"Do It Yourself" airborne proximity warning device

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:41:35 PM UTC-7, Jonathan Foster wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 8:20:55 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, 6PK wrote:
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:52:12 PM UTC-8, Linar Yusupov wrote:
вторник, 30 окт�бр� 2018 г., 11:35:04 UTC+3 пользователь Linar Yusupov напи�ал:
Will this device work with iGlide on IOS?

AirConnect compatible Wi-Fi connection service is active in the firmware's source code since October 9th.
Known to work good with SkyDemon, Air Nav Pro.
You could let us know if it works with iGlide too.

AirConnect compatible Wi-Fi connection service is a part of most recent firmware update.

Release notes:
https://github.com/lyusupov/SoftRF/releases/tag/1.0-rc6

I'm on the fence to add Flarm or something like this thread is all about to my glider in the upcoming off season. Any news or comment how this system is working presently would be appreciated.

You only need to ask these people ONE question: have you received (or even applied for) FCC approval?

If they can't answer this question affirmatively, don't walk, run from them.

Tom

Tom, not trying to start an argument, but I am wondering why you have made this conclusion. I am under the assumption that Flarm uses unlicensed spectrum to transmit.

We are a nation of laws, and regulations. And they are even written down and findable with Google. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-15

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:58:24 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:41:35 PM UTC-7, Jonathan Foster wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 8:20:55 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, 6PK wrote:
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:52:12 PM UTC-8, Linar Yusupov wrote:
вторник, 30 окт�бр� 2018 г., 11:35:04 UTC+3 пользователь Linar Yusupov напи�ал:
Will this device work with iGlide on IOS?

AirConnect compatible Wi-Fi connection service is active in the firmware's source code since October 9th.
Known to work good with SkyDemon, Air Nav Pro.
You could let us know if it works with iGlide too.

AirConnect compatible Wi-Fi connection service is a part of most recent firmware update.

Release notes:
https://github.com/lyusupov/SoftRF/releases/tag/1.0-rc6

I'm on the fence to add Flarm or something like this thread is all about to my glider in the upcoming off season. Any news or comment how this system is working presently would be appreciated.

You only need to ask these people ONE question: have you received (or even applied for) FCC approval?

If they can't answer this question affirmatively, don't walk, run from them.

Tom

Tom, not trying to start an argument, but I am wondering why you have made this conclusion. I am under the assumption that Flarm uses unlicensed spectrum to transmit.

We are a nation of laws, and regulations. And they are even written down and findable with Google. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-15

Replying to any RAS topic always has this risk. Darryl, it is trite to simply say google the law, it another thing to actually interpret the law. That is exactly why I asked how Tom came to his conclusion. I would love to hear your interpretation and have a respectful conversation about it.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:31:18 PM UTC-7, Jonathan Foster wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:58:24 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:41:35 PM UTC-7, Jonathan Foster wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 8:20:55 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, 6PK wrote:
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:52:12 PM UTC-8, Linar Yusupov wrote:
вторник, 30 окт�бр� 2018 г., 11:35:04 UTC+3 пользователь Linar Yusupov напи�ал:
Will this device work with iGlide on IOS?

AirConnect compatible Wi-Fi connection service is active in the firmware's source code since October 9th.
Known to work good with SkyDemon, Air Nav Pro.
You could let us know if it works with iGlide too.

AirConnect compatible Wi-Fi connection service is a part of most recent firmware update.

Release notes:
https://github.com/lyusupov/SoftRF/releases/tag/1.0-rc6

I'm on the fence to add Flarm or something like this thread is all about to my glider in the upcoming off season. Any news or comment how this system is working presently would be appreciated.

You only need to ask these people ONE question: have you received (or even applied for) FCC approval?

If they can't answer this question affirmatively, don't walk, run from them.

Tom

Tom, not trying to start an argument, but I am wondering why you have made this conclusion. I am under the assumption that Flarm uses unlicensed spectrum to transmit.

We are a nation of laws, and regulations. And they are even written down and findable with Google. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-15

Replying to any RAS topic always has this risk. Darryl, it is trite to simply say google the law, it another thing to actually interpret the law. That is exactly why I asked how Tom came to his conclusion. I would love to hear your interpretation and have a respectful conversation about it.

Please read the regs. The answer to your question should be pretty obvious, and actually having read stuff will help you have a more useful informed discussion.

Major subassembly sold separately like a TTgo board qualifies as an intentional radiator under those regulations. If not that then the whole assembly will (possibly both need approval, well beyond a ras discussion). Since it's an intentional radiator you need FCC certification and not the less stringent Supplier Declaration of Conformity. Still testing can be done by a third party FCC approved lab, including many overseas/in Asia etc. The FCC has a whole web site on how to do this. https://www.fcc.gov/general/equipmen...ion-procedures.

A trap for new players is the regulations prohibit *marketing* in the USA. Not just actual sale. What pre-marketing is allowed is fairly clearly described. Yes the FCC has prosecuted for that.

My interpretation: Putting together instructions for DIY stuff and suggesting folks in the USA purchase certain components... that are not FCC approved... Well freedom of speech and all, and caveat emptor, but I'd be putting disclaimers/warnings on stuff.

And see the 47 CFR 15.23 home built carve out in the regs... but that does *not* provide an exclusion to kit manufacturers.

Actually marketing or selling a kit including an "intentional radiator" components within the USA that do not meet FCC requirements. Ah definitely not a good idea.

Lots of testing and engineering labs and consultants know this stuff backwards. Manufacturers just pick one, cough up the money, and deal with the pain of getting products thorough testing. Actual engineering requirements, like spurious radiated signal levels, in the USA can be a challenge to meet.

Not a lawyer. Never shipped an FCC certified device--would never be so crazy. Dealt with unintentional radiator, lab testing, approvals, etc. Long ago background in RF engineering/research.

Something else to consider.
Fines for unlawful use of radios are not trivial, ten thousand dollars last I heard.
Jim

You can download the FCC and IC testing report for the PowerFLARM CORE/Brick, pictures, etc. at https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repor...id=ZKUGC625162

They are thorough.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:24:27 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
Something else to consider.
Fines for unlawful use of radios are not trivial, ten thousand dollars last I heard.
Jim

But if you do get busted, the FCC helps promote your company with a press release. :-)
https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/orders/1839 Look at all the large digital sign manufactures they have gone after. A whole industry out of control.

I loved the $2.8M FCC proposed penalty against Horizon Hobby for their drone FPV transmitter. Now that we have your full attention... the FCC settled for $35k but Horizon accepted ongoing compliance/process improvements in the settlement. Even with potential for bad interference there I suspect there was no real incidents--there was no product recall AFAIK and the FCC mostly wanted to get Horizon's attention and get them into compliance. Seems very fair for a first violation, the FCC has a special liking for repeat violators.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 6:11:57 PM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
Never shipped an FCC certified device--would never be so crazy.

Wimp.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:11:57 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:31:18 PM UTC-7, Jonathan Foster wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:58:24 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:41:35 PM UTC-7, Jonathan Foster wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 8:20:55 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:48:03 AM UTC-7, 6PK wrote:
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:52:12 PM UTC-8, Linar Yusupov wrote:
вторник, 30 окт�бр� 2018 г., 11:35:04 UTC+3 пользователь Linar Yusupov напи�ал:
Will this device work with iGlide on IOS?

AirConnect compatible Wi-Fi connection service is active in the firmware's source code since October 9th.
Known to work good with SkyDemon, Air Nav Pro.
You could let us know if it works with iGlide too.

AirConnect compatible Wi-Fi connection service is a part of most recent firmware update.

Release notes:
https://github.com/lyusupov/SoftRF/releases/tag/1.0-rc6

I'm on the fence to add Flarm or something like this thread is all about to my glider in the upcoming off season. Any news or comment how this system is working presently would be appreciated.

You only need to ask these people ONE question: have you received (or even applied for) FCC approval?

If they can't answer this question affirmatively, don't walk, run from them.

Tom

Tom, not trying to start an argument, but I am wondering why you have made this conclusion. I am under the assumption that Flarm uses unlicensed spectrum to transmit.

We are a nation of laws, and regulations. And they are even written down and findable with Google. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-15

Replying to any RAS topic always has this risk. Darryl, it is trite to simply say google the law, it another thing to actually interpret the law. That is exactly why I asked how Tom came to his conclusion. I would love to hear your interpretation and have a respectful conversation about it.

Please read the regs. The answer to your question should be pretty obvious, and actually having read stuff will help you have a more useful informed discussion.

Major subassembly sold separately like a TTgo board qualifies as an intentional radiator under those regulations. If not that then the whole assembly will (possibly both need approval, well beyond a ras discussion). Since it's an intentional radiator you need FCC certification and not the less stringent Supplier Declaration of Conformity. Still testing can be done by a third party FCC approved lab, including many overseas/in Asia etc. The FCC has a whole web site on how to do this. https://www.fcc.gov/general/equipmen...ion-procedures.

A trap for new players is the regulations prohibit *marketing* in the USA.. Not just actual sale. What pre-marketing is allowed is fairly clearly described. Yes the FCC has prosecuted for that.

My interpretation: Putting together instructions for DIY stuff and suggesting folks in the USA purchase certain components... that are not FCC approved... Well freedom of speech and all, and caveat emptor, but I'd be putting disclaimers/warnings on stuff.

And see the 47 CFR 15.23 home built carve out in the regs... but that does *not* provide an exclusion to kit manufacturers.

Actually marketing or selling a kit including an "intentional radiator" components within the USA that do not meet FCC requirements. Ah definitely not a good idea.

Lots of testing and engineering labs and consultants know this stuff backwards. Manufacturers just pick one, cough up the money, and deal with the pain of getting products thorough testing. Actual engineering requirements, like spurious radiated signal levels, in the USA can be a challenge to meet..

Not a lawyer. Never shipped an FCC certified device--would never be so crazy. Dealt with unintentional radiator, lab testing, approvals, etc. Long ago background in RF engineering/research.

Darryl thanks for sharing your knowledge about this to those of us that aren't as well versed. I would hope that is what the spirit of RAS is all about.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 5:43:55 PM UTC-5, Dan Daly wrote:
You can download the FCC and IC testing report for the PowerFLARM CORE/Brick, pictures, etc. at https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repor...id=ZKUGC625162

They are thorough.

Thanks for the link. Now I know what the inside of a Flarm looks like.

I wonder why they didn't test with both antennas active. If I read the test report correctly, their radiated power (33mW) is way lower than the inteference limit (1W), so it seems like it would have passed easily.

There was another limit around 60mW for something?

Question, does 15.103 of CFR47 provide any loophole to giving this a try? Especially the exemption concerning, "A digital device utilized exclusively in any transportation vehicle including motor vehicles and aircraft.".


I know there is exception for engineering development work in pursuit of product design (been there). I don't believe that extends to hobby endeavor.

That said, I think there's paranoia happening in this thread. Ultimately, a non-professional buyer of a kit to improve safety, won't be penalized for not knowing the ins and outs of FCC rules that are written in technical language to regulate business. You would no more be likely to face penalty than if your IPhone exhibited out of band leakage. FCC rules are written to manufacturers. This is distinctly different than the scenario of the FAA expectation that a pilot should know all the rules of airplane flying, for example.