Sorry forgot link to Enigma:
http://www.enigmaavionics.com.au/#!tabs/cpbn P.S I have no commercial interest in either Google or Enigma, I am simply pointing out the technology. Nigel Andrews Andrews Electronic Design Pty Ltd Andrews Electronic Design Pty Ltd ABN - 921-33392140 Electronics engineering for the future **************DISCLAIMER************ The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of Nigel Andrews Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2016 9:19 AM To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: [Aus-soaring] google's ADS-B push As previously reported there are some big players pushing the cost of ADS-B, or TABS ( TrafficAdvisoryBroadcastSystem) down to an estimated $500 US. Google have identified that for their drone technology to take hold everyone that flies needs to be fitted with a TABS device and are spending millions developing this. The FAA are favouring this approach and discussions are happening here about the same thing. Drones will be a billion dollar industry if they can achieve BVLOS ( BeyondVisualLineOfSight). There is already a company here selling a TABS unit ( Enigma in Melbourne) There is another company also developing a glider,hangglider, Ultralight, Balloon TABS device also looking at the sub $1k mark. All these devices will have a Bluetooth output for displaying live traffic on your MFD or PDA device. These are also APPROVED under the TABS or C199 TSO – so everyone gets to make a device that has the capacity to design and have approved. Can I also add that some of these big players in the drone scene are talking about the possibility of funding these devices ( I have been to 2 meetings where this has been discussed), maybe even making them available for free to current registered aircraft that are not fitted with TABS or ADS-B. Commercially it makes sense, say there are 14,000 aircraft needing fitment here in Australia, at say $1k a TABS unit that’s only $14m – Drone delivery could open up $100m or more in work – possibly a good investment for them and in reality a drop in the ocean on their bank account, maybe a days’ worth of google advertising. Boeing and Airbus are also actively looking at commercial use outside of their military market – again big dollars to be made but everyone is restricted by BVLOS restriction. If I was FLARM I would be looking at making a TABS unit with a TSO’d C199 ADS-B unit PLUS legacy compatibility with its existing FLARM system instead of the half a unit powerflarm which has flarm but ADS-B in only, great for gliding but it’s just not going to be fitted in every power plane just to do FLARM. Also one note and I have mentioned it before, TABS devices will respond to TCAS interrogations as well so that TCAS aircraft that already have screens displaying TCAS traffic will see you. http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html Nigel Andrews Andrews Electronic Design Pty Ltd The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2016 8:05 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation Richard, I think Mark Newton already explained how the code and protocols are different things. He just told you again. As a supposed IT professional you know this so please stop with the bullshit. Nobody is asking Flarm to share the internal code that makes the device work. The first implementation of Flarm did not encrypt the transmission protocol. They in fact published it themselves. Only when a credible competitor, making an inter operable system appeared did they encrypt the transmissions. They've now done it in such a way that the key keeps changing to make breaking the encryption near impossible. There is no good reason to do this except for commercial advantage. It in fact introduces complexity and risk. As for varios and Flarms - apples and oranges. Are you really that silly? Again the source code for the firmware in our varios is irrelevant anyway. Deciding what the thing should do and how is the hard part. I see our audios have been explicitly emulated in at least two other products and several other features also. When it comes to interacting with other devices such as PNAs etc we publish the messaging protocol which is why XCSoar reads it and also sends MacCready, bugs and ballast to the B600/B800. We even used the CAI 302 input protocol to make things easier for developers. As for hunting down the originator of that email, ROTFLMAO, "please don't throw me in the briar patch". Sure would be fun seeing the internal communications between the Flarm guys regarding the decision to encrypt, subpoenaed. Let alone the unwanted attention the case may attract from various competition law regulators in Europe and other places. Flarm is a nice proof of concept demonstration that got out of hand. It has significant limitations but for the purpose it was designed (avoiding head on collisions in the Alps) it was a great advance. Mike At 10:01 AM 3/7/2016, you wrote: Mike, thats sounds pretty hypocritical coming from you. You of all people should be honest in acknowledging the challenging business economics that are apparent in serving what is a tiny community. Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life saving product that cost less than some of your Varios. Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. I don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes. Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply. Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a competitive market. On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:32 AM, Mike Borgelt < mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com <mailto:mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> > wrote: At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote: On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote: http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/ Smells like bullshit. http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf "Encryption of the radio protocol is a consequence of the requirements for privacy and security and was thus introduced nearly a decade ago: It protects the system from abuse but also from rogue devices implementing the protocol and system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter may have serious consequences for users of proper devices since incorrect data may lead to undefined behavior on the receiver end. The encryption applied is an industrial-strength symmetric cipher, fast enough to be run on all devices with no performance degradation. Since decryption or interception of encrypted communication is illegal in most countries, this also ensures the integrity of the system beyond the technical barriers. Furthermore, the encryption can be enhanced with software updates if security is compromised.†This is a half-baked technical-sounding justification for a restraint of trade. So I guess by the Flarm company's thinking ADSB is illegal as it breaks privacy and security? There's no encryption and every aircraft is identified by a unique code. Note that no individual is identified, just the aircraft, same as Flarm. Flarm is transmitted a few kilometers, ADSB goes to the horizon. Let alone the engineering stupidity of implementing an unnecessary encryption scheme which adds complexity and failure modes. Where is Flarm company's evidence that other devices ever caused a problem? Apart from cutting in to their sales. I'm aware of only one other Flarm compatible device having been commercially produced and that was made by DSX. They claimed to have had 40% of the Italian and Spanish markets before Flarm started their encryption games and managed to break the initial Flarm encryption scheme in 3 weeks. Figure out the rest for yourselves. Oh, I really like the Flarm response to this: Let's find the messenger and shoot him. Mike Publish the standard, and have independent auditors judge compliance with the standard to award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for compatible implementations. Devices that aren’t “rogue†get to advertise themselves as FLARM(sm), devices that don’t, don’t. Comps can specify that they won’t accept FLARMs without the servicemark. Then let the market’s desire for interoperability clean up the raggedy ends. Using encryption to lock competitors out of the protocol altogether is going to be incredibly funny in a few years as soon as FLARM decides to stop providing software support to the 20,000-odd obsolete devices bought between 2004 and 2010. If you want to keep FLARM you’ll need to buy another device from the same company that just shafted the device you’ve already bought. - mark _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978 www.borgeltinstruments.com <http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/> tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978 www.borgeltinstruments.com <http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/> tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
