Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

FLARM for SAR

1,453 views
Skip to first unread message

FLARM

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 11:45:45 AM10/25/12
to
Information on how to locate missing, FLARM equipped aircraft.
http://www.flarm.com/support/SAR_Text.pdf

Mike the Strike

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 12:57:40 PM10/25/12
to
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:45:46 AM UTC-7, FLARM wrote:
> Information on how to locate missing, FLARM equipped aircraft.
>
> http://www.flarm.com/support/SAR_Text.pdf

Interesting that the FLARM-recorded igc file also records the position of nearby targets. Will this feature be present on the USA PowerFLARM when the igc recording function is activated?

Mike

Roel Baardman

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 1:57:12 PM10/25/12
to
Is it correct that the search area in Rieti was 30x100km?
Also, why is the software to perform the search not released? I can see massive time saving potential there...

Paul Jessop

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 2:55:37 PM10/25/12
to
I think the publication of this English language translation of an existing
German document was triggered by an approach I just made to the FLARM folks
suggesting a web tool to do exactly this, having bounced the idea off a few
experts in the UK gliding movement.

I don't claim to have a monopoly on good ideas but I think it would be good
to let the small team at FLARM respond to this first. I would not want an
enhancement to SECONDARY safety to distract them from the excellent work
they do in improving PRIMARY safety.

If this idea goes anywhere (and there are some recognised obstacles) I'll
report progress.

Paul


Paul Jessop

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 3:06:59 PM10/25/12
to
At 17:57 25 October 2012, Roel Baardman wrote:
[sorry if this posts twice - it hadn't appeared after a reasonable wait]

Paul Remde

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 5:52:47 PM10/25/12
to
Very cool!

Paul Remde
______________________

"FLARM" wrote in message
news:37d7b4d0-4387-4773...@googlegroups.com...

uncl...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 6:58:15 PM10/25/12
to
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:45:46 AM UTC-4, FLARM wrote:
> Information on how to locate missing, FLARM equipped aircraft. http://www.flarm.com/support/SAR_Text.pdf

This is interesting but given a quite high percentage of pilots in th US that have ELT's or Spot, I doubt it will have a big impact here.
I, as a customer, would much prefer that Flarm finish the product that they sold to us, and which many have paid for. I will not be buying another one for my other glider until it is complete and fully functional.
I hear of others that have deferred taking delivery because of the incomplete nature of the product and no clear indication when it will be done.
This is not hekping the cause of implementation.
Please Flarm folks, stay on task and finish what you sold us.
Unsatisfied Customer
UH

Ron Gleason

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 7:59:15 PM10/25/12
to
Well said Hank. I want to support the PF folks but do not want to be a beta tester or be charged full price for a half baked product. Transponder first and then will consider PF.

Evan Ludeman

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 8:09:53 PM10/25/12
to
On Oct 25, 6:58 pm, unclh...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Please Flarm folks, stay on task and finish what you sold us.
> UH

I'll add my sig to that.

Evan Ludeman / T8

John Godfrey (QT)

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 8:31:13 PM10/25/12
to
Me too,
QT

Dave Nadler

unread,
Oct 25, 2012, 8:47:25 PM10/25/12
to
PowerFLARM IGC logging is in Beta.

SAR function has been in the product forever
in legacy FLARM and is part of logging function.

Tobias Bieniek

unread,
Oct 26, 2012, 1:36:05 PM10/26/12
to
FYI We would be glad to integrate such a functionality in our SkyLines platform ;) (http://skylines.xcsoar.org)

Jim

unread,
Oct 26, 2012, 6:52:04 PM10/26/12
to
It would be nice to finally have an approved logger in PF by spring 2013 ( I "prepaid for my brick in 2010, got hardware this summer, can you believe that it still is not complete?).

-Jim

gerhar...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 29, 2012, 8:52:25 AM10/29/12
to
>
> > http://www.flarm.com/support/SAR_Text.pdf
>

> Interesting that the FLARM-recorded igc file also records the position of nearby targets. Will this feature be present on the USA PowerFLARM when the igc recording function is activated?

Yes, it will.

FLARM/PowerFLARM records only a subset of the targets received, due to memory constraints.
We do try to record a target when it was first and last seen, though. Both
of which is important for range analysis and SAR.

We do not plan to release the SAR software at this point.

Best
--Gerhard

Tobias Bieniek

unread,
Oct 29, 2012, 5:54:38 PM10/29/12
to
> We do not plan to release the SAR software at this point.

I guess nobody expects you to release the software that you have written. It would be great though if the data format of these SAR relevant information was not kept as a secret. The new FLARM specification suggests that even all the PDA software solutions are supposed to record these information and that even without knowledge of what is actually getting recorded.

Once again, your software is your property and nobody suggests that you give that up for free, but the information in the IGC files of each individual pilot should be open and readable by the pilot if he chooses to do so. This would be the basis to provide such a service directly in platforms like the OLC or SkyLines.

Turbo

gerhar...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 30, 2012, 5:08:16 AM10/30/12
to
> Once again, your software is your property and nobody suggests that you give that up for free, but the information in the IGC files of each individual pilot should be open and readable by the pilot if he chooses to do so. This would be the basis to provide such a service directly in platforms like the OLC or SkyLines.

Tobias,

we're actually discussing this internally.

Best
--Gerhard

Tobias Bieniek

unread,
Oct 30, 2012, 5:55:38 AM10/30/12
to
Hi Gerhard,

that is very good news and I hope you take the right decision. Please let us know about it once you've decided.

Turbo

WaltWX

unread,
Oct 30, 2012, 4:00:18 PM10/30/12
to
Gerhard,

Yesterday, Jim Staniforth ASW-27 JS and I, Walt Rogers Discus 2A WX, compared the performance of our PF Brick (V 2.40)during 11/2hrs of flying. See OLC posting for 10/29/2012. Overall, we were satisfied with performance. It correctly alarmed or warned in every case with 5-10 seconds notice in one case of a simulated head-on. Range was 2-3sm consistently and intermittently 5-6sm highly dependent on orientation of the gliders. Jim's ASW-27 antenna installation used the Peter Kelly technique placing the dipoles on the inside vertically within the nose. My Discus 2A used dipoles vertically installed (not touching panel cover or canopy) on the instrument cover.

QUESTION: I recorded the NMEA output of the PF with my LK8000 software. Do you know of any software or technique for playing back the NMEA output into the PC simulator of my LK8000 so that I can see the FLARM information and warnings?

Walt Rogers, WX

gerhar...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2012, 7:04:47 AM10/31/12
to

Walt, thanks for the feedback!

The question below would rather be for LX. If you look for anything
specifically, you can send me the logs by email!

Best
--Gerhard

Kimmo Hytoenen

unread,
Oct 31, 2012, 6:34:39 PM10/31/12
to
XCSoar simulation does that. I expected LK should do as well?
-kh

>you know of any software or technique for playing back the NMEA
output
>into=
> the PC simulator of my LK8000 so that I can see the FLARM
information and
>=
>warnings?

Martin Gregorie

unread,
Oct 31, 2012, 9:19:46 PM10/31/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:00:18 -0700, WaltWX wrote:

> QUESTION: I recorded the NMEA output of the PF with my LK8000 software.
> Do you know of any software or technique for playing back the NMEA
> output into the PC simulator of my LK8000 so that I can see the FLARM
> information and warnings?
>
Do you mean:

1)Can I capture the NMEA stream as it is being read by LK8000 so I can
replay it into LK8000 again at home.

2)Does LK8000 record the PF data in its IGC log so it can be replayed
later or examined by the FLARM range checker?


If you mean (1), I'd guess the only answers would be to use the PF's IGC
log (I can do that now with my LX Red Box FLARM and, no, I do NOT have
the IGC log certification firmware installed, just an SD card slot)
instead of the LK8000 log, or to buy, borrow or build a gizmo that is
connected between the PF and LK8000 and that records the NMEA sentences
as they flash through it.


OTOH if you mean (2), I don't know the answer, but there's an easy way to
check if the FLARM contact data is being captured by LK8000. Read the
LK8000 IGC log into your PC and open it with a text editor such as
WordPad. Then scroll down past the heading stuff until you find lines
starting with B. If FLARM contact data is being passed through to the IGC
log you'll see a *lot* of lines throughout the rest of the file that
start with LFLA followed by 36 characters of complete gibberish. In a
FLARM IGC log there is around one L line for every two or three that
start with B, so I'd expect something similar from LK8000 if its logging
this stuff.

Normally an LK8000 IGC log doesn't contain any L lines.


HTH

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

Roel Baardman

unread,
Nov 5, 2012, 9:21:44 AM11/5/12
to
> Once again, your software is your property and nobody suggests that
> you give that up for free, but the information in the IGC files of
> each individual pilot should be open and readable by the pilot if he > chooses to do so.
> This would be the basis to provide such a service directly in
> platforms like the OLC or SkyLines.

In case someone wants to fiddle with the LFLA records:

I found that it is some sort of base64 encoding of something binary, using ASCII 58-121, with the exception of \ and ^ (they are not allowed in an IGC file) according to Chapter 6. Those two are
probably replaced by # and %.

This decodes the 28 characters in the '02' records (those are used by the FLARM range checker). Into 21 bytes.
Pre-base64 bytes 5-11 effect the distance the FLARM checker reports.

Tobias Bieniek

unread,
Nov 15, 2012, 6:20:35 AM11/15/12
to
It seems that FLARM ultimately took the wrong decision...

Two weeks ago Andrea Schlapbach from FLARM contacted me via email to discuss how we would want to use these data sentences. In the initial email he already clearly stated that "they had no interest in publishing the data format" and would only "share the format with a few interested and suited partners". "Suited partners" in their definition are those that are able to keep the format a secret.

In my answer I explained that XCSoar and SkyLines are both open source applications and that keeping a secret in open source code isn't really possible. I also asked what their intentions are for keeping the format a secret, but unfortunately that question was never answered. My second email answering some follow-up questions and asking the same thing again was never answered either.

I feel very sorry that FLARM has become such a closed-up proprietary company. I don't see any reason for keeping the data format a secret and I certainly hope that they reconsider this non-sense at some point. The only two reasons I can see for this is: a) they want to use the data commercially at some point or b) they are logging data that contains private data that shouldn't be logged in the first place. If they would really care about these SAR reasons they would simply open up their format so that any public party could use them...

Roel Baardman

unread,
Nov 15, 2012, 9:08:29 AM11/15/12
to
> I feel very sorry that FLARM has become such a closed-up proprietary
company.

I agree.
But I've also experienced not many manufacturers feel different about
being open. They feel the market for their hardware it too small to be
open about their products.

There are some notable exceptions: Borgelt, Funkwerk, Becker,
Garrecht, Butterfly avionics.

Dave Nadler

unread,
Nov 15, 2012, 9:48:54 AM11/15/12
to
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:20:36 AM UTC-5, Tobias Bieniek wrote:
> It seems that FLARM ultimately took the wrong decision...

According to whom ?

All you experts out there:
Quick, list 5 bad things that could happen quickly
if the RF or PFLAL formats were public.
Hint: it has already been discussed ad nausea...

Roel Baardman

unread,
Nov 15, 2012, 10:44:59 AM11/15/12
to
Did you misstype between bad and good Dave?

Dave Nadler

unread,
Nov 15, 2012, 11:04:24 AM11/15/12
to
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:45:14 AM UTC-5, Roel Baardman wrote:
> Did you misstype between bad and good Dave?

No.

Don Johnstone

unread,
Nov 15, 2012, 9:35:34 PM11/15/12
to
At 11:20 15 November 2012, Tobias Bieniek wrote:
>It seems that FLARM ultimately took the wrong decision...
>
>Two weeks ago Andrea Schlapbach from FLARM contacted me via email to
>discus=
>s how we would want to use these data sentences. In the initial email he
>al=
>ready clearly stated that "they had no interest in publishing the data
>form=
>at" and would only "share the format with a few interested and suited
>partn=
>ers". "Suited partners" in their definition are those that are able to
>keep=
> the format a secret.
>
>In my answer I explained that XCSoar and SkyLines are both open source
>appl=
>ications and that keeping a secret in open source code isn't really
>possibl=
>e. I also asked what their intentions are for keeping the format a
secret,
>=
>but unfortunately that question was never answered. My second email
>answeri=
>ng some follow-up questions and asking the same thing again was never
>answe=
>red either.
>
>I feel very sorry that FLARM has become such a closed-up proprietary
>compan=
>y. I don't see any reason for keeping the data format a secret and I
>certai=
>nly hope that they reconsider this non-sense at some point. The only two
>re=
>asons I can see for this is: a) they want to use the data commercially at
>s=
>ome point or b) they are logging data that contains private data that
>shoul=
>dn't be logged in the first place. If they would really care about these
>SA=
>R reasons they would simply open up their format so that any public party
>c=
>ould use them...

Surely all you need is a qualified software engineer to read the output,
which you may have noticed is broadcast, and compare the raw output to what
is displayed in many of the magic apps that use it. It's called reverse
engineering, if you want to be posh or hacking if you don't. You can then
work out what the data sentences consist of and decde them. I spent many
years happily working doing just that some years ago, not with FLARM I
hasten to add.

pcool

unread,
Nov 15, 2012, 10:14:13 PM11/15/12
to
What FLARM is doing is simply crypting the traffic info in their IGC logs.
All applications using FLARM data can do the same, the traffic information
is the same.
I am pretty sure that what a PNA receives is the same stuff that FLARM is
saving (encrypted) in the IGC.

The point here is that most pilots send to OLC their logs saved by LX,
Zander, Winpilot, Seeyou, LK8000, Xcsoar, etc.etc. and not necessarily from
their flarm units. For a SAR investigation you do need all logs from the
flarm units around, and this requires an active action to collect these logs
from pilots in the day of the accident.
Even knowing how to decrypting the IGC by FLARM, you still need to ask all
pilots to provide their Flarm logs, not their LX, Zander, etc.etc logs.

So, for SAR purposes knowing the encoding is not enough, you do need all
pilots to provide IGC logs from Flarm.
Then, why flarm is encoding-shuffling-cyphering these SAR valuable
informations, is beyond my understanding.
The only reason I can spot is they want to maintain a privileged position on
this matter, as they did with the communication protocol. After all, Flarm
units are about safety, SAR is safety, and this is a "safety" market, with a
monopolistic leader.

That's it..





"Don Johnstone" wrote in message
news:50a5a8af$0$5506$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

max.kel...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 16, 2012, 3:11:20 AM11/16/12
to
On Friday, November 16, 2012 4:14:15 AM UTC+1, pcool wrote:
> Then, why flarm is encoding-shuffling-cyphering these SAR valuable
> informations, is beyond my understanding.
> The only reason I can spot is they want to maintain a privileged position on
> this matter, as they did with the communication protocol. After all, Flarm
> units are about safety, SAR is safety, and this is a "safety" market, with a
> monopolistic leader.

Very well said, Paolo. Couldn't agree more.

FLARM is acting in their own commercial interest, not in the interest of aviation safety. Of course they do, they're a commercial company, they ultimately have to. It is worth pointing that out because many people still believe FLARM is all about safety, while the FLARM company protects its protocol in a (cold) patent war. (Google for the DSX T-Advisor story for more information)

By the way, FLARM wants us to log the LFLA sentences in XCSoar log files. We denied, and we may decide again when FLARM opens up the specification for everybody. We will not sign a NDA, because there must not be secrets in XCSoar. We're an open project, and we want to free the gliding world from proprietary manufacturers, not make it more proprietary and more reliant on a monopoly that is only just starting to act weird, who knows what they will do next.

By the way 2.0, using a FLARM may be illegal in Germany due to our very strict privacy laws.

pcool

unread,
Nov 16, 2012, 1:39:56 PM11/16/12
to
Thanks Max.
Can you elaborate a bit more on this news of privacy and flarm please?

paolo


wrote in message
news:5785c7ff-380a-4e4a...@googlegroups.com...

max.kel...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 16, 2012, 2:31:04 PM11/16/12
to
On Friday, November 16, 2012 7:40:00 PM UTC+1, pcool wrote:
> Can you elaborate a bit more on this news of privacy and flarm please?

German privacy law is very strict, it requires explicit permission from a person whose personal data you want to store or process. That includes recording of position. For example, there was a court case a few years ago about the police scanning all car license plates at a certain location, and they were forbidden to do so, because it violates the privacy of millions of innocent drivers.

By enabling live tracking, you give permission to be tracked. By uploading your IGC file to SkyLines, you give permission to publish your flight. You have the choice to not do any of that and keep your privacy.

However, by switching on FLARM, you do not give that permission. By switching on FLARM, you broadcast your GPS position for traffic avoidance, and your permission to process that data is limited to exactly that. If somebody operates a FLARM that records your position, it violates your privacy, and this case can be brought to court. If somebody uploads an IGC file with LFLA records with your position, that is even more so a violation of your privacy, because you did not agree to publish your flight track.

Now the news from FLARM is that you can't disable this feature, and thus it is impossible for a FLARM to comply with German privacy laws, and operating a FLARM cannot be legal in Germany.

So my theory is: FLARM does not publish LFLA specifications because they fear that FLARM will be banned from Germany (their biggest market) due to obvious privacy law violations. However, that is very short-sighted, because the data is there, it's just obfuscated, and so FLARM violates the law, encrypted or not.

david....@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 16, 2012, 3:15:50 PM11/16/12
to
It's not a matter of "if" but of "when" they will become public. Whether FLARM wants it or not.

Much bigger minds have tried to keep much bigger formats veiled, unsuccessfully.

David

FLARM

unread,
Nov 16, 2012, 5:44:32 PM11/16/12
to
Relax, guys.
It is a pretty silly how some people interpret anything we do as commercially motivated and evil.

1)
We have been involved in quite a few SAR cases and the main challenge is *not* processing the FLARM logfiles, but communicating with the authorities to properly interpret the data and combine it with cell phone tracking and other data.
Initially we had cases where we were pretty sure where the missing aircraft was, but authorities did not 100% trust us. Luckily this has changed and they trust *us* now.

If everybody would run their own SAR analysis tool there would be quite a mess and inconsistent and completely inexperienced communications with authorities is the last thing you want in a time critical SAR case.

We have become good at this; why is it so hard to trust the guys with the most experience and know-how?

2)
Back in 2006? when we introduced the 'other aircraft' LFLA records we did that without putting very much thought into it and did not foresee all the uses that would come out of it.
Today, both the contend and the format of it are not ideal (and largely undocumented).
We really don't want to waste our time with publishing and supporting this format to everybody and their brother.
Some of the users are waiting for far more important features and we have very limited resources.
The above is also the reason why we asked developers to record the data 'blindly'; it will change as soon as we have time to improve it.
By the way: It is not 'encrypted', but rather 'poorly compressed'...

As mentioned, we do make the format available, if we believe it is worth our time. Our decisions on who to work with obviously bruises some very vocal egos, that is unavoidable. Yes, I am an arrogant ass, but show me your track record before you complain publicly ;-)

Our goal is not to maximize our popularity, but to develop and deploy safety technologies and make the flying we love safer.

I hope you all don't mind if we now go back to productive work instead of participating in RAS mud-throwing contests.

max.kel...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 16, 2012, 7:32:23 PM11/16/12
to
On Friday, November 16, 2012 11:44:33 PM UTC+1, FLARM wrote:
> If everybody would run their own SAR analysis tool there would be quite a mess and inconsistent and completely inexperienced communications with authorities is the last thing you want in a time critical SAR case.
>
> We have become good at this; why is it so hard to trust the guys with the most experience and know-how?

I don't understand that. You say you have good experience with reading LFLA data, naturally that's true because you invented it, and nobody seems to have reverse-engineered it (yet).

What I don't understand is why you're implying that nobody else but you will ever be able to decode LFLA data as well. Do you believe nobody else is as clever as you?

Don't you think it would be a good idea to share this knowledge and experience with others, to allow even quicker response times? Do you really believe that making all aviation authorities depend on you (and only you) is the concept that generates the most safety?

Keeping the spec closed is what really keeps everybody else "inexperienced", which means you created the problem you complain about.

pcool

unread,
Nov 16, 2012, 9:21:58 PM11/16/12
to
Not to mention the fact that when help is needed, Flarm people could be
sleeping due to different time zones in the world (they are in switzerland,
not in the US), and - or the offices may be closed , for example in the
weekend.
So I cannot imagine people waiting for flarm offices to open on monday
morning, swiss time, to get help.
And if two accidents happened the same weekend, I wouldnt want to be one of
the two lost pilots..

Sorry to say, it doesnt sound reasonable at all.
I would held Flarm responsible, in case of accident, if they did not pick up
the phone at 3am swiss time (16pm local time) when SAR units were searching
for help, at this point.
Either a company provides a service, or it doesnt.
Flarm is telling us they provide a SAR service? No.
Very bad.


wrote in message
news:832d18cb-4997-4c8c...@googlegroups.com...

FLARM

unread,
Nov 17, 2012, 12:38:37 AM11/17/12
to
Max, the paragraph you are referring to was about the SAR situation only, not LFLA analysis in general.
What you are suggesting is that when an aircraft is missing, anyone should be able to fire up their own homebuilt LFLA analysis tool with whatever data they have, then call SAR authorities to give them directions?
They would file that call with the calls from fortune-tellers and other nutters.

Roel Baardman

unread,
Nov 17, 2012, 2:13:00 AM11/17/12
to
There are two separate issues imho:
You are requesting people to store your encrypted data, saying that is for safety. And you're probably right, but we can't check. As max mentioned, you might violate privacy laws with this and we
can't tell. Also, no-one is able to use this data. All kinds of interesting uses of this data are not possible, because you are afraid to open up.


Then there is using the data for SAR. If you are convinced that your algorithm is superior to whatever someone else comes up with, I challenge you to publish a paper. I think Ostiv would be a
good place to publish this algorithm. No need to describe the LFLA records' encryption, just what data is there and how you process it. We can then have an open discussion and perhaps other
people can improve the algortihm. You have the historical data to verify new algorithms, which I would ask you to publish aswell.
I think you have to agree that this is the way safety is going to benefit most, since more eyes produce better algorithms.

I would like to see the rest of the details published too, so we can improve the concept. You can keep the encryption on RF, but improving upon this concept seems worthwile. And a company will
always have the advantage of building hardware, and major critical mass. I believe that something like Flarm should be decicated hardware, so no kid with a PDA will beat you at your own game.

max.kel...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 17, 2012, 3:59:15 AM11/17/12
to
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:38:38 AM UTC+1, FLARM wrote:
> What you are suggesting is that when an aircraft is missing, anyone should be able to fire up their own homebuilt LFLA analysis tool with whatever data they have, then call SAR authorities to give them directions?
>
> They would file that call with the calls from fortune-tellers and other nutters.

How sad you don't answer any of my questions. All this new post does is repeat how stupid the rest of the world must be compared to you, that nobody else will ever be clever enough to analyse LFLA as good as you do. That's not a good starting point for a serious discussion.

Why don't you publish your analysis tool under a free license? That not only allows authorities to respond faster to urgent situations without having to wait for you to wake up, but will also allow others to improve it, instead of starting from scratch. You do want to improve response times and SAR quality, don't you?

GC

unread,
Nov 17, 2012, 5:18:42 AM11/17/12
to
On 17/11/2012 19:59, max.kel...@gmail.com wrote:

> How sad you don't answer any of my questions. All this new post does
> is repeat how stupid the rest of the world must be compared to you,
> that nobody else will ever be clever enough to analyse LFLA as good
> as you do. That's not a good starting point for a serious
> discussion.

No, Max. That's a complete distortion of what Flarm said. Like most
open source fanatics, your quasi-religious fervour makes you twist
comments to get the effect you want. What makes you think that a
discussion of aviation safety with you would be serious. What have YOU
and Paolo done for aviation safety compared to Flarm's track record?

> Why don't you publish your analysis tool under a free license? That
> not only allows authorities to respond faster to urgent situations
> without having to wait for you to wake up, but will also allow others
> to improve it, instead of starting from scratch. You do want to
> improve response times and SAR quality, don't you?

I think Flarm want to make the best traffic awareness and avoidance
system they can and they have pursued that aim with great success and to
the benefit of soaring for some years. YOU are the one that keeps
bugging them about SAR as an excuse to push them into revealing their
proprietary designs and software. GO AWAY. It was much more
interesting when you and Paolo were trading insults over who owned what
parts of XCSoar and LK8000.

GC

pcool

unread,
Nov 17, 2012, 6:25:47 AM11/17/12
to
You must be very stupid to bring down this discussion at this personal
level.
And quite ignorant also! IGC has long asked FLARM to release the
communication protocol in order to break the monopolistic role.
That was a conclamated, asked and subscribed decision in their meetings, I
think 2 or 3 years ago.
You cannot have monopolistic leaders in safety industry! Because it is a
treat, life or money, you have no choices.

So for me it is purely an ethical matter, and this SAR issue with these
pathetical excuses are just leading facts towards the simple truth: if you
want to know where your pal has crashed, you must ring up flarm in
switzerland, because the information was obfuscated long time ago.

What I have done for aviation safety is irrelevant, I am not in that market.
You might have asked me what I have done in atomic industry, it had been the
same.

But I can tell you easy what YOU can do for aviation safety: crash your
glider in the US , on saturday afternoon, lost in the mountains, and expect
that your friends get informations from flarm offices opening on monday
morning.
good luck then.


"GC" wrote in message
news:50a76484$0$29967$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...

Baer

unread,
Nov 17, 2012, 1:24:04 PM11/17/12
to
I guess we expect a software that delivers the coordinates or at least
the last known coordinates of plane to support SAR.
But nobody except the Flarm people ever saw how they get the
information. Is it an iterative process? Does the software deliver more
then one possible result and 'natural' intelligence has to make a
judgement? Nobody knows.
They announced a lot of features of PowerFlarm which is still not
available. I prefer they focus on this issues!
Bear

NB
Yes, Flarm people seem to be very arrogant. If they are not interested
in a proposed functionality the just ignore you.

And again yes, it was a terrible mistake to select Butterfly Avionics
GmbH as partner for PowerFlarm was a terrible mistake. The are not
professionals but a a messy company.

Don Johnstone

unread,
Nov 17, 2012, 5:27:26 PM11/17/12
to
At 08:59 17 November 2012, max.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:38:38 AM UTC+1, FLARM wrote:
>> What you are suggesting is that when an aircraft is missing, anyone
>shoul=
>d be able to fire up their own homebuilt LFLA analysis tool with whatever
>d=
>ata they have, then call SAR authorities to give them directions?=20
>>=20
>> They would file that call with the calls from fortune-tellers and other
>n=
>utters.
>
>How sad you don't answer any of my questions. All this new post does is
>rep=
>eat how stupid the rest of the world must be compared to you, that nobody
>e=
>lse will ever be clever enough to analyse LFLA as good as you do. That's
>no=
>t a good starting point for a serious discussion.
>
>Why don't you publish your analysis tool under a free license? That not
>onl=
>y allows authorities to respond faster to urgent situations without
having
>=
>to wait for you to wake up, but will also allow others to improve it,
>inste=
>ad of starting from scratch. You do want to improve response times and
SAR
>=
>quality, don't you?

Because they are Swiss, they hide things like terrorists bank accounts and
such. It would also appear they hide information which could save a life as
well, why am I not surprised.
>

John Galloway

unread,
Nov 17, 2012, 7:58:27 PM11/17/12
to
Swiss Flarm is commercial enterprise that has given us a
tremendously useful instrument and code to aid see and
avoid and reduce collisions between gliders.

The appropriate primary instruments to aid SAR are
ELTs/PLBs and, to a lesser extent, SPOT. IMHO it is
irresponsible to fly XC without a locator beacon - especially
over difficult terrain.

If the Swiss Flarm company have been able to assist
efforts to locate downed pilots who don't have, or haven't
been able to operate, an emergency locator beacon of
some sort then surely that is to be applauded rather than
to be taken as grounds for (to me paranoid seeming)
complaints that they exercise their right to protect their
intellectual property and also to prioritise where they direct
their resources?

John Galloway
>having
>>=
>>to wait for you to wake up, but will also allow others to
improve it,
>>inste=
>>ad of starting from scratch. You do want to improve
response times an
>SAR
>>=
>>quality, don't you?
>
>Because they are Swiss, they hide things like terrorists
bank accounts an
>such. It would also appear they hide information which
could save a life a

Darryl Ramm

unread,
Nov 17, 2012, 8:21:00 PM11/17/12
to
Exactly, well said (although for most uses I'd put a SPOT first).

And the hypothetical scenario about missing/downed pilots is just alarmist claptrap. And should a pilot me down/missing in the USA and analysis of Flarm data could possibly help I don't expect there would be any waiting for offices in Europe (or the USA) to open. Enough people in the USA know how to reach Flarm employees and executives, and I expect there would be a tremendously quick response from those folks.

Its amazing how some folks feel its necessary to attack a company that has done, and continues to do, a huge service to the worldwide glider community.

Darryl

Roel Baardman

unread,
Nov 18, 2012, 2:27:02 AM11/18/12
to
> Its amazing how some folks feel its necessary to attack a company that has
> done, and continues to do, a huge service to the worldwide glider community.

I sincerely hope you and everybody else, including Flarm, get that these requests are made in (what we think is) the best interest of safety. I like Flarm, but I see some room for improvement. So in
the end, I would like to see if I can make Flarm get even better. I am sincerely worried about what happens when multiple pilots crash in the USA.
Also, perhaps I can help improve the format, thus giving the Flarm team time to work on features which are beyond my knowledge.

Also, I feel I'm not asking much. I think I've figured out the LFLA format a bit, but I would need some small details to decode it. Raw code, from for example tiny snippets of flarm firmware or the
php range checker on their website would be more than sufficient I think. This sounds like 5 minutes of work to me.

Using the "and what have you done for safety?" Argument is a bit odd I think, as this assumes that only (commercially?) released work matters. I, for example, have done a Msc thesis on wireless
networking between airborne gliders, also with safety in mind. Does not ever commercially releasing my work give me no right to comment on aspects of Flarm? Others have way more experience
in programming, testing and using glide computer software. Should they have shifted their focus to safety in order to critisize others? I think not, and to me it kind of sounds like an instructor is
telling a solo pilot "what do you know?".

Darryl Ramm

unread,
Nov 18, 2012, 4:15:09 AM11/18/12
to
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:27:08 PM UTC-8, Roel Baardman wrote:
> > Its amazing how some folks feel its necessary to attack a company that has
>
> > done, and continues to do, a huge service to the worldwide glider community.
>
> I sincerely hope you and everybody else, including Flarm, get that these requests are made in (what we think is) the best interest of safety. I like Flarm, but I see some room for improvement. So in
>
> the end, I would like to see if I can make Flarm get even better. I am sincerely worried about what happens when multiple pilots crash in the USA.

Back to the scaremongering again. Why don't you worry about the Netherlands and let USA pilots worry about what happens here. Flarm is just not a great SAR tool and never will be, its a maybe useful thing is some situations, there are many better/more general tools, and many of those (especially SPOT) are widely used in sailplanes the USA. And as I said before should there ever be a need to analyze a PowerFLARM log in an an urgent SAR situation I expect through the many contacts we have in the USA we'll be able to get access to key Flarm technical and management staff in the USA and Europe within a very quick time.

> Also, perhaps I can help improve the format, thus giving the Flarm team time to work on features which are beyond my knowledge.
>
>
> Also, I feel I'm not asking much. I think I've figured out the LFLA format a bit, but I would need some small details to decode it. Raw code, from for example tiny snippets of flarm firmware or the
>
> php range checker on their website would be more than sufficient I think. This sounds like 5 minutes of work to me.

You don't have a God given right to demand anything from Flarm or any other company. If you want something from them deal with them in private. Getting on a public forum and pissing on and on about Flarm is not the way to do it. Dragging this out in public shows a high level of immaturity, and based on that alone if I was at Flarm I'd be strongly disinclined to ever give you access to confidential/private data. If you think you can improve technical things, have ideas, then instead of acting like you have a God-given right of access, discuss your ideas with Flarm technical/management staff and sell them on why they should work with (or hire?) you.

There are logical reasons for Flarm to not disclose everything about their technology, (as I see it, Flarm may disagree...) they don't want imitators copying it and then having to deal with compatibility issues, they don't want to have to pay staff to develop technology and have potential competitors use it for free, they don't want to have to deal with interoperability issues or be slowed down in their ability to innovate, or have to deal with all the political bullshit of having things adopted as a "standard" and then having to deal with the bureaucracy of evolving a standard, having to worry about how other implementations are verified etc., all that would likely be a huge mess and staff time and money sink.

Flarm and its partners have shipped over ten thousand devices that have likely saved many injuries and lives. Their strategy has worked so far, kept the company in business and us all supplied with collision avoidance gear, and they get to decide who they work with and how.

> Using the "and what have you done for safety?" Argument is a bit odd I think, as this assumes that only (commercially?) released work matters. I, for example, have done a Msc thesis on wireless
>
> networking between airborne gliders, also with safety in mind. Does not ever commercially releasing my work give me no right to comment on aspects of Flarm? Others have way more experience
>
> in programming, testing and using glide computer software. Should they have shifted their focus to safety in order to critisize others? I think not, and to me it kind of sounds like an instructor is
>
> telling a solo pilot "what do you know?".

This is getting pretty incoherent, maybe its a language issue, but I cannot work out what you are going on about. I never mentioned anything about "what have you done for saftey" and neither have I said (nor do I hold) that only commercially released software matters.


Darryl

Don Johnstone

unread,
Nov 18, 2012, 1:57:39 PM11/18/12
to
For crying out loud, just get some smart kid at MIT to reverse engineer the
damm thing and have done with it.

max.kel...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 19, 2012, 5:47:48 AM11/19/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:00:49 PM UTC+1, Don Johnstone wrote:
> For crying out loud, just get some smart kid at MIT to reverse engineer the
> damm thing and have done with it.

One could do that, but it wouldn't solve the root cause of the problem. I could try to explain it again, and I would if I were confident that you are really interested, but the polemic/aggressive wording of your reply suggests otherwise.

Don Johnstone

unread,
Nov 19, 2012, 3:06:43 PM11/19/12
to
Do you really need to solve the root cause? Would not getting round it have
the same effect. What is the problem you want to solve?

max.kel...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 19, 2012, 3:55:38 PM11/19/12
to
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 have
> the same effect. What is the problem you want to solve?

The problem is that glider pilots all around the world are building a dependency on proprietary technology, a monopoly that is protected by alleged patents. Depending on a commercial patent-protected monopoly is dangerous. In my opinion, basic technology should be free, even more so when it's all about aviation safety and when we discuss making it mandatory.

(This is my opinion, yours may be different, but mind that flaming and insulting me for expressing my opinion like this anonymous coward from Australia who calls himself "GC" did is just stupid.)

That was the problem with FLARM in general. In this thread, it's about using FLARM for another aviation safety thing that FLARM was not initially designed for. Good thing, clever idea, but the new problem here is that FLARM demands to keep full control over this feature. They are trying to enforce that nobody else but them can decode the files, and without FLARM's cooperation 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.


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 easily demonstrate their honest dedication to aviation safety by making all necessary information publically available. Let go of full control, and acknowledge that somewhere out there, somebody may exist who can improve their formulas further and help save more lifes. What I see instead is elitist FUD, sadly.

Don Johnstone

unread,
Nov 19, 2012, 5:40:01 PM11/19/12
to
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.
>

Tim Newport-Peace

unread,
Nov 19, 2012, 6:03:59 PM11/19/12
to
Yes, one could do that. And get it completed just in time for the next
firmware upgrade to Flarm changes the coding and you have to start all over
again. This is how Flarm protect their Intellectual Property.

It is not just a question of doing it once, but at regular intervals.
>


Ramy

unread,
Nov 20, 2012, 1:11:23 AM11/20/12
to
It is threads like this that drives people and businesses away from RAS. I wonder how many of those attacking Flarm are flying with spots or similar devices which are much more effective for SAR.

Ramy

Roel Baardman

unread,
Nov 20, 2012, 5:55:43 AM11/20/12
to
I think this is unlikely, as the format of the data in these records is quite likely the packet format on the air.
It appears to have changed a little from the specification from 2008 (what was post here at least), but not a whole lot.

I would not be surprised if these records are just packet dumps. This is consistent with the story of later on finding out what you can do with them.
Also, I wouldn't want to release their specification if I were to send them on air aswell. Encryption over the air was in 2008 not very complicated (and the processor used has little room for
complex encryption), so revealing this format (and thus the packet format on the air) again opens up the market for protocol-compatible devices. You could just brute-force the encryption using a
regular PC.

Disclaimer: this is all guessing from what I could read from the data. I haven't actually decoded these records. And I'm not sure I would want to, if it means Flarm will have to change formats
again.

pcool

unread,
Nov 20, 2012, 6:50:13 AM11/20/12
to
Of course, what else could it be held inside that few characters?
Time of course, Flarm Id, lat-lon, altitude, speed, direction.
The whole story is about sorting out the flarm id from a long list of
collected logs, to understand when was the lost glider before it
disappeared.

The flarm protocol did not change, to my knowledge, after the latest
compulsory update.


"Roel Baardman" wrote in message
news:50ab61af$0$6947$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

Don Johnstone

unread,
Nov 20, 2012, 3:19:16 PM11/20/12
to
At 11:50 20 November 2012, pcool wrote:
>Of course, what else could it be held inside that few characters?
>Time of course, Flarm Id, lat-lon, altitude, speed, direction.
>The whole story is about sorting out the flarm id from a long list of
>collected logs, to understand when was the lost glider before it
>disappeared.
>
>The flarm protocol did not change, to my knowledge, after the latest
>compulsory update.

Actually all that is needed is ID, time, position (lat/long), and altitude
everything else can be calculated from that data using consecutive fixes,
exactly what a logger does and who has not seen maggot racing?. Breaking
code where the contents of the encoded message are unknown can be a long
process however where you know exactly what the message should be cracking
the code is very very easy.
It all depends on how badly you want to do it and whether using FLARM for
SAR purposes is the best way to go when there are other better suited
devices on the market.
Having said that an instrument that takes on the functionality of FLARM and
SPOT, with the security and reliabilty that such critical devices should
have, would be a major contribution to safety but where is anyone going to
recoup the developement costs? Not from glider pilots that is for sure, the
market is just too small.
So what we have is glider specific instruments, produced with minimal
development costs and almost no certified quality control or an instrument
produced for the GA with official certification, and all the expense that
entails, and never the twain shall meet.

Jim

unread,
Nov 21, 2012, 2:21:58 PM11/21/12
to
I don't understand all the discussion over how/why to contort FLARM's purpose into SAR application when there are much better devices already purposed with emergency location. The FLARM folks shouldn't be badgered / forced to support every hacker wanting to try their hand at SAR software. Just use a Spot or ELT and be done with it.

-Jim
0 new messages