At 20:55 19 November 2012,
max.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Monday, November 19, 2012 9:15:06 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:
>> Do you really need to solve the root cause? Would not getting round it
>ha=
>ve
>> the same effect. What is the problem you want to solve?
>
>The problem is that glider pilots all around the world are building a
>depen=
>dency on proprietary technology, a monopoly that is protected by alleged
>pa=
>tents. Depending on a commercial patent-protected monopoly is dangerous.
>In=
> my opinion, basic technology should be free, even more so when it's all
>ab=
>out aviation safety and when we discuss making it mandatory.
I think you are giving FLARM too much credit. If pilots are building a
dependency on FLARM it is a bad idea, it is still dubious engineering using
unprotected radio frequencies subject to interference. Yes it works after a
fashion but in certain circumstances does more harm than good. It is at
best a small enhancement to situational awareness. It should never ever be
relied on.
>
>(This is my opinion, yours may be different, but mind that flaming and
>insu=
>lting me for expressing my opinion like this anonymous coward from
>Australi=
>a who calls himself "GC" did is just stupid.)
>
>That was the problem with FLARM in general. In this thread, it's about
>usin=
>g FLARM for another aviation safety thing that FLARM was not initially
>desi=
>gned for. Good thing, clever idea, but the new problem here is that FLARM
>d=
>emands to keep full control over this feature. They are trying to enforce
>t=
>hat nobody else but them can decode the files, and without FLARM's
>cooperat=
>ion in every single case, nobody will be able to use the feature. My
point
>=
>about this is that this policy contradicts the goal of utmost safety.
Given that the use to which you want to use FLARM (SAR) is not part of the
original concept then it is hardly surprising that there is no
infrastructure to support that use. If FLARM do not want to do it then
reverse engineer the parts you need and solve the problem. What you have to
appreciate is that we do not have large tracts of wilderness here in Europe
so there is little understanding of your particular problem and very little
incentive to provide a solution to a problem that for the majority of
Europe does not exist.
>
>
>Oh, and yes, I would like to solve the root cause. At least give it a
try,
>=
>and give FLARM a chance to prove me wrong. Therefore, I asked the FLARM
>guy=
> in this thread to open the specification and share his code. FLARM could
>e=
>asily demonstrate their honest dedication to aviation safety by making
all
>=
>necessary information publically available. Let go of full control, and
>ack=
>nowledge that somewhere out there, somebody may exist who can improve
>their=
> formulas further and help save more lifes. What I see instead is elitist
>F=
>UD, sadly.
No, as I said before they are Swiss, they do not share. You are talking
about a mindset that thinks it is perfectly acceptable to refuse to
disclose the financial information about crimminals and terrorists, what do
you expect?
If you wait for FLARM to solve your problem it is not going to be solved.
Work on your own solution and cut out the middle man. Remember, the company
that makes FLARM, like all companies, is not about safety it is about
making money, preferably lots of it, for their shareholders and if at all
possible, making sure that no-one else can do what they do so ALL the
benefits come their way. It is called capitalism, and if I understand it
right, part of the American dream.
>