=20
>> is going to expire in a few days, and they will now pass through Flarm
>to=
>=20
>> get the data decrypted.
>> Stealth mode was easy to accomplish, very strange, and a very sad=20
>> conclusion. But I agree that the privacy goes first, it wasnt that hard
>t=
>o=20
>> deal with, at all.
>
>I really don't understand your point. Flarm develops a proprietary
>product=
> that gets adopted by a large part of the gliding community, then gets
>hack=
>ed and used by a bunch of techno glider geeks. Flarm responds by
>protecting=
> their (as in, THEY DEVELOPED AND OWN IT) technology and responds to a
>mark=
>et demand (tracking) by enhancing their system to provide features such
as
>=
>privacy for those who were previously affected by the (possibly illegal)
>ha=
>cked OGN network.
>
>And you think Flarm acted incorrectly? Really?
>
>Interesting perspective.
>
>Kirk
>66
>
What leads you to believe that Flarm's encryption was 'Hacked' and the
decryption algorithms not provided by FLARM (as Binary code)?

I also find the idea that update 6.0 was made just to disable OGN Tracking
strange, when the update was planned years ago before OGN existed.

But don’t you worry, there are only two OGN stations in US, of which only
one seems to be operational, so it is unlikely to affect you.

[Benedict Smith]

At 15:30 14 March 2015, kirk.stant wrote:
>On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 10:18:50 AM UTC-5, pcool wrote:
>> Now I understand, thank you very much.
>> Well it seems OGN is going to pay back the privacy issue. Their OGN
>track=
>er=20
>> is going to expire in a few days, and they will now pass through Flarm
>to=
>=20
>> get the data decrypted.

Good luck with that, most OGN tracking stations will probably go off air
until
the OGN tracker is released rather than support FLARM out of their own
pocket!!!

>> Stealth mode was easy to accomplish, very strange, and a very sad=20
>> conclusion. But I agree that the privacy goes first, it wasnt that hard
>t=
>o=20
>> deal with, at all.

Privacy was a non issue, if you put your details on the (previously) open
and
public flarmnet database then you presumably had no worries about your
public data being public!
If you did not put your data on the database then your glider was assigned
a
random and temporary ID so there was no issue with privacy as you could
only be identified if someone watched you take off and manually noted what

random ID you had been assigned for that day! If someone was going to that

length then OGN tracking would be the least of your worries.

>
>I really don't understand your point. Flarm develops a proprietary
>product=
> that gets adopted by a large part of the gliding community, then gets
>hack=
>ed and used by a bunch of techno glider geeks. Flarm responds by
>protecting=
> their (as in, THEY DEVELOPED AND OWN IT) technology and responds to a
>mark=
>et demand (tracking) by enhancing their system to provide features such
as
>=
>privacy for those who were previously affected by the (possibly illegal)
>ha=
>cked OGN network.
>

There was NO hacking involved, all the data was transmitted in clear text (

the anti collision protocol is the only "proprietary " part and OGN were
not
interested in that) the airband is a public and unlicensed one so there was
no
wrongdoing.
There has been no similar criticism of the other tracking network (it's
name
escapes me for the moment) that uses FLARM recievers to feed a central
server, this won't be affected by the update and can access all the data
with
ease!
The trouble started when FlarmNet changed the terms of their open database

and started to slander OGN with the barely hidden support of their
financial
backers (FLARM)
There were a lot of lies put about to try and discredit the OGN network.

>And you think Flarm acted incorrectly? Really?

YES

>
>Interesting perspective.
>
>Kirk
>66
>

[pcool]

Very interesting perspective indeed. You buy a device, and it is not
written it expires.
Now see the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT just released.
Do you want to download the firmware (otherwise the old one expires)? Then
you must agree on the new rules.
Point 3 . It is understood that the software has an expiry date and must be
replaced once per year.

It is not written anywhere that the firmware will be always provided for
free, forever.
On the contrary, they put a pramble: an update to the similar TCAS system
costs $20.000-$50.000 per aircraft
And now you also need to be part of the Aircraft Maintenance Program.
great deal, indeed.




"kirk.stant" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 10:18:50 AM UTC-5, pcool wrote:
> Now I understand, thank you very much.
> Well it seems OGN is going to pay back the privacy issue. Their OGN
> tracker
> is going to expire in a few days, and they will now pass through Flarm to
> get the data decrypted.
> Stealth mode was easy to accomplish, very strange, and a very sad
> conclusion. But I agree that the privacy goes first, it wasnt that hard to
> deal with, at all.

I really don't understand your point. Flarm develops a proprietary product
that gets adopted by a large part of the gliding community, then gets hacked
and used by a bunch of techno glider geeks. Flarm responds by protecting
their (as in, THEY DEVELOPED AND OWN IT) technology and responds to a market
demand (tracking) by enhancing their system to provide features such as
privacy for those who were previously affected by the (possibly illegal)
hacked OGN network.

And you think Flarm acted incorrectly? Really?

Interesting perspective.

Kirk
66

[Tim Newport-Peace[_2_]]

Flarm Firmware Updates have always been free. What makes you think that
will change?

The advice from Flarm has always be to take the free updates every year,
but that does not mean your Flarm will cease to work if you dont, that only
happens every N years.

You seem to be seeing problems where none exist.


At 18:49 14 March 2015, pcool wrote:
>Very interesting perspective indeed. You buy a device, and it is not
>written it expires.
>Now see the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT just released.
>Do you want to download the firmware (otherwise the old one expires)? Then

>you must agree on the new rules.
>Point 3 . It is understood that the software has an expiry date and must
>be
>replaced once per year.
>
>It is not written anywhere that the firmware will be always provided for
>free, forever.
>On the contrary, they put a pramble: an update to the similar TCAS system

>costs $20.000-$50.000 per aircraft
>And now you also need to be part of the Aircraft Maintenance Program.
>great deal, indeed.
>
>
>
>
>"kirk.stant" wrote in message
...
>
>On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 10:18:50 AM UTC-5, pcool wrote:
>> Now I understand, thank you very much.
>> Well it seems OGN is going to pay back the privacy issue. Their OGN
>> tracker
>> is going to expire in a few days, and they will now pass through Flarm
to
>> get the data decrypted.
>> Stealth mode was easy to accomplish, very strange, and a very sad
>> conclusion. But I agree that the privacy goes first, it wasnt that hard
>to
>> deal with, at all.
>
>I really don't understand your point. Flarm develops a proprietary
product
>
>that gets adopted by a large part of the gliding community, then gets
>hacked
>and used by a bunch of techno glider geeks. Flarm responds by protecting
>their (as in, THEY DEVELOPED AND OWN IT) technology and responds to a
>market
>demand (tracking) by enhancing their system to provide features such as
>privacy for those who were previously affected by the (possibly illegal)
>hacked OGN network.
>
>And you think Flarm acted incorrectly? Really?
>
>Interesting perspective.
>
>Kirk
>66
>
>

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 11:00:05 AM UTC-5, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

> What leads you to believe that Flarm's encryption was 'Hacked' and the
> decryption algorithms not provided by FLARM (as Binary code)?

Well, an article in Gliding International, "Giving Gliding A Totally New Spectator Experience", by Aldo Cernezzi, pretty much describes what happened in detail, even to the hardware and software needed to setup a Flarm monitoring station and be part of the Open Glider Network.
>
> I also find the idea that update 6.0 was made just to disable OGN Tracking
> strange, when the update was planned years ago before OGN existed.

Perhaps the last minute changes to add privacy is what caused the delay?

> But don't you worry, there are only two OGN stations in US, of which only
> one seems to be operational, so it is unlikely to affect you.

Oh, I'm not worried in the least - I'm fine with being tracked! It's the attitude that Flarm deserved to be hacked "for the good of the masses" that I find odd.

And with the paucity of Flarms in the US glider fleet, it really will be a while before this interesting evolution of Flarm impacts the general US gliding world. I do expect it to become a big player at US contests, where Flarm is pretty much mandatory.

Kirk

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 12:30:05 PM UTC-5, Benedict Smith wrote:

> Good luck with that, most OGN tracking stations will probably go off air
> until
> the OGN tracker is released rather than support FLARM out of their own
> pocket!!!

So gliders would need ANOTHER device (the OGN tracker) to be shown on the OGN realtime map? Is that realistic?

> Privacy was a non issue, if you put your details on the (previously) open
> and
> public flarmnet database then you presumably had no worries about your
> public data being public!
> If you did not put your data on the database then your glider was assigned
> a
> random and temporary ID so there was no issue with privacy as you could
> only be identified if someone watched you take off and manually noted what
>
> random ID you had been assigned for that day! If someone was going to that
>
> length then OGN tracking would be the least of your worries.

Apparently it's an issue in Germany? From my US perspective, I don't really see the problem (since all transponders are tracked and visible online).


> There was NO hacking involved, all the data was transmitted in clear text > the anti collision protocol is the only "proprietary " part and OGN were
> not interested in that) the airband is a public and unlicensed one so there was no wrongdoing.

Not according to Aldo Cernezzi in his Gliding International article. Perhaps you should submit a rebuttal.

> There has been no similar criticism of the other tracking network (it's
> name
> escapes me for the moment) that uses FLARM recievers to feed a central
> server, this won't be affected by the update and can access all the data
> with
> ease!

Are you referring to the Flarm-Radar Project?

> The trouble started when FlarmNet changed the terms of their open database
> and started to slander OGN with the barely hidden support of their
> financial
> backers (FLARM)
> There were a lot of lies put about to try and discredit the OGN network.

Hmm, It would be interesting to hear FLARM's side of this story!
>
> >And you think Flarm acted incorrectly? Really?
>
> YES

Why?

Kirk

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 4:04:58 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:

> And with the paucity of Flarms in the US glider fleet, it really will be a while before this interesting evolution of Flarm impacts the general US gliding world. I do expect it to become a big player at US contests, where Flarm is pretty much mandatory.
>
> Kirk

"mandatory" where did you read that Kirk? That is not true.

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 4:38:30 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

> "mandatory" where did you read that Kirk? That is not true.

Andrzej, I said "pretty much mandatory". That is true.

Flarm is highly encouraged, there is a rental program, and peer pressure (along with the tactical advantage of knowing where the competition is) pretty much takes care of it.

But of course you are right that currently, Flarm is not "mandatory" at a US contest.

IMO, it should be.

Kirk
66

[pcool]

Let me ask you something, Tim.
You buy a new home appliance, and everything goes quite ok for some years.
One day there is a message saying that it is ceasing to work in a month, and
you need to subscribe a new licence and practically sign a contract if you
want to keep using it.
Do things work like that in the US where you live? Not in italy, not in
Europe I can tell you.
Here we can refuse to sign the contract, and either give back the item or
keep using it as before, which is the most reasonable thing to do normally.

So people here is saysing they wont accept the new User Licence Agreement,
not at all.
And guess what will happen.


"Tim Newport-Peace" wrote in message
...

Flarm Firmware Updates have always been free. What makes you think that
will change?

The advice from Flarm has always be to take the free updates every year,
but that does not mean your Flarm will cease to work if you dont, that only
happens every N years.

You seem to be seeing problems where none exist.


At 18:49 14 March 2015, pcool wrote:
>Very interesting perspective indeed. You buy a device, and it is not
>written it expires.
>Now see the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT just released.
>Do you want to download the firmware (otherwise the old one expires)? Then

>you must agree on the new rules.
>Point 3 . It is understood that the software has an expiry date and must
>be
>replaced once per year.
>
>It is not written anywhere that the firmware will be always provided for
>free, forever.
>On the contrary, they put a pramble: an update to the similar TCAS system

>costs $20.000-$50.000 per aircraft
>And now you also need to be part of the Aircraft Maintenance Program.
>great deal, indeed.
>
>
>
>
>"kirk.stant" wrote in message
...
>
>On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 10:18:50 AM UTC-5, pcool wrote:
>> Now I understand, thank you very much.
>> Well it seems OGN is going to pay back the privacy issue. Their OGN
>> tracker
>> is going to expire in a few days, and they will now pass through Flarm
to
>> get the data decrypted.
>> Stealth mode was easy to accomplish, very strange, and a very sad
>> conclusion. But I agree that the privacy goes first, it wasnt that hard
>to
>> deal with, at all.
>
>I really don't understand your point. Flarm develops a proprietary
product
>
>that gets adopted by a large part of the gliding community, then gets
>hacked
>and used by a bunch of techno glider geeks. Flarm responds by protecting
>their (as in, THEY DEVELOPED AND OWN IT) technology and responds to a
>market
>demand (tracking) by enhancing their system to provide features such as
>privacy for those who were previously affected by the (possibly illegal)
>hacked OGN network.
>
>And you think Flarm acted incorrectly? Really?
>
>Interesting perspective.
>
>Kirk
>66
>
>

[[email protected]]

This entire issue of shutting down the system and requiring an upgrade just smacks of poor judgement and lousy engineering.

If a member of my engineering staff suggested that a fault be purposefully added to a safety related piece of equipment that would cause it to stop operating at a particular time, I would fire that person immediately. Serious software developers simply do not do this sort of thing.

The whole "we need everyone to upgrade at the same time to change the communication protocols" argument simply means that they did not do a very good job designing the communication protocols. The system should be designed so that it can evolve.

Either way, FLARM looks pretty bad in my book. I won't have one in my personal ship.

Mark

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 8:40:53 AM UTC-4, pcool wrote:
> Let me ask you something, Tim.
> You buy a new home appliance, and everything goes quite ok for some years.
> One day there is a message saying that it is ceasing to work in a month, and
> you need to subscribe a new licence and practically sign a contract if you
> want to keep using it.
> Do things work like that in the US where you live? Not in italy, not in
> Europe I can tell you.
> Here we can refuse to sign the contract, and either give back the item or
> keep using it as before, which is the most reasonable thing to do normally.
>
> So people here is saysing they wont accept the new User Licence Agreement,
> not at all.
> And guess what will happen.
>
>
> "Tim Newport-Peace" wrote in message
> ...
>
> Flarm Firmware Updates have always been free. What makes you think that
> will change?
>
> The advice from Flarm has always be to take the free updates every year,
> but that does not mean your Flarm will cease to work if you dont, that only
> happens every N years.
>
> You seem to be seeing problems where none exist.
>
>
> At 18:49 14 March 2015, pcool wrote:
> >Very interesting perspective indeed. You buy a device, and it is not
> >written it expires.
> >Now see the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT just released.
> >Do you want to download the firmware (otherwise the old one expires)? Then
>
> >you must agree on the new rules.
> >Point 3 . It is understood that the software has an expiry date and must
> >be
> >replaced once per year.
> >
> >It is not written anywhere that the firmware will be always provided for
> >free, forever.
> >On the contrary, they put a pramble: an update to the similar TCAS system
>
> >costs $20.000-$50.000 per aircraft
> >And now you also need to be part of the Aircraft Maintenance Program.
> >great deal, indeed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"kirk.stant" wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 10:18:50 AM UTC-5, pcool wrote:
> >> Now I understand, thank you very much.
> >> Well it seems OGN is going to pay back the privacy issue. Their OGN
> >> tracker
> >> is going to expire in a few days, and they will now pass through Flarm
> to
> >> get the data decrypted.
> >> Stealth mode was easy to accomplish, very strange, and a very sad
> >> conclusion. But I agree that the privacy goes first, it wasnt that hard
> >to
> >> deal with, at all.
> >
> >I really don't understand your point. Flarm develops a proprietary
> product
> >
> >that gets adopted by a large part of the gliding community, then gets
> >hacked
> >and used by a bunch of techno glider geeks. Flarm responds by protecting
> >their (as in, THEY DEVELOPED AND OWN IT) technology and responds to a
> >market
> >demand (tracking) by enhancing their system to provide features such as
> >privacy for those who were previously affected by the (possibly illegal)
> >hacked OGN network.
> >
> >And you think Flarm acted incorrectly? Really?
> >
> >Interesting perspective.
> >
> >Kirk
> >66
> >
> >

Paolo, where do I find the new agreement? I would like to read it.

[Brad[_2_]]

Upgraded my portable PF to V6. Now my
HP-310 running the latest release of LK8000 doesn't recognize flarm.
Brad

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 10:51:37 AM UTC-4, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 8:40:53 AM UTC-4, pcool wrote:
> > Let me ask you something, Tim.
> > You buy a new home appliance, and everything goes quite ok for some years.
> > One day there is a message saying that it is ceasing to work in a month, and
> > you need to subscribe a new licence and practically sign a contract if you
> > want to keep using it.
> > Do things work like that in the US where you live? Not in italy, not in
> > Europe I can tell you.
> > Here we can refuse to sign the contract, and either give back the item or
> > keep using it as before, which is the most reasonable thing to do normally.
> >
> > So people here is saysing they wont accept the new User Licence Agreement,
> > not at all.
> > And guess what will happen.
> >
> >
> > "Tim Newport-Peace" wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > Flarm Firmware Updates have always been free. What makes you think that
> > will change?
> >
> > The advice from Flarm has always be to take the free updates every year,
> > but that does not mean your Flarm will cease to work if you dont, that only
> > happens every N years.
> >
> > You seem to be seeing problems where none exist.
> >
> >
> > At 18:49 14 March 2015, pcool wrote:
> > >Very interesting perspective indeed. You buy a device, and it is not
> > >written it expires.
> > >Now see the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT just released.
> > >Do you want to download the firmware (otherwise the old one expires)? Then
> >
> > >you must agree on the new rules.
> > >Point 3 . It is understood that the software has an expiry date and must
> > >be
> > >replaced once per year.
> > >
> > >It is not written anywhere that the firmware will be always provided for
> > >free, forever.
> > >On the contrary, they put a pramble: an update to the similar TCAS system
> >
> > >costs $20.000-$50.000 per aircraft
> > >And now you also need to be part of the Aircraft Maintenance Program.
> > >great deal, indeed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >"kirk.stant" wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 10:18:50 AM UTC-5, pcool wrote:
> > >> Now I understand, thank you very much.
> > >> Well it seems OGN is going to pay back the privacy issue. Their OGN
> > >> tracker
> > >> is going to expire in a few days, and they will now pass through Flarm
> > to
> > >> get the data decrypted.
> > >> Stealth mode was easy to accomplish, very strange, and a very sad
> > >> conclusion. But I agree that the privacy goes first, it wasnt that hard
> > >to
> > >> deal with, at all.
> > >
> > >I really don't understand your point. Flarm develops a proprietary
> > product
> > >
> > >that gets adopted by a large part of the gliding community, then gets
> > >hacked
> > >and used by a bunch of techno glider geeks. Flarm responds by protecting
> > >their (as in, THEY DEVELOPED AND OWN IT) technology and responds to a
> > >market
> > >demand (tracking) by enhancing their system to provide features such as
> > >privacy for those who were previously affected by the (possibly illegal)
> > >hacked OGN network.
> > >
> > >And you think Flarm acted incorrectly? Really?
> > >
> > >Interesting perspective.
> > >
> > >Kirk
> > >66
> > >
> > >
>
> Paolo, where do I find the new agreement? I would like to read it.

Never mind I found it. It is interesting that if you go to Flarm.com website you see this.

"As with many other avionics systems, all FLARM devices require continual firmware updates. However, unlike many other systems, we supply our updates for free (an update to the similar TCAS system costs $20.000-$50.000 per aircraft). This is made possible thanks to a common firmware in all different FLARM devices.

Previously, updates were required every 2-4 years according to an announced schedule. This was however problematic for many owners and maintenance organizations, since there was only a short time span in which the update could be made.

From the March 2015 Update, every FLARM device needs to be updated with the latest firmware version at least once per year (rolling 365 days). This has to be part of the Aircraft Maintenance Program (AMP). The entry in the AMP is to be made during installation. If you have a FLARM installation that is not previously monitored by the AMP, an entry should be made as soon as possible.

Firmware updates contain general improvements, collision algorithm improvements, radio protocol improvements and added features. The precise list of changes accompany each update."

On the other hand PowerFlarm.aero website has a link to software update without any other information at all. No changes to agreement and no other text.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 08:05:01 -0700, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

> "As with many other avionics systems, all FLARM devices require
> continual firmware updates. However, unlike many other systems, we
> supply our updates for free (an update to the similar TCAS system costs
> $20.000-$50.000 per aircraft). This is made possible thanks to a common
> firmware in all different FLARM devices.
>
> Previously, updates were required every 2-4 years according to an
> announced schedule. This was however problematic for many owners and
> maintenance organizations, since there was only a short time span in
> which the update could be made.
>
> From the March 2015 Update, every FLARM device needs to be updated with
> the latest firmware version at least once per year (rolling 365 days).
> This has to be part of the Aircraft Maintenance Program (AMP). The entry
> in the AMP is to be made during installation. If you have a FLARM
> installation that is not previously monitored by the AMP, an entry
> should be made as soon as possible.
>
> Firmware updates contain general improvements, collision algorithm
> improvements, radio protocol improvements and added features. The
> precise list of changes accompany each update."
>
> On the other hand PowerFlarm.aero website has a link to software update
> without any other information at all. No changes to agreement and no
> other text.
>
Thats pretty much the case in the Classic FLARM section of flarm.com too.

In that section I can see a revised set of conditions, a link to the .fw
file, but nothing else. Where's the promised change log and either a
revised manual or a statement about the applicability of the V 5.00
manual?

Since from now on there is to be a rolling 12 month upgrade process, we
can only assume that with v6.00 FLARM has introduced forward
compatibility with the immediately following release and, in a years
time, we can also expect backward compatibility with the immediately
preceding release as well: I don't see how anything else can be allow a
12 month rolling release schedule to work. However, it would be nice if
they made this explicit.

EASA/ARC question: has anybody except FLARM mentioned the imminent
inclusion of FLARM upgrades in the AMP? This is the first I've heard of
it.

Since my glider passed its ARC renewal inspection last week without
anybody quizzing me about the installed FLARM's serial no or its firmware
upgrade status, I'm guessing that this is news to everybody else as well.



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

[Bill D]

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 8:13:39 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> This entire issue of shutting down the system and requiring an upgrade just smacks of poor judgement and lousy engineering.
>
> If a member of my engineering staff suggested that a fault be purposefully added to a safety related piece of equipment that would cause it to stop operating at a particular time, I would fire that person immediately. Serious software developers simply do not do this sort of thing.
>
> The whole "we need everyone to upgrade at the same time to change the communication protocols" argument simply means that they did not do a very good job designing the communication protocols. The system should be designed so that it can evolve.
>
> Either way, FLARM looks pretty bad in my book. I won't have one in my personal ship.
>
> Mark

Mark, I think you are being a little bit unfair.

As with TCAS, the FLARM system must have every unit running the same firmware for the system to continue to operate reliably therefore everyone must update at the same time. While it's possible to imagine forward and backward firmware compatibility, it's probably better for everyone to run the same version.

Consumer and corporate IT systems can run different versions of firmware/software and get away with it.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:35:35 AM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 08:05:01 -0700, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
> > "As with many other avionics systems, all FLARM devices require
> > continual firmware updates. However, unlike many other systems, we
> > supply our updates for free (an update to the similar TCAS system costs
> > $20.000-$50.000 per aircraft). This is made possible thanks to a common
> > firmware in all different FLARM devices.
> >
> > Previously, updates were required every 2-4 years according to an
> > announced schedule. This was however problematic for many owners and
> > maintenance organizations, since there was only a short time span in
> > which the update could be made.
> >
> > From the March 2015 Update, every FLARM device needs to be updated with
> > the latest firmware version at least once per year (rolling 365 days).
> > This has to be part of the Aircraft Maintenance Program (AMP). The entry
> > in the AMP is to be made during installation. If you have a FLARM
> > installation that is not previously monitored by the AMP, an entry
> > should be made as soon as possible.
> >
> > Firmware updates contain general improvements, collision algorithm
> > improvements, radio protocol improvements and added features. The
> > precise list of changes accompany each update."
> >
> > On the other hand PowerFlarm.aero website has a link to software update
> > without any other information at all. No changes to agreement and no
> > other text.
> >
> Thats pretty much the case in the Classic FLARM section of flarm.com too.
>
> In that section I can see a revised set of conditions, a link to the .fw
> file, but nothing else. Where's the promised change log and either a
> revised manual or a statement about the applicability of the V 5.00
> manual?
>
> Since from now on there is to be a rolling 12 month upgrade process, we
> can only assume that with v6.00 FLARM has introduced forward
> compatibility with the immediately following release and, in a years
> time, we can also expect backward compatibility with the immediately
> preceding release as well: I don't see how anything else can be allow a
> 12 month rolling release schedule to work. However, it would be nice if
> they made this explicit.
>
> EASA/ARC question: has anybody except FLARM mentioned the imminent
> inclusion of FLARM upgrades in the AMP? This is the first I've heard of
> it.
>
> Since my glider passed its ARC renewal inspection last week without
> anybody quizzing me about the installed FLARM's serial no or its firmware
> upgrade status, I'm guessing that this is news to everybody else as well.
>
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

Martin, what you are saying seems reasonable but the very first paragraph says "However, unlike many other systems, we supply our updates for free (an update to the similar TCAS system costs $20.000-$50.000 per aircraft). This is made possible thanks to a common firmware in all different FLARM devices."

Aren't they setting a stage for a subscription service as a result of providing temporary backward compatibility since from that point on the motivation for free is out the window? It sounds like it. I see Paolo's point very clearly now.

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

I found release notes for PowerFLARM at:
http://www.powerflarm.aero/index.php/en/knowledge-and-support then scroll down to either the Portable or Core.

[Edward Lockhart[_4_]]

At 15:34 15 March 2015, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 08:05:01 -0700, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
>> "As with many other avionics systems, all FLARM devices require
>> continual firmware updates. However, unlike many other systems, we
>> supply our updates for free (an update to the similar TCAS system costs
>> $20.000-$50.000 per aircraft). This is made possible thanks to a common
>> firmware in all different FLARM devices.
>>
>> Previously, updates were required every 2-4 years according to an
>> announced schedule. This was however problematic for many owners and
>> maintenance organizations, since there was only a short time span in
>> which the update could be made.
>>
>> From the March 2015 Update, every FLARM device needs to be updated with
>> the latest firmware version at least once per year (rolling 365 days).
>> This has to be part of the Aircraft Maintenance Program (AMP). The
entry
>> in the AMP is to be made during installation. If you have a FLARM
>> installation that is not previously monitored by the AMP, an entry
>> should be made as soon as possible.
>>
>> Firmware updates contain general improvements, collision algorithm
>> improvements, radio protocol improvements and added features. The
>> precise list of changes accompany each update."
>>
>> On the other hand PowerFlarm.aero website has a link to software update
>> without any other information at all. No changes to agreement and no
>> other text.
>>
>Thats pretty much the case in the Classic FLARM section of flarm.com too.
>
>In that section I can see a revised set of conditions, a link to the .fw
>file, but nothing else. Where's the promised change log and either a
>revised manual or a statement about the applicability of the V 5.00
>manual?
>
>Since from now on there is to be a rolling 12 month upgrade process, we
>can only assume that with v6.00 FLARM has introduced forward
>compatibility with the immediately following release and, in a years
>time, we can also expect backward compatibility with the immediately
>preceding release as well: I don't see how anything else can be allow a
>12 month rolling release schedule to work. However, it would be nice if
>they made this explicit.
>
>EASA/ARC question: has anybody except FLARM mentioned the imminent
>inclusion of FLARM upgrades in the AMP? This is the first I've heard of
>it.
>
>Since my glider passed its ARC renewal inspection last week without
>anybody quizzing me about the installed FLARM's serial no or its firmware

>upgrade status, I'm guessing that this is news to everybody else as well.
>
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

Your flight manual will specify the minimum required equipment. I doubt it
mentions FLARM so you can take it out & throw it away any time you like,
placard it INOP or whatever. An un-upgraded FLARM cannot ground your
glider.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 09:15:56 -0700, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

> Aren't they setting a stage for a subscription service as a result of
> providing temporary backward compatibility since from that point on the
> motivation for free is out the window? It sounds like it. I see Paolo's
> point very clearly now.
>
I didn't read it that way, though I suppose anything is possible.

In fact, some of the text on the revised website could be read as a hint
that, at some point in the future, "Classic FLARM" support could be
chopped and everybody forced onto PowerFLARM.

I read the stuff about free FLARM updates vs expensive TCAS ones as
boiling down to:

"We only build and support two binaries: one for PowerFLARM and one
for Classic FLARM, so your hardware's software environment must
match our binary's requirements *exactly* as we specified.

This means that we can afford to provide free updates because, unlike
TCAS systems, we don't have to support different sets of hardware or
multiple operating systems".

There is also a third binary: the one for older Classic FLARMs that don't
have SD-cards. However, my guess is that this is just the Classic FLARM
binary packaged with a Windows loader that installs it over a serial link.


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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

pcool wrote on 3/15/2015 5:40 AM:
> Let me ask you something, Tim.
> You buy a new home appliance, and everything goes quite ok for some years.
> One day there is a message saying that it is ceasing to work in a month,
> and you need to subscribe a new licence and practically sign a contract
> if you want to keep using it.
> Do things work like that in the US where you live? Not in italy, not in
> Europe I can tell you.
> Here we can refuse to sign the contract, and either give back the item
> or keep using it as before, which is the most reasonable thing to do
> normally.
>
> So people here is saysing they wont accept the new User Licence
> Agreement, not at all.
> And guess what will happen.
>

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I've had PowerFlarm from
almost the beginning, and my understanding was always exactly what they
are doing now: requiring everyone to update. So, I wasn't surprised when
the update came along; I was surprised other pilots were surprised, and
that a free update was upsetting to them.

This is from my PowerFLARM manual ver 3 dated July 1, 2012:

..................
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.
...................

The manual also says this:

...................
Limitations
The device has been designed as a non-essential 'situation
awareness only' device, whose task is solely to support the pilot; it
is not always in a position to provide a reliable warning. In
particular, the device does not provide any suggestions as to
avoiding action. Under no circumstances does the device facilitate
a change in flight tactics, user or commander response. Even
though you have installed the device, you remain responsible and
liable for the safety of all passengers and other aircraft. Operation
of the device is solely a matter at the discretion of the user and
commander. The device may only be operated by persons who
have made a careful study of the user instructions.
...................

That seems pretty clear you should not expect it to work all the time,
and you are responsible for using it. If you choose not to update, and
it stops working, it seems to me that's your fault, not theirs.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

I waited a day or two to see if there were reported problems - no comments from those who updated "on the bleeding edge", so I decided to do the update.

I've just finished updating my CORE; first the new PowerFLARM firmware, 6.0; then updated my flarmcfg.txt file with the new lines and put it in; then found the new Butterfly Display 3.4 firmware, loaded it; then the newest FLARMnet file (002daf.bfn) and put it in. Took about an hour, including finding the new Butterfly software ( http://www.air-avionics.com/air/index.php/en/customer-support (http://www.air-avionics.com/support/bfd_3_4.bfw )) - if you look on the powerflarm.aero page (which I did initially), it may not be there - I reported this, and they are working on updating it so it appears in both places (got an answer back in 28 minutes, which is by any standard great technical support).

I turned the system off after each step. Very painless. I now am sitting down to update the club flarms, which should take about 20 minutes, including changing their flarmcfg.txt files... that's a whole teapot full, I reckon.

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

Further, the noon ADS-B equipped flight from Europe just came in to Ottawa Int'l and I watched it all the way to the runway, so it works!

[Movses]

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 8:01:31 AM UTC-7, Brad wrote:
> Upgraded my portable PF to V6. Now my
> HP-310 running the latest release of LK8000 doesn't recognize flarm.
> Brad

Brad,

I flew after I updated mine (Core Pure) and I had no issues with getting FLARM data on my Naviter/LK8000 combo. Didn't see any traffic (there wasn't any), but GPS/Baro Altitude feed was there for sure.

Movses

[pcool]

Oh com'on Dan, for a couple of snowflakes..!!
(hehe)

"Dan Daly" wrote in message
...

For pcool - I'm Canadian, there's a couple of feet of snow on the ground, it
snowed yesterday, tonight (Monday) it's supposed to snow, Tuesday snow,
Saturday snow...

[vontresc]

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 3:08:41 PM UTC-5, pcool wrote:
> Oh com'on Dan, for a couple of snowflakes..!!
> (hehe)
>
> "Dan Daly" wrote in message
> ...
>
> For pcool - I'm Canadian, there's a couple of feet of snow on the ground, it
> snowed yesterday, tonight (Monday) it's supposed to snow, Tuesday snow,
> Saturday snow...

So with all this griping about flarm updates, where are the loads of used flarm units for sale here in the US?

:-)

Pete

[Karl Kunz[_2_]]

I've got a portable I'll sell ya.

[jfitch]

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:52:27 PM UTC-7, vontresc wrote:
> On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 3:08:41 PM UTC-5, pcool wrote:
> > Oh com'on Dan, for a couple of snowflakes..!!
> > (hehe)
> >
> > "Dan Daly" wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > For pcool - I'm Canadian, there's a couple of feet of snow on the ground, it
> > snowed yesterday, tonight (Monday) it's supposed to snow, Tuesday snow,
> > Saturday snow...
>
> So with all this griping about flarm updates, where are the loads of used flarm units for sale here in the US?
>
> :-)
>
> Pete

I have a PowerFlarm core I can sell you, only $1999. Your choice of firmware.

;-)

[vontresc]

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 7:37:38 PM UTC-5, Karl Kunz wrote:
> I've got a portable I'll sell ya.

So what does a used portable sell for these days?

Peter

[Bob Caldwell (BC)]

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:22:03 PM UTC-6, Mike the Strike wrote:
> Yes , but we are flying in other parts of the country. I updated mine to version 6 on Saturday, but none of my colleagues at the field had. I can confirm that we didn't see each other, but at least I could see their transponders.
>
> Mike

I had the same experience on Sunday that Mike had. My Core was updated and the other pilots' units were not. No joy. I did see the transponders and heavy iron ADS-B going by up above.

BC

[6X]

I think the recommended update protocol should have been to defer the update until the first flight after 3/31/15.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 10:55:49 AM UTC-5, 6X wrote:
> I think the recommended update protocol should have been to defer the update until the first flight after 3/31/15.

Mike and Bob,

And I think your lazy-ass friends should just go ahead and update, it's not that horrifying. At the end of March the old version is going to software heaven - or hell based on your liking - anyway.

[[email protected]]

Exoanding the market? My wife needs one. She is constantly walking into things.

[Karl Kunz[_2_]]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-7, vontresc wrote:
> On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 7:37:38 PM UTC-5, Karl Kunz wrote:
> > I've got a portable I'll sell ya.
>
> So what does a used portable sell for these days?
>
> Peter

Good question. I don't know.

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

OK, I updated my FLARM to 6.0 and told it my new HEX number (different sailplane), but as far as I can see my my mode a/c transponder doesn't know my HEX number...............am I missing something here? How does the FLARM know to disregard my transponder squalk?
JJ

[Richard[_9_]]

On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 6:23:23 AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> OK, I updated my FLARM to 6.0 and told it my new HEX number (different sailplane), but as far as I can see my my mode a/c transponder doesn't know my HEX number...............am I missing something here? How does the FLARM know to disregard my transponder squalk?
> JJ


JJ,

you also need a sentence in the config file to set the kind of xponder.

# Set what kind of transponder you have installed:
# 0 ... no XPDR (default)
# 1 ... Mode C
# 2 ... Mode S

# configure transponder type
$PFLAC,S,XPDR,2


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[George Haeh]

The hex code is part of a Mode S
transponder configuration. Mode A/C
transponders don't have a code.

The Trig Avionics website has the
Installation Manuals where you can read
up on Mode S transponder configuration.

At 13:46 21 March 2015, Richard wrote:
>On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 6:23:23
AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>> OK, I updated my FLARM to 6.0 and
told it my new HEX number (different
>sa=
>ilplane), but as far as I can see my my
mode a/c transponder doesn't know
>m=
>y HEX number...............am I missing
something here? How does the FLARM
>=
>know to disregard my transponder
squalk?
>> JJ
>
>
>JJ,
>
>you also need a sentence in the config
file to set the kind of xponder.
>
># Set what kind of transponder you have
installed:
># 0 ... no XPDR (default)
># 1 ... Mode C
># 2 ... Mode S
>
># configure transponder type
>$PFLAC,S,XPDR,2
>
>
>Richard
>www.craggyaero.com
>

[Richard[_9_]]

On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 6:23:23 AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> OK, I updated my FLARM to 6.0 and told it my new HEX number (different sailplane), but as far as I can see my my mode a/c transponder doesn't know my HEX number...............am I missing something here? How does the FLARM know to disregard my transponder squalk?
> JJ

JJ

You also need to configure the transponder with the HEX code as George said..

It is in the Garrecht Manual.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com