IGC to replace FLARM ? ?

[Jock Proudfoot]

The budget of 20.000€ for design, development and procurement of
IGC owned glider tracking system for use in WGC’s. Standards for the
system are still to be determined but will focus on safety, fairness and
transparency

Not allow organizers of the championships to mandate a particular
FLARM mode, in order to restore the basic proximity warning function
of the device. Intention is to develop own fully secured tracking
function with a possibility of time delay.

The Stewards group to involve software experts and analysts in
discussions on possible use of the safety proximity tool at the future
IGC championships.

https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/igc_bureau_2018-
2_decisions_final.pdf
..

[Jock Proudfoot]

GOOGLE
Decisions from IGC Bureau Meeting
Paris, 6 and 7 October 2018

[[email protected]]

"Intention is to develop own fully secured tracking function with a
possibility of time delay."

It will be tricky to have open access to the hardware and software and also controlled, secure access to the tactical information.

I could see an open source/open hardware system with a mechanical seal protecting some internal private keys and the decryption engine that uses them.

Everybody would broadcast position protected by a public/private key pair. CD puts the private key required to decrypt along with an approved software load into a standard, sealable receiver engine.

It would be nice to allow the contestant to play with everything, but I think secure will require at least some small part of the receive engine to be sealed.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:25:00 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> "Intention is to develop own fully secured tracking function with a
> possibility of time delay."
>
> It will be tricky to have open access to the hardware and software and also controlled, secure access to the tactical information.
>
> I could see an open source/open hardware system with a mechanical seal protecting some internal private keys and the decryption engine that uses them.
>
> Everybody would broadcast position protected by a public/private key pair.. CD puts the private key required to decrypt along with an approved software load into a standard, sealable receiver engine.
>
> It would be nice to allow the contestant to play with everything, but I think secure will require at least some small part of the receive engine to be sealed.

My informed source says the time delay (10 minutes or so) would be used instead of encryption. The time delay can be built into the transmitter. Thus nothing in any receiver could foil it. There would not be an incentive for the pilot to change anything in their transmitter, unless they want to be leached on. I wonder though whether that would create an incentive to start 10 minutes after the best pilots?

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Isn't Europe, like the US, on track to require ADSB-out soon? You'll know instantly where everyone is within 100 miles, flarm or no flarm. Putting the knowing where people are genie back in the bottle seems like a hard task.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

Why put in place a delayed tracking solution besides instant OGN tracking? This is pointless. FLARM is mandatory in contests. Anyone who is interested may use existing FLARM-based OGN tracking infrastructure and circumvent whatever time delay is implemented in separate transmitters.

[Benedict Smith]

At 18:35 13 November 2018, wrote:
>On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:25:00 AM UTC-5,
wrote:
>> "Intention is to develop own fully secured tracking function
with a
>> possibility of time delay."
>>=20
>> It will be tricky to have open access to the hardware and
software and
>al=
>so controlled, secure access to the tactical information.
>>=20
>> I could see an open source/open hardware system with a
mechanical seal
>pr=
>otecting some internal private keys and the decryption engine
that uses
>the=
>m.
>>=20
>> Everybody would broadcast position protected by a
public/private key
>pair=
>.. CD puts the private key required to decrypt along with an
approved
>softw=
>are load into a standard, sealable receiver engine.
>>=20
>> It would be nice to allow the contestant to play with
everything, but I
>t=
>hink secure will require at least some small part of the receive
engine to
>=
>be sealed.
>
>My informed source says the time delay (10 minutes or so)
would be used
>ins=
>tead of encryption. The time delay can be built into the
transmitter.
>Thu=
>s nothing in any receiver could foil it. There would not be an
incentive
>f=
>or the pilot to change anything in their transmitter, unless they
want to
>b=
>e leached on. I wonder though whether that would create an
incentive to
>st=
>art 10 minutes after the best pilots?
>
>
10 minute delay ? I thought the idea of FLARM was for safety,
perhaps they are they expecting messages such as:
“there was a glider 2 miles out on a collision course 10 minutes
ago, the fact that you are reading this message suggests that you
saw and avoided it without my help ! Have a nice day”
Sounds rather like something the late Douglas Adams would come
up with.

[JS[_5_]]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 2:00:06 PM UTC-8, Benedict Smith wrote:
> At 18:35 13 November 2018, wrote:
> >On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:25:00 AM UTC-5,
> wrote:
> >> "Intention is to develop own fully secured tracking function
> with a
> >> possibility of time delay."
> >>=20
> >> It will be tricky to have open access to the hardware and
> software and
> >al=
> >so controlled, secure access to the tactical information.
> >>=20
> >> I could see an open source/open hardware system with a
> mechanical seal
> >pr=
> >otecting some internal private keys and the decryption engine
> that uses
> >the=
> >m.
> >>=20
> >> Everybody would broadcast position protected by a
> public/private key
> >pair=
> >.. CD puts the private key required to decrypt along with an
> approved
> >softw=
> >are load into a standard, sealable receiver engine.
> >>=20
> >> It would be nice to allow the contestant to play with
> everything, but I
> >t=
> >hink secure will require at least some small part of the receive
> engine to
> >=
> >be sealed.
> >
> >My informed source says the time delay (10 minutes or so)
> would be used
> >ins=
> >tead of encryption. The time delay can be built into the
> transmitter.
> >Thu=
> >s nothing in any receiver could foil it. There would not be an
> incentive
> >f=
> >or the pilot to change anything in their transmitter, unless they
> want to
> >b=
> >e leached on. I wonder though whether that would create an
> incentive to
> >st=
> >art 10 minutes after the best pilots?
> >
> >
> 10 minute delay ? I thought the idea of FLARM was for safety,
> perhaps they are they expecting messages such as:
> “there was a glider 2 miles out on a collision course 10 minutes
> ago, the fact that you are reading this message suggests that you
> saw and avoided it without my help ! Have a nice day”
> Sounds rather like something the late Douglas Adams would come
> up with.

Aren't we confusing tracking capability with collision avoidance capability?
This appears to be a move to build a new "live" tracking mechanism. Latency is an option often used for contest tracking.
Jim

[kinsell]

On 11/13/18 11:42 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
> Isn't Europe, like the US, on track to require ADSB-out soon? You'll know instantly where everyone is within 100 miles, flarm or no flarm. Putting the knowing where people are genie back in the bottle seems like a hard task.
>
> John Cochrane
>

Are you aware there's no 2020 mandate for gliders in the U.S.?

[krasw]

On Tuesday, 13 November 2018 22:46:43 UTC+2, wrote:
> Why put in place a delayed tracking solution besides instant OGN tracking? This is pointless. FLARM is mandatory in contests. Anyone who is interested may use existing FLARM-based OGN tracking infrastructure and circumvent whatever time delay is implemented in separate transmitters.

You are right. As long as there is flarm in the glider it can be tracked real time from ground, no matter what. I guess using new tracking system would mean that pilots switch off their flarms in competitions. This is a problem that has so far only bad solutions.

[[email protected]]

Such live tracking systems based on collision avoidance techology already exist for quite a while (Flightradar24, OGN). Since 2017 FLARM based OGN has been used more or less as the standard tracking tool on competitions in Europe. It has to be made sure that collision avoidance is not reduced due to this 2nd nature of FLARM.

[Jim White[_3_]]

ADSB is not mandated in Europe. The CAA wanted to mandate SSR in UK but
this was sent down pending the development of low cost / low power ADSB.
This is now available from Uavionics at about £400. At that price I expect
a wide take up in the UK. Why wouldn't you want to know about spam cans,
CAT, drones, and helicopters as well as gliders and why would you want to
hide from ATC??

So in practice the rule makers for gliding competition cannot ban
conspicuity / situational awareness tools from the cockpit as this would
compromise safety. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. As it was
with GPS etc.

It is possible to slow him down though. You write the rule that no data
(nor voice) is allowed from ground to cockpit and no data other than
required for SA / safety between pilots.

Yes, this is virtually impossible to police but if the penalty was a 5 year
ban from competition, it may still work.

Jim

[RS[_3_]]

Q: IGC to replace FLARM ? ?
A: No

Following a proposal last year from Germany, IGC and OGN have embarked on a multi-year project to preserve and enhance traffic awareness technology while making tactical tracking as difficult as possible. This will be tricky! Secondary benefits may include reduced costs and live scoring.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 8:55:19 AM UTC-5, RS wrote:
> Q: IGC to replace FLARM ? ?
> A: No
>
> Following a proposal last year from Germany, IGC and OGN have embarked on a multi-year project to preserve and enhance traffic awareness technology while making tactical tracking as difficult as possible. This will be tricky! Secondary benefits may include reduced costs and live scoring.

Those are mutually exclusive goals. What I've been told is that FLARM use would be optional in IGC contests, while the separate, delayed, tracking devices would be required. Thus pilots who so desire could hide their location. Forcing the pilots to choose between safety and stealth is a bad idea, IMO.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 8:55:19 AM UTC-5, RS wrote:
> > Q: IGC to replace FLARM ? ?
> > A: No
> >
> > Following a proposal last year from Germany, IGC and OGN have embarked on a multi-year project to preserve and enhance traffic awareness technology while making tactical tracking as difficult as possible. This will be tricky! Secondary benefits may include reduced costs and live scoring.
>
> Those are mutually exclusive goals. What I've been told is that FLARM use would be optional in IGC contests, while the separate, delayed, tracking devices would be required. Thus pilots who so desire could hide their location. Forcing the pilots to choose between safety and stealth is a bad idea, IMO.

I hear you can choose to turn off Flarm, but you also have to switch to a pellet variometer and a paper map.

King Canute
9B

[[email protected]]

LOL Andy, Maybe instead of low performance contests we should have "no electronics" contests instead! We might just get a few 1-26ers involved :)

CH

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 7:09:55 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> LOL Andy, Maybe instead of low performance contests we should have "no electronics" contests instead! We might just get a few 1-26ers involved :)
>
> CH

Or maybe we have it all wrong. Maybe there should be no glider classes, and only classes for the different avionics toys allowed :-)

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

I believe we still have a pellet vario on the dash, I did a lot of contests and badges using a paper map and looking outside.......and cartridge film/instamatic cameras until I learned to develop my own film. I lost a badge flight due to that........way before dataloggers.
My advantage was a prototype electronic vario (with audio) from Raouf his own self after I crewed for him and his ASW-15 decades ago.