FLARM

[High-Flyer]

Hi

Does the 'PilotAware' receive FLARM signals from those equipped aircraft

John

[sandy]

Simple answer is no, more detailed answer can be found on previous threads.
However FR24 does a very good job of picking up Flarm and I have been wondering about an integration.

[Admin]

Technically yes,
Legally ?

[scsirob]

I'm pretty sure you can legally receive and decode Flarm signals, if you are able to reverse engineer the RF protocol. That has already been done, it seems:
http://www.rtl-sdr.com/receiving-decoding-flarm-tracking-gliders-helicopters-etc-using-rtl-sdr/

Transmitting Flarm would be a slippery slope, as you'd interfere with their proprietary and registered technology. Use of the ISM band is coöperative, you are not supposed to interfere with someone else's communication on purpose.

Edit: Just found a decent description of the Flarm protocol:
http://pastebin.com/8ke6jnQZ

[SteveN]

Lee's no use to us in jail. Development would stop

Seriously it's a tussle between the Glider community and FLARM with the legal vultures circling.

Best avoid IMHO until an amicable solution is reached. 

Petition against FLARM encryption

[scsirob]

Lee's no use to us in jail.

Lee is not going to jail for decoding a signal on a free frequency in a free country. Nor is anyone else. There are some countries that forbid listening to police/military frequencies but beyond that, any (legal) transmission sent into the air is yours to receive.

That said, it would be great if Lee could get an agreement with Flarm to officially decode their protocol. That would be the safest way to ensure proper detection. If PAW refrains from transmitting then Flarm would still protect their revenue stream.

[the_top_pilot]

Maybe we need to engage the gliding community who are the main users or F***M to champion the PAW cause. There is Place in the world for both. That way we wont hit them and they wont hit us.
Safety should be the main aim not commercial gains.
Steve

[Admin]

Safety should be the main aim not commercial gains.

For once I am not going to turn this into a humourous retort., this is an important point.
FLARM is a cash cow cloaked in a shroud of safety.
I urge you to go and read the thread for the petition posted by Steve.

In nearly 30 years of engineering, I have worked for companies who have strived for open standards to allow co-optition (co-operation, competition). Successful closed systems tend to innovate at first, but end up with receding architectures and poor improvements to their technology from the contemporary leading edge.
When you start to protect your technology and IP by building barriers to entry, rather than improving your technology, something has gone wrong.

I honestly do not see flarm changing their strategy anytime soon.
Their policy seems to be to try to muddy the waters, the responses from flarm on the petition are not encouraging.

We could decrypt their streams, but if they chose to change their encryption, it is all broken again, could you imagine a scenario where vodafone wants to interact with O2, but O2 kept changing their operating frequency

[Robski]

Maybe we need to engage the gliding community who are the main users or F***M to champion the PAW cause.

Yes, F***M started as a glider solution but last year I sat through a presentation (at AeroExpo, I think) that was pushing F***M to the GA community with their new PowerF***M offering.
Don't think they want to listen as PAW could kill PowerF***M stone dead, no matter what representations the gliding community make.

[rg]

I've seen a flarm device that will detect flarm proximity only as a bearingless target  if no antenna attached....would it be possible for paw to do.this without decoding the flarm transmission ?

[scsirob]

Maybe we need to engage the gliding community who are the main users or F***M to champion the PAW cause.

Yes, F***M started as a glider solution but last year I sat through a presentation (at AeroExpo, I think) that was pushing F***M to the GA community with their new PowerF***M offering.
Don't think they want to listen as PAW could kill PowerF***M stone dead, no matter what representations the gliding community make.

Best way would be to get official authorities on the bandwagon. They should say "We'll accept Flarm as the official standard for GA TCAS, but only if it's an open and regulated standard". Not that that's going to happen, as the authorities want us to use ADS-B. In USA this is a big thing as ADS-B will become mandatory in 2020.

[Robski]

In USA this is a big thing as ADS-B will become mandatory in 2020.

Does that mean it will get cheaper? 

Probably the wrong forum to be asking the following on, but I'll have a go...
Given that ADS-B seems to be inextricably linked with Mode S transponders at present, does that mean the US is going mandatory mode S, or are they breaking the mode S / ADS-B link and we might be able to start buying/using simple (cheap?) ADS-B transceivers?

Logically, if all aircraft have ADS-B then mode S is irrelevant. Indeed, ADS-B is better than Mode S as it is not dependent on Secondary Surveillance Radar installations to make it 'work' (assuming S works only when interrogated like A and C does, and ADS-B transmits just on a slightly varying timeout).

Or should I sit down and shut up?

[AlanB]

In USA this is a big thing as ADS-B will become mandatory in 2020.

Does that mean it will get cheaper? 

Probably the wrong forum to be asking the following on, but I'll have a go...
Given that ADS-B seems to be inextricably linked with Mode S transponders at present, does that mean the US is going mandatory mode S, or are they breaking the mode S / ADS-B link and we might be able to start buying/using simple (cheap?) ADS-B transceivers?

ADS-B is an extension of the Mode S standard so I don't think they will be able to break the link between the two.

You can have an ADS-B out device, the NATS LPAT is such a device, which broadcasts the ES Squitter information but does not respond to the conventional SSR interrogation responses so does not, currently, appear on the controllers display.

The whole Eurpoean trial of ADS-B out, see the latest AOPA magazine, is about demonstrating several things to do with the use of ADS-B out enabled devices. There is a desire to improve electronic conspicuity between aircraft but also the potential conflicts between ADS-B out position information and the conventional SSR response and therefore the presentation on radar screens.

I know of only one country, not European or North American, where a I have seen ADS-B data displayed on the ATC Radar screen there may be others especially in remote locations where radar sites and coverage is challenging.

Sorry for the Thread drift. More appropriate for discussion in other forums/coffee Shops or bar rooms 😀

[Moffrestorer]

,

The NATS LPAT that's currently being tested is an ADSB transceiver that is hopefully going to be reasonable cost. I think we operate on different frequency for ES compared to US so it won't help them and also it cannot handle weather broadcasts which is something they enjoy over the pond

Chris

[AlanB]

,

The NATS LPAT that's currently being tested is an ADSB transceiver that is hopefully going to be reasonable cost. I think we operate on different frequency for ES compared to US so it won't help them and also it cannot handle weather broadcasts which is something they enjoy over the pond

Chris

The US will be using the same 1090 frequency as international published and used by LPAT. They are working with Eurpeans on the evaluation of ads-b in/out transceivers. The PilotAware will see an LPAT if one in range - yet to be tested

If the US being in the same game influences cost Then hope it's downwards.